What Jordan Peterson says

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rockydonovang
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

Forced Mogonamy:


sad

The Existence of Witches:





sad


I've linked the article, if i'm missing context, feel free to quote me.

ESB -1138
Well this is dishonest. This piece just makes me think of Andrew Klavan saying, "The New York Times...a former newspaper." It's not "Forced" monogamy as you said but "enforced." And that has been present for decades. You can read up about it in it's anthropological sense here. To break it down, what Peterson is saying isn't that women should be forced into sexual redistribution or anything of that like. He's arguing that socially-enforced monogamy leads to more couples. He wants society to promote socially-enforced monogamy as a positive good. That's all.

And of course Peterson talks about witches. Just like he constantly speaks of dragons. Dr. Peterson doesn't believe in dragons or anything. He just believes in archetypes in the Jungian sense. Which is why he often speaks of Disney movies when addressing more complex psychological material. He's referring here to witches as an archetype in the same way he refers to the dragon as one or the hero as one. That's just his style.

Tzeentch
mass imprisonment of women in sex-camps when

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Well this is dishonest. This piece just makes me think of Andrew Klavan saying, "The New York Times...a former newspaper." It's not "Forced" monogamy as you said but "enforced." And that has been present for decades.

Enforced, definition:



:/

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Enforced, definition:



:/

Good job at reading the link I provided you. You're defining enforced and NOT enforced monogamy. So, I'll try this again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/

Read it this time and maybe you'll actually understand the anthropological concept of enforced monogamy.

Emperordmb
Holy shit, does Rocky actually think Jordan Peterson is saying there's literal witches and dragons running around in the world? Or that he thinks the state should compel people to **** other people?

Emperordmb
What the actual **** is some of this stuff in the article?!

OOOOHHH HE LOOKS LIKE A CAT, LOOK AT HIM CURLING UP IN HIS CHAIR LOOKING ALL FELINE, EYEING YOU LIKE A PREDATOR

wtf is that shit

This is one of the most bizarre ****ing hitpieces I've ever read lol, like wtf is this person's obsession with Peterson's appearance, trying to poison the well by trying to describe his appearance and physical composure in the creepiest way possible. Some liars are professional liars, but this article has a distinct lack of professionalism.

ESB -1138
It's called a hit piece and serves only to give Leftists something to point at to dismiss Dr. Peterson.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by ESB -1138
It's called a hit piece and serves only to give something Leftists to point at to dismiss Dr. Peterson.
Yeah but most hitpieces at least focus on lying about a person's positions and stances, not writing several paragraphs obsessing over the person's physical appearance, composure, home decoration, and other such shit in the creepiest possible language.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah but most hitpieces at least focus on lying about a person's positions and stances, not writing several paragraphs obsessing over the person's physical appearance, composure, home decoration, and other such shit in the creepiest possible language.

That shows how desperate they are to actual find a way to merely dismiss Dr. Peterson. And also just how much of a hatred they have for the man. Because he's not merely fighting back against Leftist narrative like Bill Whittle does. He's actually giving people (especially young men) a cure to chaos and a chance to find purpose in their being. Doing that diminishes the purpose of the government in people's lives and that can't happen. After all, to the Left, government is god and government is a jealous god and you can't have any other god before it.

NemeBro

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Good job at reading the link I provided you. You're defining enforced and NOT enforced monogamy. So, I'll try this again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/

Read it this time and maybe you'll actually understand the anthropological concept of enforced monogamy.
Reading your article, the word "Enforced" came up exactly once:



Setting aside how you left me to find your "evidence" for you, rather than quoting the parts of the article that support your case, the sentence would indeed suggest that "enforced" means exactly what the dictionary defines it as:


Peterson wants us to legally enforce monogamy so that more men have women to love which will stop cult like killers.

Originally posted by DMB
Or that he thinks the state should compel people to **** other people?

Uh, no, what I said is he supports "enforced mogonamy", because he literally says he supports it. You should consider reading before you leap into strawmen and cringy all cap "OH SHIT" moments.




Okay DMB, since you want to throw a hissy fit about it, please explain to me what Peterson is trying to say:

I said, if I'm missing context, feel free to quote me. Yet you nether quoted me directly, or actually explained what this context means.

Explain what I'm supposed to take from this obviously meaningful quote of the great Peterson.

While you do that (assuming you're finished avoiding the content with critques on "professionalism"wink

Other things Mr. Peterson has said:

-> Women in the 50's shouldn't have complained about their lack of opportunity:


Uh, this:

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Tzeentch
mass imprisonment of women in sex-camps when

Make it a Pay Per View and you got yourself a real money maker.

MythLord
Honestly, enforcing monogamy is stupid, yeah.

But Peterson obviously doesn't believe in actual witches, rather uses them in a more metaphorical sense. At least that's what I got out of it.

Surtur
Love seeing people who aren't very bright trying to smear Jordan and failing.

[email protected] "custodian of the patriarchy". Oh leftists...at least you didn't call him alt right this time.

Beniboybling

Surtur

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
Honestly, enforcing monogamy is stupid, yeah.

But Peterson obviously doesn't believe in actual witches, rather uses them in a more metaphorical sense. At least that's what I got out of it.

Isn't it scary some people need to have it pointed out to them "he didn't mean actual witches"?

It's the lobsters all over again.

I also can't help notice "forced monogamy" is mentioned in the article where he is called the custodian of the patriarchy. Lol, did he say only women should be forced to be monogamous? I missed that part. It's not an example of patriarchy for both men and women to be forced to be faithful. It would be a bad idea, but it's not patriarchy.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
Reminds me of when Ben Shapiro "lost it". Remember that topic, Beni? I suspect this one will end in a similar manner. The complete and utter failure to "own" or humiliate the intended subject of the topic. looks like surt's ready to slap some cheeks, yeah.

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
looks like surt's ready to slap some cheeks, yeah.

Just ready to laugh at the failure of this article. Yet another person dimwits try to paint as alt right when they aren't alt right. Makes me smile.

Surtur
Too funny:

Jordan Peterson calmly dismantles feminism infront of two feminists

Ddzf9Mm4hdY

This will be a great thread for posting JP videos. And the title of the thread need not even be changed. Love it.

ArtificialGlory
Legally speaking, monogamy is already enforced.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by MythLord
Honestly, enforcing monogamy is stupid, yeah.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's not an example of patriarchy for both men and women to be forced to be faithful. It would be a bad idea, but it's not patriarchy.
ESB already correctly pointed out that the meaning of that statement is socially and culturally enforced monogamy, not government compelled monogamy.

If you remember the deceptively cut vice interview the leftists tried to use to smear him, in the full interview he referred to workplace rules regulating things like hugging and flirtation as authoritarian. Then when he proposed that people shouldn't have sex until at least the fourth date, the interviewer was like "isn't that authoritarian and Maoist" and Jordan Peterson responded with "the difference is I'm not saying there should be people forcing them to do this, I'm saying it's a better idea" or something along those lines.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
ESB already correctly pointed out that the meaning of that statement is socially and culturally enforced monogamy, not government compelled monogamy.

If you remember the deceptively cut vice interview the leftists tried to use to smear him, in the full interview he referred to workplace rules regulating things like hugging and flirtation as authoritarian. Then when he proposed that people shouldn't have sex until at least the fourth date, the interviewer was like "isn't that authoritarian and Maoist" and Jordan Peterson responded with "the difference is I'm not saying there should be people forcing them to do this, I'm saying it's a better idea" or something along those lines.

Speaking of deceptive editing with JP, watch this if you have time, NBC does it too:

0ioRnhKK1T4

Emperordmb
Oh yeah I watched that lol. Anyone who calls Peterson alt-right is seriously misinformed, delusional, or lying.

Surtur
pOdm6Ijby0E

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Surtur
pOdm6Ijby0E

Anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is the alt-right nowadays

Surtur
Great thread Rocky, love it!! Cuz JP has a lot he says that folk should hear:

chP_xFklSjQ

And don't you worry bro, more videos will be coming.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
ESB already correctly pointed out that the meaning of that statement is socially and culturally enforced monogamy, not government compelled monogamy.

No he didn't, he posed a link which literally contradicts his claim. Would it kill you to read discussions rather than cherrypick the parts you like?

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No he didn't, he posed a link which literally contradicts his claim. Would it kill you to read discussions rather than cherrypick the parts you like?

Post the part that contradicts him.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Surtur
Post the part that contradicts him.

You'll be waiting for a while

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No he didn't, he posed a link which literally contradicts his claim. Would it kill you to read discussions rather than cherrypick the parts you like?
Would you like to consider the reference to a more clear statement Jordan Peterson made about not being a proponent for authority regulating monogamous sexual standards? Or just ignore that part and hone in on a quote that sounds damning because it suits you?

Rockydonovang
Alright DMB, tell me, what am I ignoring here. I'm not obliged to consider evidence you or the dude you're defending failed to provide me.

Surtur
Originally posted by Surtur
Post the part that contradicts him.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Surtur


Nothing. That's the problem. The article is a detailed account on monogamy and polygamy and its history and what happens when monogamy is promoted and what changes when it's not

Rockydonovang
Well, now that you've confirmed you don't actually read people's responses, i'll repeat myself esb. In what you linked me to, "enforced marriage", came up once:



As it stands, you've provided literally no evidence peterson is using "enforced" in a different way then the dictionary says we should use it.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you remember the deceptively cut vice interview the leftists tried to use to smear him, in the full interview he referred to workplace rules regulating things like hugging and flirtation as authoritarian. Then when he proposed that people shouldn't have sex until at least the fourth date, the interviewer was like "isn't that authoritarian and Maoist" and Jordan Peterson responded with "the difference is I'm not saying there should be people forcing them to do this, I'm saying it's a better idea" or something along those lines.

A retarded argument to make as no one is "forcing you" to not flirt or hug. Individual companies have their ideas of what comprises as sexual harassment and you agree to abide by those rules when you agree to be employed by them. If you don't like your company's policy on sexual harassment you're free to leave at any time and seek employment elsewhere.

It's always amusing how quickly conservatives drop the "muh free market muh invisible hand mofuka a business should be free to run itself" narrative when it doesn't suit their interests. I guess businesses should only moderate their own employees at their own discretion when said employees are god fearing white men who aren't demanding better pay and benefits, eh?

ESB -1138
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Legally speaking, monogamy is already enforced.

Peterson isn't talking about a legal sense but having society and culture promote it as a positive good. Instead of a hook up culture that is dominated in music, film, and television.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Tzeentch
A retarded argument to make as no one is "forcing you" to not flirt or hug. Individual companies have their ideas of what comprises as sexual harassment and you agree to abide by those rules when you agree to be employed by them. If you don't like your company's policy on sexual harassment you're free to leave at any time and seek employment elsewhere.

It's always amusing how quickly conservatives drop the "muh free market a business should be free to run itself" narrative when it doesn't suit them. I guess businesses should only moderate their own employees at their own discretion when said employees are god fearing white men who aren't demanding better pay and benefits, eh?

I think you missed his point.

Rockydonovang
And ESB, has yet to provide any evidence of "enforced" being used differently. But that won't stop him from repeating this claim, or dmb from accusing those who ask for evidence of ignoring evidence that hasn't been presented.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by ESB -1138
I think you missed his point. Feel free to clarify.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Feel free to clarify.

He was mentioning an interview that Peterson gave and was merely given an explanation of what transpired during. He was just explaining the Vice interview. The interview is interesting and you should go listen to it as DMB didn't explain it well. The full interview even opens up with Peterson asking the question if men and women can work together.

ESB -1138
But the point DMB was making was that outlets have tried to misrepresent what Dr. Peterson has said a few times already

NemeBro

ESB -1138

Flyattractor
Originally posted by ESB -1138
You left out some context:



He isn't attacking her but pointing out that females don't have this type of problem at all.

If you disagree with a Feminist on anything. You are ATTACKING Her.

That is SJW Logic.

NemeBro

NemeBro

ESB -1138
Wow, Stefan Molyneux does an awesome job going through the article. Right from the beginning, he points out how the New York Times "forgot" to address him as Dr. Jordan Peterson in the article's title:

hgOkI-z27sw

Nibedicus
ST6kj9OEYf0

After the debate there was a 6% shift from Pro to Con.

I wasn't particularly impressed with Peterson here, his points came off a little flat Personally, I attribute the shift of opinions to Fry due to how well he delivered his points.

Surtur
"That's because you're female"

el oh el

Nibedicus
Surprised the munk debate isn't at least discussed here. stick out tongue

I mean it wasn't an altogether good debate per se. Ad hominems abound, dancing around the topic and one side appears to have been outclassed by the other (IMO).

But still, a debate forum discussing a debate about an issue that is clearly important here (PC culture) being as the forum is highly polarized.

Surtur
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Surprised the munk debate isn't at least discussed here. stick out tongue

I mean it wasn't an altogether good debate per se. Ad hominems abound, dancing around the topic and one side appears to have been outclassed by the other (IMO).

But still, a debate forum discussing a debate about an issue that is clearly important here (PC culture) being as the forum is highly polarized.

Which side is outclassed?!

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Surtur
Which side is outclassed?!

Did you watch it?

Emperordmb
I'd imagine the side that resorted to calling Peterson a "mean mad white man" was the outclassed one

Surtur
Lol yes that hilarious. Imagine if he called him a mean black man.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol yes that hilarious. Imagine if he called him a mean black man.

That would have been irrelevant.

The point that Dyson had to resort to something like that showed that he was already losing.

Will say that I was disappointed in JP's performance, tho. Maybe I expected more? He was clearly trying to make his point against collectivism but I think he dwelled too long onoverclarifying/overdetailing what his point was and had almost zero charisma in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it was just the quality of his opponents was he just being too careful about being mischaracterized? Maybe he is not used to having such limited time to state the nuances of his points, he's not used to time limited debates like this (I doubt that)?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Nibedicus
That would have been irrelevant.

The point that Dyson had to resort to something like that showed that he was already losing.

Will say that I was disappointed in JP's performance, tho. Maybe I expected more? He was clearly trying to make his point against collectivism but I think he dwelled too long onoverclarifying/overdetailing what his point was and had almost zero charisma in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it was just the quality of his opponents was he just being too careful about being mischaracterized? Maybe he is not used to having such limited time to state the nuances of his points, he's not used to time limited debates like this (I doubt that)?
Someone else suggested he got too emotionally charged and thrown off point by their character attacks.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Someone else suggested he got too emotionally charged and thrown off point by their character attacks.

That would make that doubly disappointing as he should have been prepared for this IMO or at least just shrugged it off. Or if it was me, I would have laughed it off and point out that such behavior reinforced my point rather than be "appalled" by it. Idunno. Poor performance, IMO.

BackFire
I watched most of the debate last night. I agree, I think Fry had the best showing. I think Michelle Goldberg had a decent showing as well. I think Peterson and Dyson weren't very effective. Though they're both cut from the same cloth - two people who obviously love to hear themselves speak, often to their own detriment - the more they speak, the less effective and more muddied and less concise their arguments become.

But this is Peterson's MO for the most part, he's a very clumsy speaker who in his desire to come off as smart, vomits out a bunch of needless words to try and make his point seem more complex than it actually is - the Witch comment being a perfect example of this. He could have made his point with a few words. Instead he rambled and his point became lost.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ESB -1138
He was mentioning an interview that Peterson gave and was merely given an explanation of what transpired during. He was just explaining the Vice interview. The interview is interesting and you should go listen to it as DMB didn't explain it well. The full interview even opens up with Peterson asking the question if men and women can work together.
why u no post evidence?

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
I watched most of the debate last night. I agree, I think Fry had the best showing. I think Michelle Goldberg had a decent showing as well. I think Peterson and Dyson weren't very effective. Though they're both cut from the same cloth - two people who obviously love to hear themselves speak, often to their own detriment - the more they speak, the less effective and more muddied and less concise their arguments become.

But this is Peterson's MO for the most part, he's a very clumsy speaker who in his desire to come off as smart, vomits out a bunch of needless words to try and make his point seem more complex than it actually is - the Witch comment being a perfect example of this. He could have made his point with a few words. Instead he rambled on to the point where his point became lost.

Dyson was just horrible. He devolved completely into identity politics while arguing from authority and throwing around ad hominems. He was arrogant and (it looks to me) was just there for self-promotion at the expense of Peterson. He brought his whole team down. Even so much as making a hypocrite of himself ("If I get shut down for being black" but then goes "but you're an angry white man"wink.

Goldberg lost major points to me when she just goes and attacks Peterson (w/c seemed to be the basis of her opening). Her "This is JP's point but Trump" and even mis-characterized one of JP's quotes and said "google it" comment was especially egregious. And I didn't find her logic all that too convincing.

Peterson wasn't effective IMO, his closing was basically just him disassociating himself from the views they were trying to paint him as having and then just ending it saying basically that "I disagree with PC". They attempted to render him ineffectual by attacking him directly and he fell into the trap. But IMO his points were still the most agreeable to me (but it is nothing new or deep IMO) in the intellectual level (individuality should be valued primarily and that the danger of PC culture tries to force collectivism at the cost of the individual). Essentially, solid logic. Mediocre presentation.

Fry was the only good thing in this debate. He was intelligent, relevant, witty, funny but to the point. I felt that he stole the show. Although his points were nothing new (but needed to be said).

It comes out as Fry > JP >> Goldberg >>>> Dyson to me.

BackFire
True. Goldberg did concentrate too much on Peterson's prior words. I was a little put off when she targetted him almost immediately in her opening statements when Peterson hadn't even yet spoken. But I thought aside from that aspect, her points were more coherently made and concise than Peterson's, so I give her the nod ahead of him.

I think Peterson's best point of the whole night came when he rebutted her for her vague and generic "draw the line at violence" thing. Other than that, he was entirely forgettable.

Also, Peterson very clearly got flustered and upset at a few points, like it was very obvious, which, aesthetically, isn't the best look.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
True. Goldberg did concentrate too much on Peterson's prior words. I was a little put off when she targetted him almost immediately in her opening statements when Peterson hadn't even yet spoken. But I thought aside from that aspect, her points were more coherently made and concise than Peterson's, so I give her the nod ahead of him.

I think Peterson's best point of the whole night came when he rebutted her for her vague and generic "draw the line at violence" thing. Other than that, he was entirely forgettable.

Also, Peterson very clearly got flustered and upset at a few points, like it was very obvious, which, aesthetically, isn't the best look.

I dunno. Maybe I concetrate too hard on debating improprieties but her saying that "JP said women should not wear makeup, google it" was a HUGE fail on her part (he never said that, he was simply throwing out extremes to define where the line is on what constitutes sexualization in the workplace). Very fake-news-y of her. Which kinds gets my goat. She definitely sounded better but had little rebuttals that addressed JP's or Fry's points.

JP actually tried to address the opposing points by asking them to define their position quantitatively (w/c they avoided to answer). I think the failing was in the format, given time he could have further pursued this line of debating (or maybe he got flustered and lost this line of thought?).

Anyway, why was Dyson even there? Couldn't they have gotten some better debaters? Why not John Stewart (I hear he's good)? He brought the debate down. As his namesake implies, he sucked.

BackFire
I think a problem was with the topic itself. As soon as I saw that the topic was political correctness I knew that it would be problematic because everyone has different definitions of what that actually is. It ranges from anywhere from "Just try not to be an ******* to people" to "Literally jailing people for thinking the wrong thing". The concerns vary so much from person to person that there was bound to be some confusion and a lot of talking past your opponent because their definition is different than yours. And at no point did they successfully come to a conclusive definition that they all agreed on. Like Dyson was talking almost exclusively through a racial prism, Peterson on the more extreme thought policing end, Goldberg somewhere in the middle, and Fry on the more innocent part of the spectrum.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
I think a problem was with the topic itself. As soon as I saw that the topic was political correctness I knew that it would be problematic because everyone has different definitions of what that actually is. It ranges from anywhere from "Just try not to be an ******* to people" to "Literally jailing people for thinking the wrong thing". The concerns vary so much from person to person that there was bound to be some confusion and a lot of talking past your opponent because their definition is different than yours. And at no point did they successfully come to a conclusive definition that they all agreed on. Like Dyson was talking almost exclusively through a racial prism, Peterson on the more extreme thought policing end, Goldberg somewhere in the middle, and Fry on the more innocent part of the spectrum.

Which is why I felt that JP's strategy for the debate was good (ask them to quantitatively define their position before attempting to rebut it) exactly because the definition of PC falls within such a spectrum. He just either: didn't have time to pursue this line of debating (failure of the format) or allowed himself to be flustered by personal attacks making him fall back into self-defense rather than pursuing his original approach of attacking their points once they have either quantified or refused to quantify.

BackFire
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Which is why I felt that JP's strategy for the debate was good (ask them to quantitatively define their position before attempting to rebut it) exactly because the definition of PC falls within such a spectrum. He just either: didn't have time to pursue this line of debating (failure of the format) or allowed himself to be flustered by personal attacks making him fall back into self-defense rather than pursuing his original approach of attacking their points once they have either quantified or refused to quantify.

Hmm, I think it was both. Though I think it's unfair to say it was a failure of the format. I think it's a failure of strategy on his part for him to have planned to do something that the format, which they surely made him aware of beforehand, wouldn't really allow.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
Hmm, I think it was both. Though I think it's unfair to say it was a failure of the format. I think it's a failure of strategy on his part for him to have planned to do something that the format, which they surely made him aware of beforehand, wouldn't really allow.

It was a gamble, I guess. Had they answered him then and there, I felt like he could have executed it. But they danced around it and focused on attacking him directly which kinda ran the time down. Idunno. I do agree that in either case he did fail to execute his strategy.

BackFire
Which is maybe a reason why relying on asking your opponents questions in a formal debate like that is not a great strategy. The strategy only works if they answer in a way that allows you to execute the follow up, and you will have no control over how they answer, or if they answer at all.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
Which is maybe a reason why relying on asking your opponents questions in a formal debate like that is not a great strategy. The strategy only works if they answer in a way that allows you to execute the follow up, and you will have no control over how they answer, or if they answer at all.

But may well be the only way to clearly address a topic where the position of the opponents are not clearly defined or could shift mid-debate. Making assumptions on your opponent's position can easily make you fall into a trap where it would look like you were stawmanning in your effort to speed up the debate. Especially when your opponents have made it clear that they are willing to basically stick like glue to everything you say. Which would make JP look like he's lost once the debate gets deconstructed in the post.

I guess in not trying to lose the war, he ended up not winning the battle?

Fry had it easy IMO as he adopted a non-contentional semi-neutral universally-friendly everyone-could-agree-to position (although his snake-oil huckster burn was brutal LOL).

dadudemon
Thanks for the back and forth, Nibs and Backfire. I appreciate people discussing it and summarizing. thumb up


I don't have much to add. Fry...he's good. Not JP's best showing. Dyson is annoying as f*ck.

BackFire
Well he could have just spoken about his own concerns and made arguments based on his own viewpoints, not really concentrating or really taking into account his opponents viewpoint. That's more or less what Fry did, and he had the most successful showing.

I guess it may be a failure of the format in that the moderator maybe should have made a more concentrated effort to define the term and how they were talking about it. But that may not really be possible with something as vague as political correctness. I dunno.

Either way, we both agree, Peterson didn't have a good night.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by BackFire
Well he could have just spoken about his own concerns and made arguments based on his own viewpoints, not really concentrating or really taking into account his opponents viewpoint. That's more or less what Fry did, and he had the most successful showing.

I guess it may be a failure of the format in that the moderator maybe should have made a more concentrated effort to define the term and how they were talking about it. But that may not really be possible with something as vague as political correctness. I dunno.

Either way, we both agree, Peterson didn't have a good night.

I'll agree to that. He had a poor showing. And I left kinda disappointed. Anyway, good talk. Gonna sleep.

BackFire
Yep. Good talk. Have a good night.

ArtificialGlory
Everyone there was a mental midget compared to Stephen Fry.

Emperordmb

Flyattractor
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Everyone there was a mental midget compared to Stephen Fry.

Gee. I wonder why.

BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.

Nibedicus
I don't agree with any kind of social regulation on monogamy. I think our experiences in life shape us and our search for a partner (more like a roulette actually) and success/failures in this endeavor is a big part of what builds our character.

Sadly, some men will fall to the wayside and they may well react strongly and negatively to this. But this is just nature.

Perhaps the solution to this is already here. In the absence of actual partners the artificial may suffice. /shrug

Beniboybling
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid. Polyamorous relationships are fairly uncommon too, the vast majority of people are monogamous by default anyway. no expression

Flyattractor
Because SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!

Beniboybling
i see

Flyattractor
Science would lead the way....if it could be bothered to give a shit.

snowdragon
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.

Take away the focus on incel and use this same focus on communities with high incidents of single mothers that also has a proclivity towards violence and you get a better picture.

cdtm
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.

I didn't watch this at all, so commenting in a vacuum here, but:

Doesn't society already do that to women? The fact there's a movement against "**** shaming" infers that women generally get **** shamed. We don't need to have society do this, it's already done.

As for men, I think it's the opposite.. We shame them for not being sluts.

I guess "virgin shaming".

That's one of my pet peeves about the left.. They're absolutely right to bag on violent losers, but they have no problem mercilessly shaming these same losers... And then they wonder why they lash out.

Gee, maybe the relentless stigmatizing from you is contributing to it? Maybe?

Beniboybling
shut up incel

cdtm
Originally posted by Beniboybling
shut up incel

**** incels. Oh, wait.. laughing out loud

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
why u no post evidence?

...why didn't I post evidence to what DMB said??

Emperordmb
I'm 2 for 2 at dismantling these Peterson hit-pieces.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm 2 for 2 at dismantling these Peterson hit-pieces.

why u no post evidence?

Emperordmb
Funny that now that I have posted evidence, ie. Peterson himself saying what he meant, he's gone silent.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling.
I disagree because I actually agree with that, I've stated before on this forum that I don't think casual sex is a good thing and that I think it should be within the confines of a committed relationship.

Originally posted by BackFire
What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on?
There is a fine line you can walk where you socially and culturally value monogamy, and express disapprove of casual sex while at the same time not treating the people who do it as degenerates.

Originally posted by BackFire
If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners?
I mean yes, Peterson has said before that men should regulate their own sexual behavior as well and even posted a study saying that men who hold themselves to that standard are statistically at reduced risk for being violent.

Originally posted by BackFire
He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.
Well he's stated before that these regulations have been seriously weakened in recent years as a consequence of the sexual liberation movement with something leaning towards a societal and cultural embrace of casual sex in the west.

cdtm
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree because I actually agree with that, I've stated before on this forum that I don't think casual sex is a good thing and that I think it should be within the confines of a committed relationship.


There is a fine line you can walk where you socially and culturally value monogamy, and express disapprove of casual sex while at the same time not treating the people who do it as degenerates.


I mean yes, Peterson has said before that men should regulate their own sexual behavior as well and even posted a study saying that men who hold themselves to that standard are statistically at reduced risk for being violent.


Well he's stated before that these regulations have been seriously weakened in recent years as a consequence of the sexual liberation movement with something leaning towards a societal and cultural embrace of casual sex in the west.

How do you determine if men self regulate, or if they're forced by circumstances beyond their control?

Is the difference between studs and monogamist' proof of man choosing behavior informing their nature, or proof that people's behavior is informed by their nature?

The elephant in the room on these sorts of issues, is whether man even gets to choose how they behave.. Whether free will really exists.

As far as I know, nobody gets to choose how they feel. But everybody acts on how they feel.. And that's the rub. Are you really making a choice, if you're reacting to an impulse that you didn't choose?


If not, then what is the purpose of these studies? To help people act right, or to identify people with a predisposition to act "wrongly", and.. then what? Regulate? Acceptance? Or what?

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm 2 for 2 at dismantling these Peterson hit-pieces.

I don't get the fear Peterson seems to arouse in people on the left.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't get the fear Peterson seems to arouse in people on the left.
I do, he's pulling people away from their shitty narrative. That's why they have to slander him at every chance they get.

Robtard
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.

Surtur
In the video I posted of that he specifically goes on to explain what he meant. And note they also never answer his question:

FduxSTXvc0g

Go to around 3:30, someone makes the exact same point you made and he responds to it and explains what he meant.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Robtard
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.

I watched the discussion and I do get his point.

I think the primary logic there is that we should prioritize the discussion of important ideas first despite the fact that it may be offensive. Essentially importance of topic > feelings.

But I think on the later part of the interview he was discussing that if the left is interested in everyone coming together, then they need to stop alienating Trump supporters by constantly attacking them/Trump. Because that is not how you convince people that they you are right or they are wrong.

That's how I understand it anyway.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.

I saw the same bit.

We took completely the opposite perspectives. I took the first part as "stop taking offense to everything." And the second part, "Stop alienating anyone who supported or voted for Trump with close-minded rage shout-downs because you're going to continue to drive more people away and empower Trumpers."


My overall takeaway: here's how you get "not-Trump" into office in 2020.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw the same bit.

We took completely the opposite perspectives. I took the first part as "stop taking offense to everything." And the second part, "Stop alienating anyone who supported or voted for Trump with close-minded rage shout-downs because you're going to continue to drive more people away and empower Trumpers."


My overall takeaway: here's how you get "not-Trump" into office in 2020.

Bingo. Ever notice that once you really break down what he says, most criticisms of Peterson fall flat? Not to say he is perfect, but this is a trend. A funny trend.

Robtard
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I watched the discussion and I do get his point.

I think the primary logic there is that we should prioritize the discussion of important ideas first despite the fact that it may be offensive. Essentially importance of topic > feelings.

But I think on the later part of the interview he was discussing that if the left is interested in everyone coming together, then they need to stop alienating Trump supporters by constantly attacking them/Trump. Because that is not how you convince people that they you are right or they are wrong.

That's how I understand it anyway.

He should know that pendulum swings both ways, not just "The Left". eg During the election Trump was the most divisive (and still is overall) person running. For every "Leftsit" attacking a Trumper, you have a Trumper attacking. It's not a one-side issue.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw the same bit.

We took completely the opposite perspectives. I took the first part as "stop taking offense to everything." And the second part, "Stop alienating anyone who supported or voted for Trump with close-minded rage shout-downs because you're going to continue to drive more people away and empower Trumpers."


My overall takeaway: here's how you get "not-Trump" into office in 2020.

See above then.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
He should know that pendulum swings both ways, not just "The Left". eg During the election Trump was the most divisive (and still is overall) person running. For every "Leftsit" attacking a Trumper, you have a Trumper attacking. It's not a one-side issue.

He doesn't ever say it only exists on the left.

But there are plenty of people loudly screaming about how divisive Trump is. JP decides to mostly focus on the left.

Robtard
Watch the interview, he's clearly pinning it on one-side. That not-Trumpers need to be kinder to Trumpers, because of their feelings and how they'll react.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Watch the interview, he's clearly pinning it on one-side. That not-Trumpers need to be kinder to Trumpers, because of their feelings and how they're react.

He certainly feels the left's own bullshit lead to Trump getting into office in the first place. I know that irks you when anyone suggests the left bears any responsibility in Trumps rise, but meh.

Playmaker
Originally posted by Surtur
In the video I posted of that he specifically goes on to explain what he meant. And note they also never answer his question:

FduxSTXvc0g

Go to around 3:30, someone makes the exact same point you made and he responds to it and explains what he meant.

I do love how Peterson asks a question pertaining to Trump supporters (not Trump), and the entire panel ignores it and turns it into bashing Trump. Also, remember, Mahel is the same person who painted George W. Bush and Romney as Satan. And I'm supposed to take his criticism of Trump seriously.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
He certainly feels the left's own bullshit lead to Trump getting into office in the first place. I know that irks you when anyone suggests the left bears any responsibility in Trumps rise, but meh. Correct, your hand was forced when you voted, you had no control in your actions or something. The people who supported and voted (and still support Trump), they're not the reason why Trump got votes and won. (that was sarcasm btw)

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
See above then.

Since Peterson has made it clear that he's no friend of Trump, I think it's rather obvious he's trying to arm American Liberals with the tools they need to keep Trump out of office in 2020. On the other side, Peterson backpeddled and apologized to the alt-righters for the vitriol he threw at them because he fears he will commit the same mistake the lefties are doing to Trumpers: alienate them and make them further polarized (he wants to bring them away from their position because he views it as internally and externally harmful (fact)). So, for me, it seems like a clear MO and he is consistent with what he's trying to do.

But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Surtur
Originally posted by Playmaker
I do love how Peterson asks a question pertaining to Trump supporters (not Trump), and the entire panel ignores it and turns it into bashing Trump. Also, remember, Mahel is the same person who painted George W. Bush and Romney as Satan. And I'm supposed to take his criticism of Trump seriously.

Yep, it's telling that *nobody* could answer. There were like 4-5 people.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, your hand was forced when you voted, you had no control in your actions or something. The people who supported and voted (and still support Trump), they're not the reason why Trump got votes and won. (that was sarcasm btw)

Lol! Love it. Because when people talk about leftists playing a role they aren't suggesting they forced them to vote. It's more nuanced than that. But then again you know that.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Robtard
He should know that pendulum swings both ways, not just "The Left". eg During the election Trump was the most divisive (and still is overall) person running. For every "Leftsit" attacking a Trumper, you have a Trumper attacking. It's not a one-side issue.

But he was in a leftist talk show and he is speaking to a leftist audience on how they can bridge the gap to be the more "enlightened ones (as they claim to be)" and prevent another Trump.

Edit. "purport" may have been the wrong word. Cuz it implies a claim that may be false. Thus, edited. Also, fixed typo.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol! Love it. Because when people talk about leftists playing a role they aren't suggesting they forced them to vote. It's more nuanced than that. But then again you know that.

Yes, you were bamboozled into becoming a Trumper by 'Leftist nuance tactics', it's simply not your fault, you weren't (aren't?) in control. You poor victim.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you were bamboozled into becoming a Trumper by 'Leftist nuance tactics', it's simply not your fault, you weren't (aren't?) in control. You poor victim.

Rob I get it. You're gonna troll and pretend like you don't know the actual legitimate arguments people make about it. Hell, you might even demand people provide them to you, despite the fact you already know them. That will be hilarious.

I'll no longer be playing those games. Others can indulge you if they wish.

Playmaker
Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, it's telling that *nobody* could answer. There were like 4-5 people.

I think it's very telling and only proves Peterson's point all the more. That is the polarization between the Right and the Left. But I also think social media is helping with that polarization. The University of Chicago and UC Berkeley conducted an interview that online arguments (especially when it comes to just text based like on Facebook) found that people would just dismiss arguments (no matter how valid) and double down on their beliefs (no matter how foolish).

It said, "a broad belief that people who don't agree with you are either too stupid or too uncaring to know better." This opposed to actually listening/watching to someone speak. They were less likely to dismiss the speaker as uninformed or heartless. The conclusion, "This research suggests that the best way for people who disagree with one another to work out their differences and arrive at a better understanding or compromise is by talking to one another."

I'd post a link to the article but I think I'm still too new to do so.

dadudemon
Robtard, you know me, I'm not sucking JP's dick. I think JP genuinely does not want Trump elected in 2020 and is taking an interest in a political talk show to convince clear figureheads who oppose Trump, on how to be successful in preventing a 2020 Trump. Considering my bias against Trump, any great points on how to prevent a 2020 Trump is a good path to explore. That's my only interest in this topic. This is not, "Let's all bash Robtard because he's a moron" ploy and I don't want to be part of that.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, you know me, I'm not sucking JP's dick. I think JP genuinely does not want Trump elected in 2020 and is taking an interest in a political talk show to convince clear figureheads who oppose Trump, on how to be successful in preventing a 2020 Trump. Considering my bias against Trump, any great points on how to prevent a 2020 Trump is a good path to explore. That's my only interest in this topic. This is not, "Let's all bash Robtard because he's a moron" ploy and I don't want to be part of that.

thumb up

I echo the same sentiments.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, you know me, I'm not sucking JP's dick. I think JP genuinely does not want Trump elected in 2020 and is taking an interest in a political talk show to convince clear figureheads who oppose Trump, on how to be successful in preventing a 2020 Trump. Considering my bias against Trump, any great points on how to prevent a 2020 Trump is a good path to explore. That's my only interest in this topic. This is not, "Let's all bash Robtard because he's a moron" ploy and I don't want to be part of that.

He's probably not a moron, just a troll. You can tell by how he pretends not to understand how the left played a role in electing Trump.

Surtur
civE8_5SDYg

"He's made it harder to be transgender or non-binary. I know this from personal experience. I'm non-binary and transgender"

Lol. No sane person utters those sentences.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Rob I get it. You're gonna troll and pretend like you don't know the actual legitimate arguments people make about it. Hell, you might even demand people provide them to you, despite the fact you already know them. That will be hilarious.

I'll no longer be playing those games. Others can indulge you if they wish.

You were hoodwinked, bro. When you voted and then supported Trump, it was actually 'Leftist nuances' at play. It. Isn't. Your. Fault.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, you know me, I'm not sucking JP's dick. I think JP genuinely does not want Trump elected in 2020 and is taking an interest in a political talk show to convince clear figureheads who oppose Trump, on how to be successful in preventing a 2020 Trump. Considering my bias against Trump, any great points on how to prevent a 2020 Trump is a good path to explore. That's my only interest in this topic. This is not, "Let's all bash Robtard because he's a moron" ploy and I don't want to be part of that.

I know and I never took it as such.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
You were hoodwinked, bro. When you voted and then supported Trump, it was actually 'Leftist nuances' at play. It. Isn't. Your. Fault.

Your trolling games are getting stale. Do better.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Your trolling games are getting stale. Do better.

Yells "troll!" cos he can't retort the facts.


Fact: Unless you were mind-controlled and/or coerced in some fashion, as an adult you're solely responsible in both your voting for and supporting Trump. Fact#2: Trump's voters are the ones who got him elected, cos that's how voting works

Now stop being a spineless weasel and take a healthy serving of each of these:


-Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

-Accountability the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions. public officials lacking accountability.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not, "Let's all bash Robtard because he's a moron" ploy...

Well that's the most disappointing thing I've ever read.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Fact: Unless you were mind-controlled and/or coerced in some fashion, as an adult you're solely responsible in both your voting for and supporting Trump.

Now stop being a spineless weasel and take a healthy serving of each of these:


-Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

-Accountability the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions. public officials lacking accountability.

Indeed, quite stale.

Playmaker
I don't know the point that Robtard is trying to make.

Surtur
Originally posted by Playmaker
I don't know the point that Robtard is trying to make.

What I love is that he is essentially a leftist. And they are convinced that Russia and Comey got people to switch votes or not vote. But the idea that the left contributed to Trumps election is something he won't admit to and it is weird.

Nobody ever said people were mind controlled. But he wants to pretend like the bullshit of the left didn't turn anyone off to voting for Hillary. It doesn't even mean they voted for Trump, they could have just not voted at all, but Trump still benefited from that.

Beniboybling

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
What I love is that he is essentially a leftist. And they are convinced that Russia and Comey got people to switch votes or not vote. But the idea that the left contributed to Trumps election is something he won't admit to and it is weird.

Nobody ever said people were mind controlled. But he wants to pretend like the bullshit of the left didn't turn anyone off to voting for Hillary. It doesn't even mean they voted for Trump, they could have just not voted at all, but Trump still benefited from that.

https://freelancechristianitydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/strawman-demo1.jpg

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Funny that now that I have posted evidence, ie. Peterson himself saying what he meant, he's gone silent.
I'm sorry that I prioritize school over your forum posts.



I'll respond to your post now.


Now that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll take Peterson's word for it.

You mean that "shitty slanderous argument" based on the most obvious interpretation of what Jordan Peterson himself said?

It's nice peterson bothered to provide context for his statement after the fact, but it would be nice if you stopped getting mad at people for peterson's inability to communicate properly the first time.


Also, it's extra pathethic that i had to ask you several times to post this evidence for you to stop flipping out and post a quote. And even worse, you assume that me not responding means I was scared when you yourself regularly don't respond in discussions you start.

samhain
I've long felt it was more a case of voter apathy from the Hillary camp. The media kept showing pieces about how Trump will probably lose which then became, 'Trump WILL lose'. Which I do believe led a lot of potential Hillary voters to say, 'Got a lot to do today, might not have time to go and vote, you know what screw it, the television and my echo chamber of a social media account says Hillary will win so she doesn't need my vote'. At the same time these types of comments from the media could only really have galvanized the Trump camp to get out there and queue up for hours to vote for their man.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
https://freelancechristianitydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/strawman-demo1.jpg

You saying other people strawman is hilarious. This is some decent trolling bro.

Playmaker
Originally posted by samhain
I've long felt it was more a case of voter apathy from the Hillary camp. The media kept showing pieces about how Trump will probably lose which then became, 'Trump WILL lose'. Which I do believe led a lot of potential Hillary voters to say, 'Got a lot to do today, might not have time to go and vote, you know what screw it, the television and my echo chamber of a social media account says Hillary will win so she doesn't need my vote'. At the same time these types of comments from the media could only really have galvanized the Trump camp to get out there and queue up for hours to vote for their man.

Going on stats from the election and lead up, Hillary rarely cracked 50% in any poll leading up to the election and would camp around 40% most of the time. Trump won fewer votes in Wisconsin than Mitt Romney did when he ran in 2012. Trump won the state. Romney didn't. Same with Michigan. Trump won the state despite having fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. Bush didn't win the state.

So this post may very well be 100% true. It's not so much as Trump won the election but that Democrats weren't just bothering to show up to the poll. But also, perhaps, many Democrats didn't bother voting because they didn't like Hillary at all and were put off after learning that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders.

BackFire
Also Hillary was an idiot and didn't campaign in those states at all, assuming she'd win. Will go down in history as one of the great political mistakes of our time.

Surtur
Originally posted by samhain
I've long felt it was more a case of voter apathy from the Hillary camp. The media kept showing pieces about how Trump will probably lose which then became, 'Trump WILL lose'. Which I do believe led a lot of potential Hillary voters to say, 'Got a lot to do today, might not have time to go and vote, you know what screw it, the television and my echo chamber of a social media account says Hillary will win so she doesn't need my vote'. At the same time these types of comments from the media could only really have galvanized the Trump camp to get out there and queue up for hours to vote for their man.

I think this is a valid point. Though I also feel like some people were turned off by Hillary and the PC bullshit. I think some might have voted for Trump over it, or might have decided not to vote because they didn't feel she deserved it.

Given that it was actually a close race in terms of...there were places Trump did not win by a shitload of votes, I feel it's fair to say the left contributed.

Of course they didn't force anyone. No more than Russia or Jim Comey or wikileaks did.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Playmaker
Going on stats from the election and lead up, Hillary rarely cracked 50% in any poll leading up to the election and would camp around 40% most of the time. Trump won fewer votes in Wisconsin than Mitt Romney did when he ran in 2012. Trump won the state. Romney didn't. Same with Michigan. Trump won the state despite having fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. Bush didn't win the state.

So this post may very well be 100% true. It's not so much as Trump won the election but that Democrats weren't just bothering to show up to the poll. But also, perhaps, many Democrats didn't bother voting because they didn't like Hillary at all and were put off after learning that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders.

I thought so too but it turns out more people voted in the 2016 election than they did for the 2012 election:




http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/324206-new-report-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012




I read on another site that some key states had mixed numbers (more turned out here and less turned out there, for example).

BackFire
Peterson did an AMA (Ask me anything) on reddit earlier today. Answered a lot of questions, some of which were interesting.

Figured I'd post it here for those interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/?st=jhmf34dc&sh=40a2c414

Robtard
Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy

My favorite part:

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners. Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges." -snip


laughing out loud How bout no? How about we don't "enforce" monogamy and let people have a right to both their own bodies and sex. How about it's not society's burden to help incels get married so they can finally get laid. What a clownshow; no wonder this guy is the hero of the Male Rights Activist.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy

My favorite part:

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners. Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges." -snip


laughing out loud How bout no? How about we don't "enforce" monogamy and let people have a right to both their own bodies and sex. How about it's not society's burden to help incels get married so they can finally get laid. What a clownshow.; no wonder this guy is the hero of the Male Rights Activist.

You realize the thread was originally about the story you just posted, right?

Go back, have a read. See that article you posted get slapped down, etc.

Robtard
No, I didn't, as I didn't come into this thread until later.

Someone saying we need "enforced monogamy" can't be "slapped down", because it's a ridiculous thing to say. No matter how hard the MRAs try.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
No, I didn't, as I didn't come into this thread until later.

Someone saying we need "enforced monogamy" can't be "slapped down", because it's a ridiculous thing to say. No matter how hard the MRAs try.

Neat!

Robtard
Do you believe in "enforced monogamy", Surt?

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Peterson did an AMA (Ask me anything) on reddit earlier today. Answered a lot of questions, some of which were interesting.

Figured I'd post it here for those interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/?st=jhmf34dc&sh=40a2c414

Reading that gave me cancer. Reddit is too full of leftist children. That's the wrong place for Jordan Peterson to post.

Nazism and Hitler were not "religious." He was antiChristian at best and stoutly antitheistic in reality. At worst, he was so antitheistic that he killed people for it. The very fact that redditors were shitting themselves over Peterson's remarks about how antitheistic Nazis were is telling of the type of idiocy reddit can be. A leftist echochamber where post after post and comment after comment is pro-Democrat and anti-GOP/Anti-Trump.

I stopped reading when I got to the part were Peterson cautioned about the pay gap because it might be harmful to blame gender inequality of outcomes on gender discrimination. Then when they ask him for evidence, he provides a study, the next upvoted comment (in the hundreds) says "you can't just cherry pick your studies!"

These pieces of shit...

How do you reason with retards like these?



Also, Peterson does his typical word-salads in the responses, too. I try to be critical of his word salads but when I pick his words apart and try to convey the same messages he does while retaining all the nuance of his message, I end up using more words. So I cannot necessarily say he is using too many words...it's just not typical speech for most people but it IS typical speech for a profession in Psychology or History: this is exactly how they write and talk all the time. It's from decades of having to write and talk just like that for studies, publishings, and Professorships.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Reading that gave me cancer. Reddit is too full of leftist children. That's the wrong place for Jordan Peterson to post.

Nazism and Hitler were not "religious." He was antiChristian at best and stoutly antitheistic in reality. At worst, he was so antitheistic that he killed people for it. The very fact that redditors were shitting themselves over Peterson's remarks about how antitheistic Nazis were is telling of the type of idiocy reddit can be. A leftist echochamber where post after post and comment after comment is pro-Democrat and anti-GOP/Anti-Trump.

I stopped reading when I got to the part were Peterson cautioned about the pay gap because it might be harmful to blame gender inequality of outcomes on gender discrimination. Then when they ask him for evidence, he provides a study, the next upvoted comment (in the hundreds) says "you can't just cherry pick your studies!"

These pieces of shit...

How do you reason with retards like these?



Also, Peterson does his typical word-salads in the responses, too. I try to be critical of his word salads but when I pick his words apart and try to convey the same messages he does while retaining all the nuance of his message, I end up using more words. So I cannot necessarily say he is using too many words...it's just not typical speech for most people but it IS typical speech for a profession in Psychology or History: this is exactly how they write and talk all the time. It's from decades of having to write and talk just like that for studies, publishings, and Professorships.

SJW's hate when you destroy their talking points. Especially when it comes to the wage gap.

And given the people they label nazis, does it surprise you they don't know shit about Hitler or the nazis?

Surtur
"This guy whose son in law is Jewish, whose daughter converted to the religion, and who moved the embassy to Jerusalem is f*cking Hitler!" -Actual lunatics in this country

Robtard
Pfft, tell me about it. Just look:

An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @barackobama's birth certificate is a fraud. -Actual lunatic in this country

How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama's "birth certificate" died in plane crash today. All others lived. -Actual lunatic in this country

He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way." -Actual lunatic in this country

"I have people that have been studying and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics." -Actual lunatic in this country

"Was it a birth certificate? You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows." Actual lunatic in this country


Lunacy, indeed.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Pfft, tell me about it. Just look:

An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @barackobama's birth certificate is a fraud. -Actual lunatics in this country


How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama's "birth certificate" died in plane crash today. All others lived. -Actual lunatics in this country

He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way." -Actual lunatics in this country


Lunacy, indeed.

Didn't I do a forensic analysis of Obama's birth certificate for KMC back in the day? I could not find much evidence of "artifact repetition" which indicates a photoshopping. It looked genuine, from what I could tell. But I did find a few anomalies that could point to it being photoshopping in some places. I am not convinced, due to my own expert opinion (legit expert opinion), that the birth certificate was untouched and undoctored. Someone pointed out to me that it may have been part of the digitization process that caused some of those artifacts I was seeing and I 50% concede that point.


I am not a birther but the birth certificate is not 100% undoctored.

Robtard
It was looked into and looked into some more. If it's faked, then there was a concentrated effort on both sides to hide it and to get Obama elected.

I don't buy that, the more reasonable thing is that Obama is US born and that's that. Just like it turned out he wasn't a secret Muslim whose goal was to implement Sharia Law after he declared Marshall Law to instill himself as Forever Emperor.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
Reading that gave me cancer. Reddit is too full of leftist children. That's the wrong place for Jordan Peterson to post.

Nazism and Hitler were not "religious." He was antiChristian at best and stoutly antitheistic in reality. At worst, he was so antitheistic that he killed people for it. The very fact that redditors were shitting themselves over Peterson's remarks about how antitheistic Nazis were is telling of the type of idiocy reddit can be. A leftist echochamber where post after post and comment after comment is pro-Democrat and anti-GOP/Anti-Trump.

I stopped reading when I got to the part were Peterson cautioned about the pay gap because it might be harmful to blame gender inequality of outcomes on gender discrimination. Then when they ask him for evidence, he provides a study, the next upvoted comment (in the hundreds) says "you can't just cherry pick your studies!"

These pieces of shit...

How do you reason with retards like these?



Also, Peterson does his typical word-salads in the responses, too. I try to be critical of his word salads but when I pick his words apart and try to convey the same messages he does while retaining all the nuance of his message, I end up using more words. So I cannot necessarily say he is using too many words...it's just not typical speech for most people but it IS typical speech for a profession in Psychology or History: this is exactly how they write and talk all the time. It's from decades of having to write and talk just like that for studies, publishings, and Professorships.

Should scroll down more. General rule of thumb for those AMA's (and popular/controversial reddit posts in general) is that the top several comment strings are generally part of whatever hivemind group brigaded that thread first. Scroll down a bit and you'll find better and more interesting conversations happening, and less of an echo chamber effect happening.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
It was looked into and looked into some more. If it's faked, then there was a concentrated effort on both sides to hide it and to get Obama elected.

I don't buy that, the more reasonable thing is that Obama is US born and that's that. Just like it turned out he wasn't a secret Muslim whose goal was to implement Sharia Law after he declared Marshall Law to instill himself as Forever Emperor.

Then I suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't trust anyone else to conduct a digital forensic investigation into something when I can just do it myself which is why I did it.

Remember when the IRS lost data and I called bullshit that they would have to use special erasing tools to truly remove the data because I could easily recover that data? Meaning, the IRS would have to have purposefully erased the hard drives with the specific intent to destroy data (5 passes, for example).

Also, remember the Facebook password security problem they had years ago? And then they said they fixed it and had HTTPS enabled by default? Turns out, they didn't. In my own original research I did for one of my degrees, I discovered that they were still transmitting passwords in near-decipherable ways. I setup a network sniffer and captured traffic and isolated Facebook password login attempts.

Here's what Facebook did to "improve" security:

1. They reversed the password text.
2. Translated each character into hexidecimal (known as a transformation).
3. Substituted numbers and special characters for other characters (know as substitution).

I was able to reverse their method and capture passwords. And to get a passing grade (if you didn't do this next step, you got a 50% even if you had the most groundbreaking research in cybersecurity), I had to notify Facebook that I "reverse engineered" their password security and how I did it so they could patch it. I want to say this was in 2012 or 2013. Facebook never responded so I didn't have to sign an NDA that said I could not discuss this...but looking back, they probably should have made me sign an NDA because I could have just posted all over the net how to sniff passwords on wi-fi networks.





When I tell you there were anomalies commensurate of digital modification of an image, it's legit. It happened. And anyone who disagrees with me is either incompetent, lying, or has a third set of knowledge that explains the anomalies. Anyone else who says they are a digital forensics expert who "reviewed" the birth certificate and concluded that it was not digitally altered is full of shit. By the very fundamental nature of the birth certificate needing to be digitized, there will automatically be artifacts that can often determine the make and model of the scanner itself and that's not getting into the anomalies that are indicative of digital alterations.



I just did the equivalent of geek chest-thumping on the internet which is douchy but I'm not sorry. estahuh

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Should scroll down more. General rule of thumb for those AMA's (and popular/controversial reddit posts in general) is that the top several comment strings are generally part of whatever hivemind group brigaded that thread first. Scroll down a bit and you'll find better and more interesting conversations happening, and less of an echo chamber effect happening.


Thanks. I'll stop being such a baby, then, and read more.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>