Page 24 of 30 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 292

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #231
    singularity precursor Limes's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    6,958
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    What is it that you like about Ben Shapiro?
    He's quite erudite and it's not the usual canned, practice "bits" but I suspect he's actually constructing his thoughts and articulating at that speed. I enjoy the speed of delivery too. A lot of people who debate him are fucked before they even realize.
    That bit he delivered on the Baltimore riots really dilated my anus for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    I'm guessing he probably likes that little yarmulke. It's so jaunty.
    The US, the UK, Israel, locked, arm-in-arm, crushing the arabs and their backward ideology like ashkenazi imperialists. By David!
    deus vult


  2. #232
    Member Tekton's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    94
    Care to recommend a segment or two?

  3. #233
    singularity precursor Limes's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    6,958
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    What is it that you like about Ben Shapiro?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    Care to recommend a segment or two?

  4. #234
    Member Tekton's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Limes View Post
    Iíll take a look.

  5. #235
    singularity precursor Limes's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    6,958
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    I’ll take a look.
    Another good one was him bitch slapping that ass, Piers Morgan who had no other defense than "How dare you!"
    Piers got sent home shortly after this, buh-bye asshat! back you go.


  6. #236
    Member Tekton's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Limes View Post
    This is stupid and disingenuous. You can't argue that the reason black people don't succeed is because of their own culture, and then say that institutional racism can't be possible because racism isn't explicitly legislated, implying that the actors within institutions are not also the products of particular cultures, wherein racism may or may not be a problem. Also, the two opponents Ben Shapiro and the woman on the right are debating aren't doing a very good job. They're mostly just acting outraged and restating the claims of Shapiro and the moderator in the negative without offering any sort of argument or critique. I've never really followed BLM or the events they're referencing very closely, so I'm not really prepared to argue in favor of either, but I'm betting there's someone else who is... who I'll be sure to link to if I ever come across them.

    There is also a number of different topics being touched upon in rapid succession, rendering the whole discussion terribly muddled:
    Were the events in Baltimore an uprising?
    Where they riots?
    How can they be about racism when black-owned businesses were the ones subject to property destruction?
    The effect of black culture on outcomes
    The seeming irrelevance of white culture
    The implication that black people should have caught up by now, so surely observed disparities are their own fault
    Solipsism!
    Is the disparity in outcomes actually the result of disparity of opportunity?
    How can racism be objectively measured?

    Some of the above questions or issues are stupid and ill-formed, others aren't. All of them have complicated answers, some of them we don't really have any answers to. So, I suppose I can't hold it against the participants that they didn't convince each other; it was a poorly staged, poorly executed, poorly moderated debate (judging by the cut of it that I saw). It seems like they wanted to corner each other into saying, "you know what? You're right." That simply isn't going to happen, and anyone who says that the answers to these questions are cut and dry is either full of shit or lying.

    But then again, I know Ben Shapiro's purpose isn't to offer well reasoned debates made in good faith. His purpose is to trigger the libs, and he's quite good at it.

    As for a majority minority police department in Baltimore, well... consult "Fuck Tha Police" by N.W.A. for further reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by Limes View Post
    Another good one was him bitch slapping that ass, Piers Morgan who had no other defense than "How dare you!"
    Piers got sent home shortly after this, buh-bye asshat! back you go.

    This is very... theatrical. Yes, "how dare you" is painfully indicative of how incredibly lazy and out of practice liberals have gotten about discussing social politics (a category I think gun policy belongs to). However. Handing someone a pocket copy of the Constitution? Please. It's an ambiguously worded, quarter millennium old document which is considered so anachronistic that not even the US government uses it as a model when it has occasion to set up the government of another country. It also happens to be a rather hotly debated document within the US itself, and I hope someone can tell Ben about that.

    In addition to the theatricality - hoooo boy - that was painful to watch. It's rehashing the debate liberals and the right have with each other about two different issues at the same time, which is why it never really seems to move anywhere. Liberals want to talk about spectacular mass shootings, because who could be against mass shootings? The right want to talk about how the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns, not assault rifles, and then challenge liberals to ask if they really want a handgun ban, which the liberals will never admit to because they're spineless. The liberals ask, "how dare you?" The right remind liberals that handguns will prevent tyranny in the US because they will be enough to literally subdue the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and their attendant intelligence agencies and arms producers. Not to mention nuclear weapons. You know, nukes. No one seems to make the obvious point that places with roving posses armed to the teeth aren't exactly associated with democratic rule of law. Nobody has the balls to either propose amending the Constitution to remove that pesky passage about a well regulated militia, or to propose repealing the Second Amendment altogether like they'd actually like to. And on. I made it to 4:54 before I had to stop for fear of my eyes rolling so high at the two of them that they would roll backward in their sockets, and I hope you'll forgive me for not making it all the way through because I had already spent 10 minutes and 59 stupid, stupid seconds listening to arguments I have already heard ad nauseum. I've half a mind to excoriate you for subjecting me to this pablum, but in the end you reminded me of why I don't watch cable news, and saved me the trouble of subjecting myself to anything else this man says or writes due to some misguided attempt to figure out what the big deal is, unless at some point in the future I enter a fugue state. So thank you, kind of.
    Last edited by Tekton; 04-18-2018 at 04:40 AM.

  7. #237
    singularity precursor Limes's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    6,958
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    This is stupid and disingenuous. You can't argue that the reason black people don't succeed is because of their own culture
    Why not? I mean, it's not literally the color of their skin after-all. Very few racists are dumb enough to judge people literally for the color of their skin. It ultimately comes down to cultural differences and the systemic disintegration of the black family is going to be problematic for generations to come.

