This is 100% women’s fault.
I've said it before on this topic, but it's more complicated than that. The argument makes no sense, if you consider the premise. And not saying you're saying this verbatim or anything, or believe it, but it's often something along the lines of what people mean.
Premise: Women are basically child-like psychopaths who have no agency or accountability...but also it's their fault they're out of control. If women are incapable of keeping themselves in check, men clearly share some of the blame for letting themselves be manipulated into letting women get so out of control in the first place.
As always on sex relations issues, it's a give and take. Women and men are different, and as such they each share some blame and responsibility for the current state of things. Men and women have both utterly failed to fulfill their roles.
It's also just too readily accessible, and too technologically advanced. Modern porn certainly isn't cave paintings or erotic art.
It also feeds on itself; access to porn in a healthy culture might be fine, but access to porn in a shit culture, with lots of shit parents, and shit standards where no one cares and there's no community, leads to kids starting young and getting hooked and stuff.
And, yeah, like you said, women being driven away from traditional roles also make men more likely to turn to porn.
It's circular; a destroyed society leads to porn consumption, and porn overconsumption further damages society.
As a U.S. citizen, V.M.L. is likely to have the ability to return to the United States, setting her case apart from others that have drawn national attention in recent weeks, such as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Wait, wait, wait. Can you say that again, Politico?
The Salvadoran native was deported to a prison in his home country...
Wait, I thought he was a Marylander? Wait, er, Venezuelan? And, what, he was in a gang after all? I thought he was just a loving father?
I can't keep up...it's almost like you were lying about everything again, legacy media!
Dude's losing his damn marbles
Lost. Dude lost his marbles, quite a while ago.
Which is, as I said, sad. Peterson had legitimately good and important contributions; I'll always defend him for that, and not take those away from him. But he's currently operating as the enemy, and that can't be ignored either.
I'll give this fucker credit. Very few other individuals have managed to reach such utterly reviled status.
I recognized who you were talking about immediately when you said "Waxes With Balls," and was just as immediately utterly revolted. Is this the final boss, the King of Trannies?
Trannies are bad enough, but even your standard tranny can't disgust me as much as the mere thought of Yaniv. This is like some Chaos energy right here.
Rule 2. Rule 16.
Nah, still too many words, though. Cut "Ghost in the Shell" for sure, as it's in the title anyway. Not a huge draw, if we're talking trying to immediately catch someone's eye, too. A simplification like "Japanese" would be fine.
wooden doors and chimneys added after the facts to the "gas chambers"
The really wild part is...that's one hundred percent true. You can think the Holocaust happened, you can think it didn't...but a bunch of the defining features of the death camps were put in place after the fact by the victors. Many of the "historical pictures" are fake. Many of the initial claims have since been debunked. And so on.
Something definitely happened. Jews definitely died. Hitler definitely wasn't fond of the Jews. There were definitely camps. And so on. But there's also a bunch of really sketchy stuff.
And it doesn't help the discussion that, just like how any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, any discussion of WW2 facts that don't fit the other facts are considered "Holocaust Denialism."
Orthodoxy and censorship are the enemies of truth.
As well as the recent and seemingly coordinated attack on Joe Rogan, Dave Smith, Ian Carroll, Daryl Cooper, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and the like.
Ninety-nine percent of the self-styled "Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)" are, in fact, the enemy. They're the actual psychopathic Machiavellian infiltrators Peterson is talking about.
...yall are the equivalent of Nancy Mace...straight up faggotry
Not sure why you get so fucking spun out on some of these issues. There's no need for this. I didn't attack you (well, I poked at you a bit in fun, but after you came on hard.)
Yall just mindlessly claim that people more effective than yall...
YOU'VE NEVER BEEN?!
Stop with the disingenuous nonsense. I've never said I'm more effective than Walsh. I'm a nobody. He's done good work, and I agree with him on some, disagree on others.
I'm not "effective" in the slightest, and have never claimed to be. Saying I don't have the impact of Matt Walsh is, for one thing, completely correct, and for another, a completely silly argument.
1000%
Peterson was great...emphasis on was.
He was never as brilliant as people claimed, but he said things that needed to be said, and he was a hero for that. But that was basically his sole contribution. Everything else was ego stroking and then selling out.
Peterson contributed greatly, but is now a shadow of his former self, who is aiding the people he raged against. A real shame.
I don't understand why Peterson would make a both sides argument on a segment about the left's rising comfort with assassination?
Because a growing percentage of the right doesn't want to infinitely fund Israel, and that's fucking unacceptable!
"White babies" is a hairsbreadth away from the 14 words.
You mean those fourteen words which even the most ardent screechers will hardly ever say is wrong (just the Intent™ is, or something)? Those fourteen words?
It really is wild. I get it's most often shouted by Bad People, but the words themselves are completely and utterly correct.
It's always interesting when there are things that are almost universally condemned, but not argued against.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Second part, after Hannity asks another question:
Once a system of ideas has established itself, so it has some territory, you can capitalize on that by being a pretender and you can claim to be a pure upholder of that particular doctrine and advance yourself, especially among naive people while only playing even your own crowd for a fool. And that's exactly what's happening. So hypocrisy doesn't bother anybody who's essentially narcissistic and psychopathic because they don't feel guilt. They serve their own interests in a very narrow way and they’ll use whatever arguments come to mind to advance their claims for power.
They're particularly good at using false cries of victimization and that's one of the places where the left is particularly susceptible to the psychopathic types because the leftist types tend to be more agreeable and hypothetically emphatic. So when psychopathic types come along and claim victim status, or oppression in some form, it's very difficult for the naive empaths of the left to distinguish between them.
I did a transcription (tuned up YouTube's, more accurately), because this speech is so hilarious:
Imagine that there's a group of individuals, about four percent of the population, who have a set of personality characteristics that have been described as Dark Tetrad. So they are Machiavellian and use their language to manipulate. They’re narcissistic and want unearned social status and reputation. They are psychopathic which makes them free of empathy and parasitical and predatory. And they’re sadistic so they take positive delight in unnecessary suffering of others.
Those people also use false cries of victimization to manipulate and they’re entitled. They seek vengeance when it is unwarranted and they protest loudly and make very public cries for reparations that would be self-serving. The way those people operate is they look for what patterns of belief form groups that they can infiltrate and then capitalize on. And that happens on the right.
We did a report the same group on the use of Christ as King as manipulative strategy by bad actors, hypothetically on the right. this report identified the same sort of people on the left. But it's not primarily political.
They’re wolves in sheep's clothing who look for where there's power and value and adopt those beliefs as a surface camouflage so they can elevate their moral status. This has become worse in recent years as far as I'm concerned because the evolved strategies that we have for dealing with the psychopathic types - psychopathic narcissistic types - don't work well online and so the psychopaths can get away with their terrible manipulations online and they can find like-minded people and they can escape from any reputational consequences.
And so there's always been psychopaths. Those are the pharisees that Christ points to*, religious pretenders. Those are the people who use God's name in vain and claim moral virtue and religious devotion, while all they are doing is feathering their own nests and furthering their own narrow interests. And the web, social media, anonymity, enables them to organize and also hides them much more effectively. And this is a problem in religious organizations, it's a problem in political organizations, and it pathologizes the whole culture. Most people, 80% of Americans agree on virtually everything and then there's these fringe people...and they’re not political. They’re psychopathological narcissists who cloak themselves in political guise. And we all have to learn to distinguish between the political and psychological. We’re not good at it.
* Editor's not (aka me): I corrected one instance of Google/YouTube not recognizing the word "Christ," but I missed this one, and had to edit it back in. It does get it sometimes - I checked with other videos, and YouTube will transcribe "Christ" - but it's odd it missed both instances here. I doesn't even try. It "mishears" some words, and gets them wrong, but both utterances of "Christ" here were just completely omitted. Conspiracy? I don't know. But it's interesting. I'm just asking questions.
This was absolutely wild.
If you're curious, here's Cernovich talking about it, and Jimmy Dore having a laugh.
Absolutely not. I've said it before, but that just ends online anonymity, under the guise of 'think of the children.' It's a very slippery slope to full on internet ID.
And, as I've said, it affects everyone, not just minors, since adults need to prove they're not minors, meaning everyone shows ID to access some websites. And what if it expands? It's a hop skip and a jump to demanding ID for other "adult" gated activities...like exercising your Second Amendment rights. "Government needs your ID to even look at gun content" isn't that far removed, for example.
Miss me with that.
Internet anonymity is one of the few good things the current landscape has given us, and we need to keep it, or we lose hard.