Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in the UK

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby The Green Barbarian » Jan 22nd, 2018, 11:18 pm

Verum wrote: His stupid Neo-Marxism stuff is borderline conspiracy theory stuff too.


why is it stupid? Because new-marxists are stupid?
Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
- Dr. Don Boys
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 27222
Likes: 11553 posts
Liked in: 15108 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby The Green Barbarian » Jan 22nd, 2018, 11:20 pm

Poindexter wrote:
I personally think Peterson's work will save lives and make men better spouses and fathers, and who doesn't want that?

Edit: grammar


You and I agree on this point totally. As to your question, someone must disagree with it, because he has been called a misogynist for helping young men. Who would do such a think? I can only think it takes someone practicing misandry.
Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
- Dr. Don Boys
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 27222
Likes: 11553 posts
Liked in: 15108 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Verum » Jan 24th, 2018, 2:24 am

Glacier wrote:
Verum wrote:So clearly you don't have a clue what postmodernism is either and buy into the same conspiracy theory that Peterson does.
Also, I'm neither a Marxist nor a neo-Marxist. As for whether Marxism is the most evil ideology of the 20th century or not, I haven't commented and don't care to getting into absurd discussions about dead concepts. I'd far rather talk about the dangerous ideologies of today, such as the rise of post-truth among the right, rising fascism etc.

The most dangerous ideology of the 21st century so far is Islamism, but we still have most of the century to go.That's your opinion. Do you have strong evidence to back thus up, versus all other ideologies, or is it simply an expression of your personal opinion and bias?

As for Peterson, I don't think you get it. He speaks as an academic, and what he sees on campus.Except he is blowing it completely out of proportion. For instance, he claims, at least if your meme is to be trusted: "Just because an institution calls itself a university doesn't mean it is, and many disciplines have turned into ideological factories". Since the vast majority of university populations are studying STEM, business, healthcare, education and other professional courses, the claim of "many" disciplines being "ideological factories" just doesn't hold water. Additionally, it is actually reasonable to claim that historically universities were ideological factories, not least because Economics is essentially taught in a quite ideologically divisive fashion (you don't see many Marxist Economists in universities, which I actually agree with) and also because universities often teach theology and many are affiliated with religions. This ideological teaching is nothing new, and if anything they are less ideologically bound than in the past as they move away from teaching religious doctrine. Of course, since the vast majority of this religious ideology somewhat fits with Jordan Peterson's public persona, and quite possibly his personal beliefs, he can't very well come out and complain about that ideology being taught through university theology courses. He even taught a Bible series though I don't know if that was done through a university or not. Whatever you want to call it, he's absolutely right, and the Lindsay Shepherd affair proves him so. You are doing the same thing as her critics.No, I'm not even doing something similar to her critics. I am criticising Peterson for his continued use of his credentials and misrepresentation of universities, disciplines etc. I am not criticising anyone for playing his videos to anyone else and certainly not chastising or censoring them. When she asked what crime she had committed, they could not name a crime. They told her that whatever it was, it made people feel unsafe, etc, and she would have been fired or silenced for the vague crime of making people "feel unsafe" if she hadn't secretly recorded it. When I ask you how Peterson is wrong, you can't name a single fact he has stated that is wrong.I have pointed out how he is using some of the concepts of postmodernism completely out of context and incorrectly, but since your understanding of postmodernism is almost certainly defined by what he has said, rather than what the experts say, I don't expect you to agree with what I have stated. Similarly, I have no doubt that even if I demonstrated beyond a shred of uncertainty that Peterson was wrong about some facts, you would dismiss such, but I will do so anyway below. I strongly feel that most people's support for him is driven by wanting what he says to be true, not because objectively they have evaluated his ideas against the body of expert knowledge and found him to be so. This is the nature of political discussion and not scientific discourse. You use the same anti-science approach as Rambukkana. Something about he isn't fully disclosing what he's expert at. That's totally dishonest or at least anti-science sidestepping as far as I'm concerned. You don't have to be an expert to be right about something.True, to a point. It's more that if you are consistently right about something you are an expert, even without the credentials. Peterson acts like an expert in some fields in which he is not since he clearly doesn't understand the idea of context of a concept and the philosophy of postmodernism. The funny thing is that most of what postmodernism says about our ability to know the truth is actually completely in line with the likes of quantum mechanics and other aspects of hard sciences. The general scientific consensus is we can't know anything with absolute certainty. This largely fits with the uncertainty principle, basically making it completely impossible to know the exact position of anything at any future time. Just because this is true, doesn't mean that we constantly refer to this concept when designing a car engine. Hell, we rarely even bother with using relativistic physics when we can get away with using Newtonian physics, despite the fact that we know, with certainty that the latter is wrong. Practicalities of life often dictate that we take short cuts. A philosopher coming home to find her husband in bed with a psychologist doesn't question if what she is seeing is the truth or not. That would be absurd. Experts use words most understand to mean one thing, but that doesn't mean that the context they use them is has the exact same meaning. This is common to many fields, including mathematics with the likes of imaginary numbers. To those unfamiliar with the language and concept, imaginary numbers just sound silly, but the concept is a valuable part of the most absolute scientific field we have. Simply put, some concepts and specialised language have a context outside of which they lose importance or relevance. Thus, our postmodernist philosopher might believe in the lack of an observable absolute truth, but that doesn't mean she questions that the truth is that her husband is a cheating jerk. If he is wrong, use your own words to tell me what he's wrong about. Just a single fact would suffice. Stop pulling a Rambukkana.Single fact, there are plenty above, from him being wrong about postmodernism and the application of some of its the philosophy to external topics, to the fact that universities aren't turning greater "ideology factories" than they have already been. But he made this throw away statement, again from your meme, this fantastical notion re universities: "they're doing everything they can to make their accreditations valueless anyways", which is demonstrably untrue. Universities could do significantly more to make their accreditations valueless, not least of which being the trivial act of simply just giving them away to random people and without any requirement whatsoever on the recipients. There, a demonstrable fact that he is wrong on and for a man so careful with his words, how could he be so imprecise and careless. Yes, I understand what he means, but that's not what he said and what he said is quite simply wrong.

EDIT: I will say this. From reading your posts, I think your heart is in the right place. You care deeply about the suffering of the poor and others who need help, and I commend you for that. My main beef is that I think your response is too much emotional or reactionary to reach an ideal solution, in my opinion.

I really don't think you get me at all. You really have little understanding about my beliefs, understanding, expertise, etc. but this is not about you or me, this is about Peterson and his willingness to play the role of expert in fields he has demonstrably weak knowledge and understanding.

Peterson is a very smart guy and he says a lot of smart stuff and I can't say if he is a net benefit or detriment to humanity. He suggests that his IQ is above 150, and I don't doubt that though I've known quite a few people with similar or higher. I don't doubt that much of what he says is largely true or at least well sourced, but that doesn't make all of it so. Similarly, just because what he says sounds right or fits with what one either does or doesn't believe or want to believe, doesn't have any impact on how accurate it is or is not. When he makes bold claims beyond the scope of his expertise, without properly referenced sources beyond his own personal experience (a terrible source at the best of times) as if he is an expert, and in so doing misrepresent other fields or the impact these fields are having, he deceives many, damages the very nature of academic inquiry and is acting in a very non-scientific, political fashion. His actions are borderline anti-intellectual. The funny thing is that Peterson doesn't apply his actual expertise, psychology, to analyse the effects of going through university and the people university attracts. You know, compare abilities and intelligence before and after, and to the general population. I think it might tell an interesting story, but probably not the one he wants to tell and not one remotely controversial. I suspect the outcome would be something like this: People who go through university are, on the whole, more intelligent and more capable of rational and logical thought than those who don't, even in a matched pairs study.

By the way, this huge wave of SJW and such courses in universities is largely a myth. University of Waterloo, one who publishes numbers, has about 32000 students and 9 (0.028%) of them are in Women's Studies and 10 are in Religious Studies (0.031%) programmes. Yes, SJW ideology is taking over /s

I have nothing more to add to this conversation at the moment, though I will consider any rebuttal and if there is new and verifiable information, I will refine my position accordingly. I am still doing this anyway but until he starts properly citing references and ideally stats for his wilder claims, I cannot see my opinion of him improving at all. If he continues as is, I will simply consider him a motivational speaker, a political commentator and psychologist.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1008
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Nedroj » Jan 26th, 2018, 9:38 am

"By the way, this huge wave of SJW and such courses in universities is largely a myth. University of Waterloo, one who publishes numbers, has about 32000 students and 9 (0.028%) of them are in Women's Studies and 10 are in Religious Studies (0.031%) programmes. Yes, SJW ideology is taking over /s"

What makes you think all SJW are university students? Most of the protests held in America contain multiple activist groups like BLM, Anti Trump ppl, Feminist, Anti pipeline, University students and ANTIFA. So stats from one school isn't enough proof to back your claim when the PC micro aggression culture is pretty evident all across the globe. With the rise of one ideology, comes the rise of the opposition to said ideology. So now you have people like myself whom is not a trump fan at all but i have to side with those people because they generally are more peaceful and are all for free speech.

The SJW wave is not a myth, its just not as big in Canadian Universities yet as it is in the USA but its spreading far and fast and creating borderline terrorist groups like ANTIFA. I'm not against protesting ideas that you disagree with but it has to be done in a constructive way that will actually do something. Chanting stupid slogans, holding anti trump signs, blocking traffic and causing chaos is not the way to get your point across. Open and free debate from all sides is the only way humans can progress past this point. This is exactly what Ben Shapiro, Mark Steyn, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin and Milo all advocate for.
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius

d0nb likes this post.
Nedroj
Fledgling
 
Posts: 136
Likes: 68 posts
Liked in: 165 posts
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Verum » Jan 26th, 2018, 11:55 am

Nedroj wrote:"By the way, this huge wave of SJW and such courses in universities is largely a myth. University of Waterloo, one who publishes numbers, has about 32000 students and 9 (0.028%) of them are in Women's Studies and 10 are in Religious Studies (0.031%) programmes. Yes, SJW ideology is taking over /s"

What makes you think all SJW are university students? Most of the protests held in America contain multiple activist groups like BLM, Anti Trump ppl, Feminist, Anti pipeline, University students and ANTIFA. So stats from one school isn't enough proof to back your claim when the PC micro aggression culture is pretty evident all across the globe. With the rise of one ideology, comes the rise of the opposition to said ideology. So now you have people like myself whom is not a trump fan at all but i have to side with those people because they generally are more peaceful and are all for free speech.

The SJW wave is not a myth, its just not as big in Canadian Universities yet as it is in the USA but its spreading far and fast and creating borderline terrorist groups like ANTIFA.With bold claims comes the need for strong supporting evidence. Can you provide this, or is this your largely unsubstantiated opinion? I'm not against protesting ideas that you disagree with but it has to be done in a constructive way that will actually do something.Completely agree. Chanting stupid slogans, holding anti trump signs, blocking traffic and causing chaos is not the way to get your point across.That's your opinion. The fact that you call their slogans stupid shows an inherent bias. Open and free debate from all sides is the only way humans can progress past this point.I used to agree, but there are a few issues with this. Such debate doesn't always work well at getting to the truth because inaccuracies and lies cannot be easily verified in real time, but when they are out there, they stick. We like to believe that when presented with the verifiable truth, we change our mind, but that's not the case. People continue to believe lies even years after they have been widely debunked. Hence the popularity of snopes, et. al. This is exactly what Ben Shapiro, Mark Steyn, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin and Milo all advocate for.

A better solution, one which is tried and tested and has demonstrated a very good job of getting to the truth over centuries is peer reviewed research. In my opinion, Peterson particularly should be using this as his primary way of addressing his concerns, since he is a trained and capable scientist. Milo Yiannopoulos is simply a troll and you diminish the others by including him in the list. Shapiro could definitely do with arguing against those who are well versed in the topics he discusses, but the problem is that audiences are really bad at discerning that which is said by well spoken speakers who share their beliefs from the truth, which often comes in a difficult to understand form completely alien to their core values. Here's a cartoon, which basically explains why much better than I can:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Now imagine that everything Shapiro says that you agree with is just him reaffirming your core values, rather than challenging them. Some truth, but lots of conjecture or over simplifications. Jordan Peterson is only somewhat right when he claims that freedom of speech is what is needed to get to the truth and challenge bad ideas, we also need an audience willing to challenge its own core values and derived "truths", a willingness to look actively for the facts, especially so in hostile places. When the audience isn't willing or able to do this, it should look to the experts, because that is precisely what they are doing on a regular basis. Education is crucial here, because the well educated tend to have had their core values challenged and modified to reflect new information. Higher education is probably the first time that many adults have a significant amount of their strongly held beliefs dismissed with evidence and understanding by people well informed enough to do so. I find it particularly unfortunate that there is such a backlash against higher education by conservatives since they have much to offer in challenging the experts and much to learn from them too.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1008
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Nedroj » Jan 26th, 2018, 12:42 pm

It doesnt take much researching effort to see the folly behind ANTIFA and their "ideas".

They claim to be against fascism but most of them when asked what fascism is cant even explain it.
They outright promote Socialism and Communism.........LET THAT SINK IN FOR A BIT
They directly compare Nazi Germany to Trump's USA
They go to Trump, Conservative and free speech rallies not just to protest it but to directly shut it down, never to debate it.
They call Capitalism is bad and evil when they themselves have and continue to benefit from that same capitalistic free market.
They claim Capitalism is racist but you and I both know that Capitalism doesnt care about race, religion or sex. It cares about new ideas that people are willing to pay for.
They claim that aggressive protests and violence is necessary to combat views they do not agree with.

Watch youtube videos from both sides, check out their FB and other social media pages and you will see the evidence backing my claim. There are just so many conflicting ideas within this group that raises a lot of red flags.

Yes Milo is a troll but I included him and Dave Rubin to show that both a gay democratic and a gay republican share the same core beliefs as highly educated people such as Ben, Mark and Jordan.
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius

3 people like this post.
Nedroj
Fledgling
 
Posts: 136
Likes: 68 posts
Liked in: 165 posts
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Glacier » Jan 26th, 2018, 12:51 pm

Peterson is not speaking out his *bleep* about the rise of SJWs and the stiffing of free speech. He's using the academic work of Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker who have documented the reduction in diversity of thought. He was not wrong if you understand hyperbole.

As for Islam being the most destructive ideology of the 21st century, that's my opinion based upon Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. Obviously it's not the only violent ideology, but it sure seems to be the main one today. It's likely not the evil juice who are causing the lion's share of the deaths around the world.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 26896
Likes: 2875 posts
Liked in: 9066 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Nedroj » Jan 26th, 2018, 1:20 pm

Glacier wrote:Peterson is not speaking out his *bleep* about the rise of SJWs and the stiffing of free speech. He's using the academic work of Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker who have documented the reduction in diversity of thought. He was not wrong if you understand hyperbole.

As for Islam being the most destructive ideology of the 21st century, that's my opinion based upon Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. Obviously it's not the only violent ideology, but it sure seems to be the main one today. It's likely not the evil juice who are causing the lion's share of the deaths around the world.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSS-dR5dmk
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius
Nedroj
Fledgling
 
Posts: 136
Likes: 68 posts
Liked in: 165 posts
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby sobrohusfat » Jan 26th, 2018, 1:24 pm

Sone of the simple reasons Jordan Peterson is so popular is because he is truly smart, thoughtful, honest (sincerely truthful) and direct.

His critics can continue to fling whatever they can at him from all sides - all the BS they hurl just wont stick and just comes right back on them 10 fold.

So far its sure been a fun ride to witness.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

3 people like this post.
User avatar
sobrohusfat
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4102
Likes: 1299 posts
Liked in: 1557 posts
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2008, 12:42 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Verum » Jan 26th, 2018, 1:26 pm

Nedroj wrote:It doesnt take much researching effort to see the folly behind ANTIFA and their "ideas".That's not addressing what I wrote in the least. Can you show that an "SJW wave is not a myth... its spreading far and fast and creating borderline terrorist groups like ANTIFA". There is a lot in that statement that you need to provide evidence for.

They claim to be against fascism but most of them when asked what fascism is cant even explain it.
They outright promote Socialism and Communism.........LET THAT SINK IN FOR A BIT
They directly compare Nazi Germany to Trump's USA
They go to Trump, Conservative and free speech rallies not just to protest it but to directly shut it down, never to debate it.
They call Capitalism is bad and evil when they themselves have and continue to benefit from that same capitalistic free market.
They claim Capitalism is racist but you and I both know that Capitalism doesnt care about race, religion or sex. It cares about new ideas that people are willing to pay for.
They claim that aggressive protests and violence is necessary to combat views they do not agree with. Nice rant about ANTIFA, but it's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Maybe read what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote.

Watch youtube videos from both sides, check out their FB and other social media pages and you will see the evidence backing my claim. There are just so many conflicting ideas within this group that raises a lot of red flags.This is still not about ANTIFA, and there are red flags among all major groups, from the alt-right, the Peterson followers, the Shapiro acolytes, the ANTIFA nuts, etc. If you agree wholesale with one, you are almost certainly part of the problem of not thinking critically about what you are being told to believe, just like many of the ANTIFA followers.

Yes Milo is a troll but I included him and Dave Rubin to show that both a gay democratic and a gay republican share the same core beliefs as highly educated people such as Ben, Mark and Jordan.

Who cares if they are gay? This is the equivalent of saying that you're not a homophobe because you have a gay friend, or not racist because you have a black friend. It's a stupid argument at the best of times and actually a good indication of real bias at the worst.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1008
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Verum » Jan 26th, 2018, 1:37 pm

Glacier wrote:Peterson is not speaking out his *bleep* about the rise of SJWs and the stiffing of free speech. He's using the academic work of Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker who have documented the reduction in diversity of thought. He was not wrong if you understand hyperbole.

As for Islam being the most destructive ideology of the 21st century, that's my opinion based upon Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. Obviously it's not the only violent ideology, but it sure seems to be the main one today. It's likely not the evil juice who are causing the lion's share of the deaths around the world.

So you didn't look at numbers, effects, etc. but rather at a few examples of destructive groups who mostly follow a narrow version of Islam and decide that they are the broader religion of Islam is to blame for their destructive nature, and that they are collectively the most destructive force in the 21st Century. That a huge amount of assumptions. Can you give numbers adjusted for population sizes to actually support your claim?
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1008
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Nedroj » Jan 26th, 2018, 1:52 pm

Verum wrote:
Nedroj wrote:It doesnt take much researching effort to see the folly behind ANTIFA and their "ideas".That's not addressing what I wrote in the least. Can you show that an "SJW wave is not a myth... its spreading far and fast and creating borderline terrorist groups like ANTIFA". There is a lot in that statement that you need to provide evidence for.

They claim to be against fascism but most of them when asked what fascism is cant even explain it.
They outright promote Socialism and Communism.........LET THAT SINK IN FOR A BIT
They directly compare Nazi Germany to Trump's USA
They go to Trump, Conservative and free speech rallies not just to protest it but to directly shut it down, never to debate it.
They call Capitalism is bad and evil when they themselves have and continue to benefit from that same capitalistic free market.
They claim Capitalism is racist but you and I both know that Capitalism doesnt care about race, religion or sex. It cares about new ideas that people are willing to pay for.
They claim that aggressive protests and violence is necessary to combat views they do not agree with. Nice rant about ANTIFA, but it's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Maybe read what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote.

Watch youtube videos from both sides, check out their FB and other social media pages and you will see the evidence backing my claim. There are just so many conflicting ideas within this group that raises a lot of red flags.This is still not about ANTIFA, and there are red flags among all major groups, from the alt-right, the Peterson followers, the Shapiro acolytes, the ANTIFA nuts, etc. If you agree wholesale with one, you are almost certainly part of the problem of not thinking critically about what you are being told to believe, just like many of the ANTIFA followers.