    Also, the two opponents Ben Shapiro and the woman on the right are debating aren't doing a very good job. They're mostly just acting outraged and restating the claims of Shapiro and the moderator in the negative without offering any sort of argument or critique. I've never really followed BLM or the events they're referencing very closely, so I'm not really prepared to argue in favor of either, but I'm betting there's someone else who is... who I'll be sure to link to if I ever come across them.
    Good luck with that because no-one can find a BLM Manifesto that doesn't amount to more than fuck the police and blaming the 'shadowy spectre' of systemic racism to justify "uprisings" that amount to little more than rioting and looting.

    I will defer to Larry Elder:



    Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

    And this interview with some self-reported representatives of BLM who make themselves look a little unprepared and ill-equipped to debate at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq_MZEECq68


    ...As for a majority minority police department in Baltimore, well... consult "Fuck Tha Police" by N.W.A. for further reading.
    Oh, I see you're already familiar with the entire BLM manifesto after-all.

    This is very... theatrical. Yes, "how dare you" is painfully indicative of how incredibly lazy and out of practice liberals have gotten about discussing social politics (a category I think gun policy belongs to). However. Handing someone a pocket copy of the Constitution? Please. It's an ambiguously worded, quarter millennium old document which is considered so anachronistic that not even the US government uses it as a model when it has occasion to set up the government of another country. It also happens to be a rather hotly debated document within the US itself, and I hope someone can tell Ben about that.

    In addition to the theatricality - hoooo boy - that was painful to watch. It's rehashing the debate liberals and the right have with each other about two different issues at the same time, which is why it never really seems to move anywhere. Liberals want to talk about spectacular mass shootings, because who could be against mass shootings? The right want to talk about how the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns, not assault rifles, and then challenge liberals to ask if they really want a handgun ban, which the liberals will never admit to because they're spineless. The liberals ask, "how dare you?" The right remind liberals that handguns will prevent tyranny in the US because they will be enough to literally subdue the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and their attendant intelligence agencies and arms producers. Not to mention nuclear weapons. You know, nukes. No one seems to make the obvious point that places with roving posses armed to the teeth aren't exactly associated with democratic rule of law. Nobody has the balls to either propose amending the Constitution to remove that pesky passage about a well regulated militia, or to propose repealing the Second Amendment altogether like they'd actually like to. And on. I made it to 4:54 before I had to stop for fear of my eyes rolling so high at the two of them that they would roll backward in their sockets, and I hope you'll forgive me for not making it all the way through because I had already spent 10 minutes and 59 stupid, stupid seconds listening to arguments I have already heard ad nauseum. I've half a mind to excoriate you for subjecting me to this pablum, but in the end you reminded me of why I don't watch cable news, and saved me the trouble of subjecting myself to anything else this man says or writes due to some misguided attempt to figure out what the big deal is, unless at some point in the future I enter a fugue state. So thank you, kind of.
    Your wall of text here got a little difficult to read about five lines in. I guess now we know what people debating Shapiro feel like under his word flurry.

    Suffice to say, Piers Morgan got sent home to Britain shortly after that interview because of how poorly he performed. He was made to look silly on his own show.

    Shapiro offered the only sane argument in that debate with the background checks and licensing modifications. You have to know your facts going against him.
    Shapiro for president!

  8. #238
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,184
    I realize this stopped being about Jordan Peterson a while ago, but I couldn't resist sharing this.

    I was watching a Q&A session of his and @Mxx he apparently does realize he sounds likes Kermit and has also been compared to Hitler.

    Spoiler: if this person does in fact try to take over the world someday, I may perhaps be frighteningly open minded to it.



  9. #239
    Senior Member Sinny's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    3,589
    That's one of the biggest give aways that he's using the alt-right platform purposefully.

    The alt right have interesting and strong associations with Hitler & Kermit the frog (Kek)..



    Lol,.it would seem that Jordan has many talents..



    Or, more likely, he's a professional troll of the alt-right.

    I'm pretty sure they're using NLP techniques.

    Professional trolls aren't new.. the Likes of "Jordan Maxwell" make comparable precursors, who's actual name is Russell J Pine. Con artist occultist, who's name sake, Jordanus Maximus, was to be found in Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled. Made his money through selling plagiarised work of Manly P Hall, and pandering to Alt-right and New age audiences.

    There's nothing new here.
    Last edited by Sinny; 04-18-2018 at 04:53 PM.
    Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

    ~ Robert Jackson, Statesman (1892-1954)


  10. #240
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinny View Post
    Or, more likely, he's a professional troll of the alt-right.
    I don't think that's the "likely" explanation. To me, the likely explanation is that he's embracing these comparisons with a sense of humor (as I think most humans with a pulse would, especially considering how unlikely those two things are to compare to each other). Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, suddenly thousands of people who have never met you or spoken to you (or even bothered to listen to more than .01% of your material) are going around comparing you to fucking Hitler. Good for him for being able to laugh about that. I think there are a tiny handful of human beings to have ever lived that should honestly be compared to Hitler.

    Considering he rose to fame by accident, and the most political thing he has EVER spoken about it some random Canadian law I just can't see the interpretation that he's trying to brain wash the world via the Alt-Right or anything else like that. Just look at the youtube comments on his videos, they really aren't political in nature. I think there's an overemphasis on what percentage of his fan base is Alt-Right, and it seems wildly blown out of proportion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •