Originally posted by Gehenna
How do you fucking UNDERLINE what I said, quote it, and then say, "They are not alt-right!" I said they were CONVERSATIVE media outlets. Yes, some of them have advocated for white ethnostates and can be sentimental toward alt-right views, as conversatives are typically more susceptible to supporting alt-right views.This isn't hard, mang.
Of course it's dangerous. Most people believe it's true and scientific consensus disagrees. No discussion to really be had, unless you're talking about animal research? Are you qualified to disagree? If not, I don't care what you have to say about it.
I think most people confuse sex and gender. Two different things.
How is believing gender is binary, instead of fluid/a spectrum, dangerous?
I'm hardly an expert, on anything, but I do know John Money essentially started the conversation on gender. IMO, he was VERY dangerous.. He essentially used David Reimer as a guinea pig, and lied about his transition, to further his own career.
People like him are the reason I take mental health scientists (Social scientists? Like I said, not an expert) with a grain of salt, compared to the hard sciences (You can't lie to further your ambitions in the hard sciences, as you can in psychology, psychiatry, gender studies, etc etc..)
Originally posted by MythLord
One thing I've noticed is whenever a left-leaning debater is more direct, assertive, or hostile in a debate he's "unhinged" or "triggered". But when a right-winger does it he's the victim and he is just stating his mind? Freedom speech, y'all.I mean, I agree the Lost isn't really keeping his cool here, but I wouldn't say he's triggered, just annoyed.
Are you under the impression that right-leaning posters have never been called things like "unhinged" or "triggered"?
Originally posted by BackFire
Jordan Peterson fighting to remain relevant past his 15 minutes of fame.
His subscribers are going up over time: still.
His daily views are going up over time: still.
His video uploads have improved in quality (from what DMB says) but his frequency is the same.
Do you mean the MSM's infatuation with him is over?
Originally posted by MythLordThat's a spot-on impression, holy shit. Love it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpNgM5Vvxrw
Originally posted by cdtm
Is the MSM infatuation good or bad?I honestly only ever saw him whenever the YouTube playlist of someone else I was looking for lept to a related video.
For them it was bad. Because of the MSM's absurdly obvious liberal bias and the mistaken issue with them thinking Peterson is an enemy of their libtarded agenda, they tried to destroy him. They didn't really have success doing that at all and just got him more publicity and allowed him to be Dr. Peterson in his very wordy verbose way. Which got him more subscribers and followers.
So the MSM peeps stopped giving him a voice and stopped messing with him.
Meanwhile, he's still taking off and getting a larger standard audience than ever.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol owned.
I didn't own Backfire. He's right in that the MSM stopped giving him a platform. But it's not 15 minutes of fame: it's fairly permanent fame at this point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
His subscribers are going up over time: still.His daily views are going up over time: still.
His video uploads have improved in quality (from what DMB says) but his frequency is the same.
Do you mean the MSM's infatuation with him is over?
Yeah. Seeing as the only time I ever actually hear about him is when he does some interview where he says something stupid and then acts like it's the interviewer's fault, or when he shits himself during a debate and all his groupies run up holding rolls of Charmin ultra to clean up the mess while reassuring everyone that this is just more evidence of his brilliance. I just haven't heard about him in a while.