Yes Milo is a troll but I included him and Dave Rubin to show that both a gay democratic and a gay republican share the same core beliefs as highly educated people such as Ben, Mark and Jordan.

Who cares if they are gay? This is the equivalent of saying that you're not a homophobe because you have a gay friend, or not racist because you have a black friend. It's a stupid argument at the best of times and actually a good indication of real bias at the worst.



I think you completely missed my point. I’m informing you to do your own research into the SJW movement and Antifa so you can form your own opinion. You asked for proof to back my opinion and I gave you examples, If you want me to do the legwork for you well then you clearly are too lazy to even care. And I mention that they are gay to prove a point. There are more and more people from the LGBT, African Americans and good muslims communities that are speaking up against the SJW movement. A movement that claims to be for the rights of the same groups.
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius
Nedroj
Fledgling
 
Posts: 136
Likes: 68 posts
Liked in: 165 posts
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Verum » Jan 26th, 2018, 2:12 pm

Nedroj wrote:I think you completely missed my point. I’m informing you to do your own research into the SJW movement and Antifa so you can form your own opinion.1. You were the one making bold claims about it, not me, so the onus is on you to provide evidence, not me. 2. I have done my own research on some of this and I even presented some numbers above. Of course, I've done a lot more research than that, but again I'm not the one making the claim. You asked for proof to back my opinion and I gave you examples, If you want me to do the legwork for you well then you clearly are too lazy to even care.None of your "evidence" actually constituted evidence, just your opinion and none of it showed 1. that the SJW wave is not a myth, 2. that it is spreading fast, 3. that it creates groups like ANTIFA and 4. that those groups are terrorist groups. And I mention that they are gay to prove a point. There are more and more people from the LGBT, African Americans and good muslims communities that are speaking up against the SJW movement.It doesn't matter! The sexuality, race, etc. of individuals should be irrelevant to how valid their opinion is. A movement that claims to be for the rights of the same groups.

I love the term "good muslims" it's funny how you didn't say "good LGBTs" or "good African Americans". Do you think that might have exposed a bias?
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1008
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby Glacier » Jan 26th, 2018, 2:58 pm

Verum wrote:I love the term "good muslims" it's funny how you didn't say "good LGBTs" or "good African Americans". Do you think that might have exposed a bias?

There's no such thing as an LGBT ideology or an African American ideology, so it would make absolutely zero sense to use the phrase "good LGBTs"... well, unless you're talking about how good they are in bed. Anyway, by contrast, there is such thing as an Islamic ideology. Well, there are many different Isalmic ideologies, some peaceful, and some totalitarian and extremely violent. "Good Muslims" is meant to refer to liberal progressive Muslims so that you don't get the wrong impression and think that Tarek Fatah and Zuhdi Jasser are the same as the Muslims like Anjem Choudary and Linda Sarour who follow an evil ideology hell bent of the destruction of the west. Capiche?

P.S. This is video is done by a liberal progressive Muslim, the kind you should like. For some reason (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I keep getting the impression that you would rather side with the "bad Muslims" than the "good Muslims."


2 people like this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 26896
Likes: 2875 posts
Liked in: 9066 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson gets baited 36 times in 29 minutes in th

Postby d0nb » Jan 26th, 2018, 8:05 pm

Glacier wrote:This is a top trending video, and if you haven't seen it, watch it! The interviewer cannot stop putting words in Jordan Peterson's mouth with things he did not say.


Yes, a typical BBC interview where the host fails to make logical arguments, resorts to haranguing a guest with mindless rhetoric and non-sequiturs, subjects him to having to defend himself against moronic interpretations of his views and is subsequently rudely shamed by the viewers, who are forced to pay for it all.

At least it gives CBC something to identify with. :smt045
''I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.'' — Ronald Reagan
d0nb
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 921
Likes: 387 posts
Liked in: 783 posts
Joined: Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest