[debeguiled]

Peterson has put up a blog post explaining his Twitter comment.

Notes On My Kavanaugh Tweet

Essentially, he says that he was responding to Tweets by the Weinstein brothers, first Brett who said on Twitter (Condensed):

[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1048291063419420673]

To which, his brother Eric responded:



So, Peterson's main defense is that he was responding to the either/or options of the Weinsteins by trying to hypothesize a third way, in other words, thinking by speaking, when he said:



That's the essence of his point. That he was in the middle of a conversation between intellectuals and he was spit-balling a theoretical hypothesis, but foolishly chose to do it on Twitter, the most reactionary and superficial platform possible, (the bolded is what I think, not what he said), instead of in private.

The closest he will get to admitting screwing up is this:

Quote:

. . .here’s a mea culpa (in keeping with my conviction that it is best to look to your own misbehavior if things go sideways): It was an error for me to use Twitter to express such thoughts, particularly in the condensed form that Twitter requires. I was laboring yet again under the naïve misapprehension (and should have known better at this stage in the media war) that I could offer an idea—not a certainty—for consideration on that platform. I should have known better not least because I had already discussed the dangers of Twitter, for example, with my son, who insisted over many months that if I engage in contentious issues online that I should do so with a longer blog post, and link to that with Twitter. I should have known better because Twitter appears primarily to be a forum where errors are magnified and outrage and vitriol almost certain to emerge whenever uncertainty about motive manifests itself.

Whether or not you accept this explanation probably depends on how you feel about Peterson. Was he naive and unthinking, or letting his true colors slip and now trying to weasel out of it?

The answer is not clear. I know I was disappointed no matter what the explanation.

This seems to be the consensus of his readers as well. The more highly rated commenters are having none of it. Which is refreshing because it wouldn't happen in a cult.

I think I pretty much believe him, but it does shake my confidence in his judgement because any idiot knows what happens when you post something on Twitter. If it was a thought experiment, he should have at least prefaced the comment with that.

I also didn't like his follow up Tweets. They seemed mealy mouthed and equivocating.

I probably won't comment on his blog, but if I did, I would have said something like, "A lot of people are against you, and I have been, in a small way, defending you. A tweet like that one makes it a lot harder to defend you.

It comes across as hypocritical because people defend you against charges of being divisive, so for you to come down on someone for that same thing is really out of line.

The stark dismissiveness of that Tweet, the lack of concern for another man's life and career, the blithe way you subordinate them to your own stray thoughts, that is total SJW boilerplate narcissism, the sort of thing you are supposed to be against.

Also, the crass self righteousness of Brett Weinstein's tweet was out of line totally. Didn't deserve a response.

Please be more careful with your words."

If it happens again, I will reconsider my support of the man.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Step down Peterson - and then let the contry heal the divide. Everyone of those Supreme Court buggers have one or the other political bias. All of them are beholden to the oligarchy - most will do their bidding despite the bias.

The essence of the Kavanaugh affair was that ANY TRUMPED UP INSANE CHARGES CAN BE USED AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT. The charges were batshit insane and taken as truth and gospel. Even slightly bowing to that mob would be suicide. When it's truth, then you go full-on and stand strong.

Similarly to your stupid cuck-positions Peterson - we don't call you dog-cat-other-kin to your face out of politeness. If we don't like it, then we call you a he or she, so long as no one puts a gun to my head to call you that. You went out on those principles, but are bending ever more backwards.

Intellectual Dark Web creators - my ass - the usual globalist shitheads giving you the illusion of choice.

And look how the Savior of Western civilization words it:

Quote:

But I don’t exactly buy his explanations of his high school slang, nor his refusal to admit drinking to the point of being unable to remember.

Quote:

It’s very common for young men to joke in a denigrating manner about women, often to mask their fear (and very rarely as a consequence of genuine anger) and it doesn’t require that much alcohol to produce failure of memory (certainly no more than the typical wild-partying teenager might imbibe, particular before the development of tolerance for drink and familiarity with the effects of over-indulgence).

Fucktard - not everyone gets black-out drunk - and certainly not on parties he has a reputation to uphold. Some men never get that kind of drunk. I can remember at best 2-3 parties in my life where I got that drunk - and none fully black-out drunk.

But I have buddies who simply never went as far as that and can say with 100% certainty that they did not drink. So why the fuck does Peterson assume with 100% certainty that Kavanaugh must have been drunk when it was at one time more common - back then - maybe not even as common as today.

Again - the boomer Hillary-leftie tells you what to think and his bias shines through. The entire fucking affair should have been dismissed as without reason and sense! It was about as logical as starting a campaign against Kavanaugh because he was found suckling on his mom's titties without consent at age 1. Consent of his diseases mother cannot be optained, but we have to believe that she was violated by the infant Brett. To me that would be about as logical as the entire proceeding.

Seriously - that moron thinks that he can bamboozle everyone around. Like he got indignant when Sam Harris asked him whether Peterson believed in a God! The Jordan then got upset and said what belief truly is or whether anyone knows what he believes in. Of course he did not respond, because that would cost him more Patreon-shekels.

[The Catalyst]

Quote:

So I thought, “What might I do in such a position?” Withdrawing, prior to a full investigation, did not constitute an acceptable option. But it’s not clear that accepting the position, given the scale of opposition to my candidacy (“my,” in my simulation of his situation). So what if the FBI cleared me, I received the nomination, but then decided that it might be best for medium- to long-term peace and the good of the country if someone who shared my views but who had not been contaminated, rightly or wrongly, by the horrors of the nomination process in question be put forward as a candidate in my stead?

How can he even conclude that? Saying rightly or wrongly in the same breath like that. Whether it was right or wrong makes all the difference! And if he's been contaminated wrongly then nothing said from the contaminators should be taken seriously.

Quote:

In closing, I have this to say: I am very glad that I personally did not have to come to the decision that was formulated by the complex competitive interactions of the Senate. I am as well very relieved that there exists a viable mechanism to make such decisions.The entire nomination process was a murky mess, to say the least, at every level of analysis: legal, philosophical, political and personal.

How can he say it is very complex? It is very simple, shove Kavanaugh in and be done with it.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Furthermore - how the fuck does Peterson assume Kavaugh to be guilty of heavy drinking and subsequent harassment? The gall of that bloke is amazing!

Almost all guys do exactly what they would do being conscious while being highly drunk - occasionally their darkest beings get unleashed, but that isn't very dark for most. Some are mean drunks, but most men get more mellow. I get more straightforward with women, but never cross any massive line. That is why getting super-drunk is no excuse for killing someone.

He was tainted - yeah - tainted by the insanity. By that measure Peterson should have stepped down from his position at the university - for tainting the gender-progressive debate.

[The Catalyst]

AC sums it up best, and does a great killshot.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...augh-tweet

Quote:

This guy is playing the game to try and become a pied piper on the right, while pushing us left to get media mentions and Cabal support:

Quote:

I asked myself a question, after reading these posts: “Is there an alternative to confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh?” When a choice appears starkly binary, a third path appears impossible, by definition — but might possibly still be worth seeking. I tried to place myself in Kavanaugh’s position, while generating a potential answer (and think that I can do so with some justification, having been publicly identified as reprehensible by many people—prominent journalists, activists, and academics among them).

I thought, “He can’t withdraw, prior to the nomination, because his reputation has been savaged so badly that withdrawal would not only mean loss of the Supreme Court nomination, but demolition of his entire career and future life.” So the only way for Kavanaugh was forward, through the FBI investigation, on to the nomination hearing, and the hope that he would be… what? Cleared? Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report. A large percentage of the American public does not believe that he is an appropriate choice for the highest bench position in the land (51%, according to NY Mag: https://nym.ag/2RwLUGt, citing a CNN poll). I’m not claiming, necessarily, that CNN’s poll is reliable. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that there is very widespread opposition to his candidacy, much of it generated not by people’s belief in his innocence or lack therefore but by their objection to the manner in which both parties handled the nomination process.

Now he tries to mitigate the damage. But he still got it out there like he meant it at a critical moment. And he defended the idea as plausible afterward. And now he is setting himself up as a thought-experimenter, who can never be held responsible for any future tweet that supports evil at critical moments, because it was just part of his process. I’d love to see a real time graph of his books sales, and see if there was a sudden spike of bulk sales right after that tweet.

If you take him at his word, then every tweet he gives should be ignored. Now everything he says is not his opinion, or even correct. Every tweet is basically just him talking out of his ass randomly and spouting whatever pops into his head at that moment. If you want that, there is no shortage of people you could follow on twitter who will provide it, and many will be funnier and more entertaining than Peterson.

Second, the logic he espouses is so defective it is beyond reprehensible. If Kavanaugh stepped down, that is what the left wanted. That would only encourage them to use lies to character assassinate the next nominee, just as much as if he was not voted into the office. In a battle between good and evil, there is no third way. That he thinks that even possible shows he lacks the ability to reason effectively, and the will to stand for good, no matter how unpleasant. Even his premise – Kavanaugh was horribly slandered, but the people who oppose him, and slandered him, should have their wishes considered – is totally ridiculous. This is a great thinker?

Notice the themes Peterson promulgates in the post, and the persuasion he uses to manipulate the weaker among his viewers. Kavanaugh was a bad choice to serve, because a majority didn’t want him according to an MSM poll. He claims that fact as support for his cause, then he himself admits that may not be true, and then says it doesn’t matter anyway. Notice how it weasels around into that foggy area where facts are dimmed in the mind, so emotional persuasion can cut through the fog and hold sway.

He cites the bogus poll, then he says something you would agree with – that the polls are probably not correct – which dials down the amygdala. The he tells you the fact being right or wrong doesn’t matter – followed quickly by Kavanaugh was unacceptable anyway. He fosters the confusion about facts being right, or wrong, they matter, they don’t matter, then he inserts that Kavanaugh was still unacceptable regardless of the confusions your brain is still absorbed by. In weaker minds, that last idea – that no matter right or wrong Kavanaugh is bad, slips in. The brain accepts the final idea in some, just to be able to abandon the cognitive dissension from the confusions he introduced.

That is a stab at psychological persuasion, being used to manipulate the weaker minds on our side to come around to the leftist position, namely that Kavanaugh is tainted and was unacceptable on the bench. You can see it with his characterization of the FBI report too. The “… at least not damning FBI report.” That report said there was no evidence for any of the accusations. It said that every witness cited – by the accuser – certified that none of it was true It even said there was a coordinated political campaign to push the accusations regardless. Peterson is not stupid. He knows that. He made the characterization he did to manipulate the weaker, more persuadable among his viewers.

Notice how he begins characterizing the report as “favorable,” to shut down your amygdala-resistance, before correcting it to, “at least not damning.” Peterson is a psychologist. That is a purposeful stab at manipulation, and altering perception. You may be smarter, but if he has gotten a million supporters, there is a percentage that just had their perceptions about Kavanaugh shifted by a correction, from “favorable,” to “at least not damning,” and they will see Kavanaugh as a little less innocent, and maybe less defensible.

And that ignores the figures he associates with, who he quotes at the beginning, to lend authority to. Whenever you see these characters who weakly attack everyone – they are avoiding conflict in a polarized environment by trying to separate themselves from all sides in the battle so they will not have to engage anyone. That is not logic, it is intellectual cowardice and lack of morality. They are afraid to take a side, and they are cloaking the position as making them smarter than everyone else who is involved in the battle.

No wonder it is the intellectual dark web. You will not be seeing light cast on anything by that motley crew of cowards and morons. You can almost see them throwing shadows anywhere, to create a world where nothing is right or wrong, nothing is worth fighting for, everybody is wrong and evil, and only the most hip and smart intellectuals can see that. I almost wonder if the term “Dark Web” was some sort of inside joke. You get caught in that web of darkness, and never get out.

I’m going to take another position, and this is not me talking out of my ass spouting random thoughts that just popped in my head. It is my honest to God belief, which I would stake my life on. Kavanaugh is a good man who did NONE of what he is accused of. He will be an excellent Justice who, in his duties, will protect our Constitution and render justice to those who appear before him. He will be a staunch protector of freedom, and oppose evil with everything he has. Moreover, Kavanaugh is a hero, who has risked his family, endured having to suppress rage beyond all measure, and allowed the left to try and destroy him personally, so he could carry out the difficult job of protecting freedom in this age. All so that one day he can help hand it to the patriots of the next generation.

