Re: Jordan Peterson
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Don't worry, his sycophants have already blamed all that on his doctor and random chance. So now you can't blame a single thing he did wrong for all those years on him at all.
But we are supposed to take him seriously again now because he helped them years ago by saying what most people's dads teach them at age 6 so he is a super genius.
At his highest dosage, what do you think Jordan was taking a day?
Way too fuckin' much.
I suspect (again, suspect) that the cognitive dissonance became too much for him. He had all the data, all the context, and all the experience, but he could never make the conclusion that liberalism is a disease.
He tried to say obvious things while still being in the system and it broke him.
At least that's the theory I am going with.
As one of those straight edge fags, any amount above zero is too high for me.
They only want no individual identity if it's only under their ideology and everyone is a drone. No identity but everything has to stand up by its merits alone, they crumble.
The big thing many ignore is the importance of religious morality in these discussions. As John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This was not a fringe viewpoint among those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
One of the more pathetic arguements I've heard recently was Matt Walsh on Joe Rogan trying to argue against legalized gay marriage without invoking the Bible or God; Rogan smoked Walsh. Moreover, it was disingenuous from Walsh: he is a devout Catholic, and had even said so earlier on the podcast, yet his ego made him think he could make a moral argument without using the foundation of his views.
Individuality without the bounds of something like Christian morality cannot build a cohesive society, as it just leads to everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. There needs to be a collective set of moral rules that everyone in a society agrees upon for that society to be both free and civil. If not, the only way for structure is through authoritarianism, like how Saddam held Iraq together. Not ideal, but it was better than pretending that splintered society was capable of self governance under an elected government.
The problem with this is married filing jointly exists, and married filing jointly is why a lot of gay people wanted to get married, because the government wouldn’t allow that tax benefit unless they were officially married. I personally say remove income tax and this isn’t an issue but that’s just me.
You may very well be correct in the end, but the fact that religion is based on magical bullshit means it's likely to continue its decline.
Western civilization. lecture series from an Orthodox Christian priest.
The whole series is very good, but the parts dealing with the 18th/19th/20th century european politics are in line with your comment: mainly about how the French revolution was not necessarily the wonderful thing that we are told to view it as today because of the excessive individualism
I'd say you've got it right. When I went Christmas shopping, I spotted a card game with a French Revolution theme. It was called Guillotine. That tells you something.
Where did I mention politics, I said everything has to stand on merits alone.
An idea in itself has to stand on merits which is what the post is taking about. By introducing politics you necessarily involve a group identity, a label to the conversation in order to identify yourself. If you just examine based on merits alone, you'd see democracy is flawed, communism only works in an insect hive, monarchy works only with restraints and dictatorships can be extremely feasible but are more likely to crumble when the leader dies unless there is a clear line of progression which evolves it into a pseudo monarchy.
One may as well say that everything requires the intervention of armed government agents, since policy without the backing of organized violence is worthless.
I like to think of the "diversity" that Dems want as the same as the It's a Small World Ride at Disneyland. Lots of colorful costumes and the appearance of variation, but they're all singing the exact same song.
I agree with the message, but lets not pretend 4Chan hasn't been compromised since moot sold it. They fucking banned Gamergate topics while allowing CP
Yeah, once again I will suggest people check out poa.st, freespeechextremist, and bae.st. You will get far more open freedom of discussion on places like that than anywhere else.
Ooo hadn’t heard of bae.st before. Thank you my good man.
Bae.st is better for posting porn, if that's more of what you're interested in.
Yeah I popped over for a look, probably won’t make it a regular but there was some good shitposting all the same.
If you’re against anonymity online, then you are against free speech. True free speech requires anonymity.
Anonymity+social media is to the 1st amendment what semi-automatic rifles are to the second amendment.
I bet it was really easy to support the right to bear arms before the AR-15 was invented.
He also has Wendigo psychosis from a native american cannibal group he was in when he was younger.
Here is the receipts I have.
1
2
3
4
5
6
If he actually did partake in cannibalism it could have given him some kind of prion disease. It's probably not as severe as some other cases of "wendigo psychosis" but his state of mind definitely has gotten worse over time.
You only get prion disease if the flesh being consumed has prions in it...which is not a common nor endemic problem in Canada.
I actually think there's a real problem here that we're not taking into consideration. The anonymity allows us to challenge things without us assigning a fucking home address for some psycho troon to come visit us in the middle of the night, or slash our tires, or send our employer a bomb threat.
However, it also means that yeah: you are just a bunch of random idiots online that can simply be ignored. There is no actual force involving real life people, and it's quite hard not to simply be dismissed as a troll, a shill, a bot, or a fake account. One of the most useful things in the MAGA movement were it's massive 'shows of force' by having convoys and rallies. It proved that the populist movement exists and contains nearly 100 million people in the US.
The anonymity also disguises what is and what is not a real force of political will. One of the problems with Twitter is that since it was curated for Leftists, and remained so large, it became a stand-in for actual polling and constituency. The reason the Overton Window pushed so hard left is because of Twitter, and an infinite number of snarky Leftist accounts asserting that they were the absolute majority of all people in the US, despite actually being (at most) 8% of the population.
To this day, we can see this between the conflict of MAGA and Antifa: MAGA still clearly generates massive public events, with no one covering their faces, and is slowly churning through the GOP's establishment; while Antifa numbers maybe 10,000 across the whole US, but is effectively establishment shock-troops that conduct the majority of all political violence in the US. They are effectively the janny-sary (tranny-sary?) units of the establishment, and arresting a few hundred of them can basically cease their operations, while arresting nearly 700 people involved in January 6 has done nothing to slow the tide for MAGA, and much more aggressive tactics have to be used against them at all levels. In very literal terms, MAGA's lack of anonymity is one of the reasons it is a serious political force, attracted more attention, and is capable of taking more attrition than Antifa, which ends up being so small that the establishment pretends it isn't even real.
Goofy named internet avatars have their utility in exploring ideas, but we need real people in order to actually advocate for those ideas. You do have to interact with normies, and you do have to interact with your neighbors. I'm not saying abolish anonymity, but it's utility has limits.
While the rallies are indeed great, people have lost their jobs just for being seen at one.
Including basketball Hall-of-Famer Kevin McHale, who lost his broadcast job because he was spotted at a Trump rally. That hurt me, since I love the sport. But fuck the NBA.
By the way, nice reference to the Janissaries. Take the little children, raise them as your own, corrupt them, and 20+ years later they form the invading force that kills their birth parents and burns their birth town.
That's just proving my point, though. The anonymity protects people, but pushing people into anonymous online spaces is being done on purpose to reduce the political power of the whole. Putting your face, IRL influence, and credibility on the line is exactly what the Left is trying to dissuade people from engaging in because it gives your influence and credibility to the narrative you're arguing.
Also, Jannysaries or Trannysaries: which do you prefer to use?
The latter. They go after children.
Trannysaries it is.
Peterson's vaxx'd. It shows.
It checks out
You didn't see the other topic? He wants to end online anonymity.
No I didn't.
That's a stupid idea coming from someone who is rich and famous enough to be able to weather the shitstorm rained down on dissenters for wrongthink.
He survived his time in the dock, but us ordinary mortals can't, so anonymity protects us from all sorts of evil retaliatory shit . . . for our goddamned OPINIONS.