How dangerous is Jordan Peterson?

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, took me about 2mins to find something. Maybe my google isn't of the Alt-Right variety like Surt's? 😛

“If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect,” he told Paglia last year, adding that it is harder to deal with “crazy women” because he cannot hit them. -snip

Originally posted by darthgoober
"under any circumstances whatsoever" is a pretty broad category though. I mean would you be able to respect someone who refused to try to fight someone he caught raping one of his kids or something like that?

Bingo.

He's dangerous if you're some kind of spineless pussy that jumps at their own shadow, yeah.

Originally posted by darthgoober
"under any circumstances whatsoever" is a pretty broad category though. I mean would you be able to respect someone who refused to try to fight someone he caught raping one of his kids or something like that?

Do you think Peterson was thinking about child molestation when he said that?

Originally posted by Trocity
He's dangerous if you're some kind of spineless pussy that jumps at their own shadow, yeah.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think Peterson was thinking about child molestation when he said that?

Originally posted by Trocity
He's dangerous if you're some kind of spineless pussy that jumps at their own shadow, yeah.

^
I don't think the story is about Peterson being dangerous himself, like he'd kill you. It's judging whether he's dangerous in setting off unhinged people; which can be dangerous depending on the person. So it seems Trocity didn't understand again, but I also have a feeling he only read the title, Trumpers tend to do that.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I think he was thinking about someone who refused to fight under ANY circumstances whatsoever, just as he said. As in "Do literally anything you want and I'll still backdown".

Which can vary a lot, from just being verbally provoked onward...

Originally posted by Robtard
but I also have a feeling he only read the title, Trumpers tend to do that.

CDTM is a Trumper?

Originally posted by Surtur
CDTM is a Trumper?

I didn't say "only Trumpers do this", just that it tends to be a Trumper trait as just seen in Trocity's out of place post.

CDTM also said he "skimmed", meaning he read more than just the title. So why push a lie?

Originally posted by Robtard
Which can vary a lot, from just being verbally provoked onward...

Originally posted by darthgoober
There's not a lot of variance in "under any circumstances whatsoever"... that's an absolute statement and therefore includes the most extreme examples.

From the Queen's English:

Any
- 1usually with negative or in questions Used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say "only Trumpers do this", just that it tends to be a Trumper trait as just seen in Trocity's out of place post.

CDTM also said he "skimmed", meaning he read more than just the title. So why push a lie?

He didn't say he skimmed the videos, he said he skimmed the article. Do better.

Originally posted by Surtur
He didn't say he skimmed the videos, he said he skimmed the article. Do better.

We're talking about the article, as it's literally named: "How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?"

So again, why lie and spin? Silly, imo.

ps and you read an article, not so much a video usually

Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about the article, as it's literally named: "How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?"

So again, why lie and spin? Silly, imo.

And I'm talking about the videos he posted, so there is no lie. This is not the hill you wanna die on, I'd move on.

And I'm clealry talking about the article as that's the subject. That's what you say when you know you're wrong and hope to squash further rebuttal.

Originally posted by cdtm
I've watched much longer, and these aren't all that long.

Who do you think her audience is? That's the issue here: She did a provocative class where someone/'s complained. Then she secretly recorded the predictable disciplinary meeting, giving (what seems to me) to be rehersed lines of the sort and anti-left talking head would make.

And now she's regularly making videos criticising the left.

Call it whatever you want, I call it a brilliant career move. Or a genius con.

The complaint was made up by the professors.

I don't even understand what you guys arguing about.

"any" all, rape, bla bla bla

Originally posted by Robtard
And I'm clealry talking about the article as that's the subject. That's what you say when you know you're wrong and hope to squash further rebuttal.

No, I'm not wrong as I didn't say anything incorrect. Do better, move on.

What you did was a Red Herring. A distraction with something immediately irrelevant.