Another position : The left who attacked Kavanaugh are evil incarnate – the kind the world is better off without. If you need proof, look to Justice K’s wife and young daughters, and imagine what the left tried to do to that beautiful family. Suppose their accuser had been more credible and the accusations had been tied to some irrefutable events that could act as corroboration. Imagine if they had amasses witnesses to testify they saw what was accused. Suppose Justice K’s wife had believed the left, and divorced him, and destroyed his family and his life. Suppose his daughters had to grow up only rarely seeing their dad on weekends. Suppose Kavanaugh fell into depression and committed suicide. The left wanted everybody to believe those accusations. That is what the left wanted.

Do you think the left would have felt chastened, or do you think they would have cheered his family being ripped apart and his life being left in such utter destruction? Suppose the left saw irrefutable evidence that their accusations were wrong. Do you think they would have felt bad afterward about what they did?

Of course not. They would have laughed. They would have cheered and high-fived each other. Those are the people who Jordan Peterson is telling you are upstanding people you should hear out, and whose positions and wishes ought to be respected and honored as if they are our equals. Those are the people he laments we are divided from, and who we have such partisan battles with. Those are who he wants to mollify, and find common ground with, and work with.

The only just outcome was for Kavanaugh to take the bench to the cheers of patriots, rule justly ad bravely in support of freedom and justice for life, and for his enemies to have no doubt their evil was quashed, and their evil tactics will not work in this nation. Anybody who says otherwise either has an agenda, is an imbecile totally detached from reality, or is some combination thereof.

And one other position – Jordan Peterson is evil. If you take him at face value he is an intellectual fraud who holds himself as a fountain of ideas you should listen to. But then he admits his proclamations are random and not necessarily logical or thought out, or necessarily even representative of what he believes. As a convenient result, you can’t call him out when he is caught spouting utter bullshit.

But if you believe he is merely a mid-witted intellectual fraud, you are ignoring the more ominous uses of psychological persuasion techniques to push his followers toward the left. That says to me he knows he needs help fostering adoption of his ideas, which means he probably knows he is not espousing simple truths that are totally apparent.

Personally I do not think him stupid – I think he knows exactly what he is doing – he is carving out a well paid life for himself as a pied piper on the right, leading as many minds as he can to support the left and excuse its evil. Mark my words – he has a million twitter followers because he has support somewhere.

I am sorry Vox Day beat me so decisively to the call on Peterson.

If you are really in search of truth, follow Molyneux, and Vox, and Bill Whittle, and James Woods, and the God Emperor, and avoid these tools who try to play all sides for their own benefit. Because there is only one side which pays its minions. Honest truth doesn’t pay these days.

There is a right and a wrong, and we are decidedly on the side of right in this battle. It is not even close. Never doubt our opposition is evil, and they relentlessly seek the destruction of good – and that means you.

[MidJack]

Peterson is openly contradicting his trademark first premise: The individual is paramount.

I'm glad that he outed himself now.


Did Jordan Peterson Abandon the Individual?

https://subnomics.com/2018/10/10/did-jor...ndividual/

Quote:

Twice in his blog response Jordan made claims that could be interpreted as holding the State as paramount over the Individual:

Quote:

Perhaps it is necessary, as an act of patriotism, to sacrifice personal ambition for the broader welfare of the country.

…

Quote:

It doesn’t bode well for the stability and peace of the state (and perhaps–perhaps–there is nothing more important to preserve than that).

In these two cases Jordan is using the well being of the State as justification for an argument towards subverting the will of the Individual. This is something I never thought I would see Jordan doing, as I said before he is the one who taught us that this sort of reasoning is what has lead to some of the worst societies the history of mankind.

I personally find it very troubling when I see these arguments being put forward by him because it sounds a lot like the justifications of others that I have studied in history:

Quote:

“And similarly to be ‘social’ means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.” -Adolf Hitler

…

Quote:

“True courage consists in being strong enough to master and overcome oneself and subordinate one’s will to the will of the collective, the will of the higher party body.” -Joseph Stalin

….

Quote:

“…the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual.” -Adolf Hitler

I can’t help seeing stark similarities in the rhetoric and justification between these dictators and Jordan’s own. He taught me how to see it and I just can’t ignore it now even when it comes from him.

[NoMoreTO]

The Peterson Political thread is more active than the general Jordan Peterson thread. This is telling.

He is off track, politics is not in his wheelhouse, another swing and a miss.

I get he is trying to step back from this 'thought', but he did not say "Perhaps Kavanaugh should step down". We know what a musing is in the English language, vs. a declaration.

[Truth Tiger]

Quote:

And one other position – Jordan Peterson is evil. If you take him at face value he is an intellectual fraud who holds himself as a fountain of ideas you should listen to. But then he admits his proclamations are random and not necessarily logical or thought out, or necessarily even representative of what he believes. As a convenient result, you can’t call him out when he is caught spouting utter bullshit.

But if you believe he is merely a mid-witted intellectual fraud, you are ignoring the more ominous uses of psychological persuasion techniques to push his followers toward the left. That says to me he knows he needs help fostering adoption of his ideas, which means he probably knows he is not espousing simple truths that are totally apparent.

Personally I do not think him stupid – I think he knows exactly what he is doing – he is carving out a well paid life for himself as a pied piper on the right, leading as many minds as he can to support the left and excuse its evil. Mark my words – he has a million twitter followers because he has support somewhere.

This last point from the article is Right. On. The. Nose.

Equivocation in the face of injustice, fraud, and deceit is evil, plain and simple. Peterson equivocates, 'philosophizes' but is not a man of integrity. He masturbates to his own muddled thinking. I won't condemn all of his works as they do have practical therapeutic use and insight (e.g. the 'self-authoring suite'). But prior successes and good works don't give license for what he did in his tweet on Kavanaugh.

Much as I hate to say it, I can see why in some situations the 'hyper-intellectual elites' get removed when dictators come to power. Psychologically-damaged intellectuals such as JP have the ability to emotionally persuade the simple- or average-minded to accept immoral positions, while acting like the 'everyman, I'm just like you but I worked hard and made something of myself and here is my idealistic way of how everyone can be equal and valued and listened to.' Except healthy, sane, civilization-building ideas like understanding the JQ, keeping the unearned right to vote away from women, and the reasons for in-group / ethnic preferences are all condemned in pseudo-intellectual high-brow terms.

I would suggest that Jordan Peterson is a good candidate for the anti-Christ. I don't follow Vox, Molyneaux, or anyone else these days other than excerpts on here so other may have suggested this already. His dangerous half-truths and evasions appeals to less-moral or conditionally-moral persons of all political stripes. Making an idol to intellectually self-worship and professing godlessness is a wonderful way to create false gods that appeal to one or several generations of individuals frustrated with both the state and the corruption of bodies formed around a true Saint (Jesus Christ). 'Cleaning your room' won't prevent the invading refugee hordes from raping your women and killing / maiming you. A society of individuals sharing 'do as though wilt' as the only law is being led, pied-piper-like, to the Kraken.

Truth need to be spoken and embraced fully. Kavanaugh was proven innocent, repeatedly. He and his family represent so much that is good and noble and worth striving for in any society. To NOT condemn the fallacious, coordinated, and deliberate smearing of his name and character is more vicious than any physical attack on his person. AC is absolutely right on - Jordan Peterson's word are evil, because he cannot speak in black and white terms about THE RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and instead points to polls and popular opinion. When has that ever been the hallmark of a civilized, thriving society? Mob rule = collapse of civilization.

[Extinguished Light]

I've defended Peterson a lot in the past for the same reason I defended Milo or PJW in the past. At the time, they were doing more good than harm.

Recently, Peterson has shifted from being a net benefit, to a net liability. The first red flag was him getting ensnared in this gay "intellectual dark web" jewish entryism program, where he let a bunch of uninteresting leftists (rubin, harris, weinstein) and a slimy neocon (shapiro) attach themselves to and overtake his brand. It's very telling that this group of people are the only ones who haven't been purged from the internet.

The second is this Kavanaugh discussion, where he essentially is asking Kavanaugh (a moderate center-right judge with a pristine record) to make a choice that he has repeatedly declined for himself. Peterson has been continually defiant to the mob in his own personal life, and then turned around and asked Kavanaugh to succumb to it.

Look, everyone can say the wrong thing sometimes. But the latter call, in my mind, in the context of his recent masturbatory partnership with Rubin and the Weinstein brothers, is a nail in the coffin.

I don't believe in burning assets - if pushback online makes him reconsider and right the ship, I would accept that. But if he continues to be a net liability then we need to counter-meme his ideas hard, and everywhere.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-10-2018 08:58 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

AC sums it up best, and does a great killshot.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...augh-tweet

Excellent article dissecting his clearly manipulative word salad of an excuse while still pulling the same crap - just with more words.

I disagree that the Twitter limitation is to be blamed for this - his blog post is even worse and more telling.

Quote:

Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report.

That kind of languages is clearly manipulative. At least not damning? Not cleared?

No - the FBI report was damning alright - of that lying Democrat pussy-hat-wearing bitch. The evidence points rather to the other side.

And Peterson using words like "at least not damning" instead of clearly not pointing to any wrongdoing is clear as day. Then he cites mainstream media polls which are clearly about as truthful as fuck-all.

That guy is clearly a FULL-ON SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR in disguise. His previous statements just are mitigated against the most radical movements, but he is a perfect traitor and manipulator. Oh - and for those of you who think that he is s a man of God. He does not believe in it - in his debate with Sam Harris he clearly says that he rather believes in the Biblical writers tapping into some kind of group consciousness and creating inspiring work. That is why he does not want to respond to it and likely why he is often so miserable. Because in reality I don't think that he believes in anything out there - just all this stupid suffering he blames "collectivism" for.

[HornyRamone]

(10-11-2018 04:03 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 08:58 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

AC sums it up best, and does a great killshot.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...augh-tweet

Excellent article dissecting his clearly manipulative word salad of an excuse while still pulling the same crap - just with more words.

I disagree that the Twitter limitation is to be blamed for this - his blog post is even worse and more telling.

Quote:

Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report.

That kind of languages is clearly manipulative. At least not damning? Not cleared?

No - the FBI report was damning alright - of that lying Democrat pussy-hat-wearing bitch. The evidence points rather to the other side.

And Peterson using words like "at least not damning" instead of clearly not pointing to any wrongdoing is clear as day. Then he cites mainstream media polls which are clearly about as truthful as fuck-all.

That guy is clearly a FULL-ON SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR in disguise. His previous statements just are mitigated against the most radical movements, but he is a perfect traitor and manipulator. Oh - and for those of you who think that he is s a man of God. He does not believe in it - in his debate with Sam Harris he clearly says that he rather believes in the Biblical writers tapping into some kind of group consciousness and creating inspiring work. That is why he does not want to respond to it and likely why he is often so miserable. Because in reality I don't think that he believes in anything out there - just all this stupid suffering he blames "collectivism" for.

Exactly. He's talking like a politician. He's had great lectures that I'll continue to watch, but he jumped the shark when he sounds more like a politician than a professor. He's also lost all credibility for ignoring Ford's own witnesses whose stories don't match hers.

[TigerMandingo]

Politics aside, Milo was right about him. You just don't know what the fuck he's trying to say. He's the opposite of clear and concise.

I don't like Sam Harris but at least he gets to the fucking point very quickly and is able to convey his message easily.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-11-2018 04:31 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Politics aside, Milo was right about him. You just don't know what the fuck he's trying to say. He's the opposite of clear and concise.

I don't like Sam Harris but at least he gets to the fucking point very quickly and is able to convey his message easily.

I agree with you on that.

When he debated Sam Harris, then Sam was the more logical and clear-cut among the two. I have other issues with Sam Harris since he conveniently twists Christian teachings, says that Jesus called for mass-murder (Jesus told a story about someone calling for murder as a negative example - he did not call for it), and obviously Sam cucks the West as well, but his philosophy is more clear and he puts his point across well, while Peterson stays willfully ambivalent, then cucks you anyway in a more insidious fashion.

[Syberpunk]

(10-11-2018 04:31 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Politics aside, Milo was right about him. You just don't know what the fuck he's trying to say. He's the opposite of clear and concise.

I don't like Sam Harris but at least he gets to the fucking point very quickly and is able to convey his message easily.

Harris asks Peterson not for something specific but "how about your best nearest guess, give it a try" for what he believes, and Jordan then acts like its impossible.

5:50 on:

[NoMoreTO]

CBC - Canadas' Marxist Broadcasting company is doing a full documentary on Jordan Peterson.

The image of him in the video, although 'dark' , 'edgy' , 'cool' is made to give him a bad boy appeal. You can see that they are no longer trying to mock him, but showing him as edgy. He says on twitter that "he is surprised", but you can obviously see that there was a photoshoot associated with it.

Very sad because I used to like the old crank on public TV I knew from 5 years back. Although I've lost interest in following him over the last 8 months, I've got to hand it to this forum and Roosh for helping me to understand he is now nothing more than controlled opposition. I still like to think he had something there for a while, before he sold out.

Shut Him Down

[Barron]

I'm done with this guy

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1056864010920968193?s=19][/url]

[Labienus]

Welcome to the club.

[nomadbrah]

Wow, I guess that's that.

I thought he didn't believe in collectivism?

So suddenly everyone has to be held responsible for the act of a single person?

What a pathetic lying scumbag.

[griffinmill]

I loved Jordan's takedown of Cathy Newman. It was a calm rebuttal of SWJ talking points in a hostile environment by a man who was in total control.

I followed him quite religiously for a few months, but a few things have irritated me:

1) He is now ridiculously overexposed.
2) His overuse of biblical philosophy in his book and his dancing around the issue of whether he has any religious belief; no logical or rational person on the planet should be advocating or supporting any supernatural belief system.
3) Selling books; this irks me not from a socialist perspective since I'm a strict capitalist, but because self-help "gurus" who want the world to be a better place should make their wisdom more accessible by giving it away for free - they want to help us, right? It's not his only source of income. I'm sure he makes a fine amount of money at UoT.
4) You can tell just by his eyes that he's heavily medicated; and he promotes SSRIs. I remember watching him answer a viewer's question about how best to give up booze - he suggested some fucking pill!
5) As you can see from his tweet today, he's getting far too cocky now with all of this adulation and he's made a few serious missteps over the past few weeks.

[loremipsum]

Are majority of people's soul so fragile that the deal with the devil is so often worth it?
Every fucking time someone gets the opportunity to get a major platform he abandons many of the things he once stood for.
At least Roosh is still roosh.

[RawGod]

(10-30-2018 08:50 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  

Are majority of people's soul so fragile that the deal with the devil is so often worth it?
Every fucking time someone gets the opportunity to get a major platform he abandons many of the things he once stood for.
At least Roosh is still roosh.

At the risk of buttering up a man on his own forum, Roosh is as real and as measured a thought leader as is out there right now. His independence from all (and I mean all) movements and "leaders" who are vaguely in the dissident right space is damned impressive.

[Syberpunk]

(10-29-2018 12:21 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

I'm done with this guy

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1056864010920968193?s=19][/url]

Is that not (((fashionable)))?

Peterson fans realize he's not all he was made out to be, try to apologize, he goes for the kill:

[Beirut]

How is jp being prozionist different than Trump or Brazils new guy being pro zionists?

Its hard to find a clear direction in all the right movements that are rising. They attack the symptoms but very few describe the causes. The ones who do are all on the fringes.

[heavy]

(10-30-2018 10:38 AM)Beirut Wrote:  

How is jp being prozionist different than Trump or Brazils new guy being pro zionists?

Its hard to find a clear direction in all the right movements that are rising. They attack the symptoms but very few describe the causes. The ones who do are all on the fringes.

Perhaps...although Adam Carolla does a pretty solid job describing the causes. Being the biggest podcaster in history, as well as having friends at the top of the media ladder (best friends with Jimmy Kimmel), I'd say he's not fringe. He's not really political in the least bit, but he definitely shoots straight.

I've actually been curious why Adam Carolla doesn't get more love on the forum.

[christpuncher]

Oh man am I becoming disillusioned... I could take his silence on avoiding the migrant invasion and JQ topics since it is "too hot" for a moderate to touch.

So now either he is cowardly cuck sellout who is not following his own rule of "or at least don't lie" or he is an operative who was made to wait for the peak of his fame before dropping the betrayal of his people hammer...