I ♥♥♥♥ on Jordan Peterson's degree.

[Shodan 2.0]

I saw a video on his official YouTube channel where he basically said that true friends are not people who secretly hope for you to fail at something behind your back. Are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kidding me? This is the most obvious thing that all children at kindergarten understand, but he says this basic stuff in such pretentious ways that make his fans go "OH YEAH MISTER PETERSON, YOU'RE SUCH A WISE PERSON, THIS IS WHAT THE WORLD TODAY NEEDS!!!".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjENwU-k4Ks

Here is a case where he looks and acts like he escaped from a nuthouse and instantly starts crying like a baby over his nonsensical sentences that sound like they come from a random number generator.

Also, he says that friendship between men and women is impossible and cannot work which is false and it's really sad that someone with a psychology degree and 60 years of life experience makes such ridiculous statements for a living. That and all the absurd schizophrenic conspiracy theories that he supports because he doesn't understand anything and he acts so paranoid over nonexistent issues that are made up just so that there could be something to be paranoid about.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

SAOP님이 먼저 게시:

Jordan has really thin skin for some reason and has this weird obsession with "defeating the trolls". Idk how you become a self-help guru without being able to take criticism

Yeah, exactly. That's why I posted that video of him crying, not because I'm a "sadist" like Tate, but the person who called me a sadist defends Tate.

I donno, do you enjoy or take serious pleasure in watching others in pain? I donno who accused you of it but I certianly wouldn't be comfortable watching a man having serious emotional problems from the stress of his position. I'd rather have him become prome to crying than aggressive and conspiratorial.

So far only head empty has even remotely gone over anything Jordon actually said, and he was defending Canada outright telling Jordon that the personal comfort or sense of "being welcome," a purely subjective emotional concept, meaning the victim is the one who decided all evidence and there is no room for defense. I hope I don't have explain why that's a frankly malicious and outright non-functional standard of law. Wouldn't you be in tear seeing people constantly clal you unspeakable terrible things while your job and even freedom is at risk for ongoing accusations because you made comments about a political movement on a podcast? Or worse yet for just not agreeing with the personal demands of a single student?

[Grynn]

Imagine a person you don't personally know making you this mad.

I haven't listened to Peterson for a few years but it's nice to see people are still making angry threads about him

[Shodan 2.0]

Grynn님이 먼저 게시:

Imagine a person you don't personally know making you this mad.

I haven't listened to Peterson for a few years but it's nice to see people are still making angry threads about him

Ah yes, whenever someone says something against someone / something you like, they must be mad, you can especially see this through text on a screen.

[Shodan 2.0]

Mattmoo님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Ah yes, whenever someone says something against someone / something you like, they must be mad, you can especially see this through text on a screen.

Ahh, but I thought you said you could know what kind of person someone is just by looking at them?

Seems a lot more complex than seeing someone is mad to me.

Not by looking at text on a screen. I have no idea who's really behind that screen, even if they say things that sound good.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Grynn님이 먼저 게시:

Imagine a person you don't personally know making you this mad.

I haven't listened to Peterson for a few years but it's nice to see people are still making angry threads about him

Ah yes, whenever someone says something against someone / something you like, they must be mad, you can especially see this through text on a screen.

People attacking you and making comments on your actions also doesn't mean it's about your victim. Hell even if it was true, you act like defending people you like or have had positive experiences with it a bad thing.

[Shodan 2.0]

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Ah yes, whenever someone says something against someone / something you like, they must be mad, you can especially see this through text on a screen.

People attacking you and making comments on your actions also doesn't mean it's about your victim. Hell even if it was true, you act like defending people you like or have had positive experiences with it a bad thing.

It is bad if that someone has the kind of ideas Tate does, with or without the "alleged" crimes. When it comes to Peterson, eh, whatever, I guess. He's like a saint compared to Tate. Hell, he's not even really bad, he just has his stupid statements, but he doesn't ever call for violence like Tate does and he doesn't have evil ideas that Tate does and so on. The "stupid statements" I mentioned aren't a result of being a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ person with evil intentions in the case of Peterson unlike Tate. At least not as far as I know, I hope not, but he doesn't really look or talk like a scumbag, at least not at first sight, but Tate does for sure.

And that comment literally says that they indeed used to listen to Peterson, so... Regardless, yeah, you could remove that "someone / something you like" part from my comment, the "mad" comments occur in other cases as well, just not as much.

[Shodan 2.0]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

It is bad if that someone has the kind of ideas Tate does, with or without the "alleged" crimes. When it comes to Peterson, eh, whatever, I guess. He's like a saint compared to Tate. Hell, he's not even (that) bad, he just has his stupid statements. And the comment literally says that they indeed used to listen to Peterson, so... Regardless, yeah, you could remove that "someone / something you like" part from my comment, the "mad" comments occur in other cases as well, just not as much.

JP is funnel. From there, things get worse.

You mean like how marijuana often gets called a "gateway drug"?

[Shodan 2.0]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

You mean like how marijuana often gets called a "gateway drug"?

Exactly like that. Except for real this time. lol.

Yeah, I'll admit, there's actually one thing Jordan Peterson does in a clever way which is delivering his messages in a way that you can't accuse him of something that easily. There are always clear implications, that's why he's popular in... uh... certain circles, but he says it in such a way that you can't just (immediately) say something like "THIS GUY IS A SCUMBAG WHO HATES WOMEN" in the headlines unlike that Tate moron, he's on the level of an animal when it comes to self-control, but Peterson actually tries to appear calm, civil and willing to listen and talk. However, it doesn't take long to turn into some kind of conspiracy theories and generally crap and what not, but he's not "radical" for today's standards, so that's something.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Rent free

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie님이 먼저 게시:

People attacking you and making comments on your actions also doesn't mean it's about your victim. Hell even if it was true, you act like defending people you like or have had positive experiences with it a bad thing.

It is bad if that someone has the kind of ideas Tate does, with or without the "alleged" crimes. When it comes to Peterson, eh, whatever, I guess. He's like a saint compared to Tate. [...]

I donno why you're bringing up some other guy but as I said, no matter your victim is it doesn't mean attacking you is an automatic defense of your target. The worth of your actions is not defined by who you're victim is. And neither does how bad someones action are it doesn't mean everything they have ever done or said is automatically horrible and nothing good can come from them. I don't why you think "I deem Jordon and this other guy a bad person" suddenly makes you think they can have nothing good about them.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

It is bad if that someone has the kind of ideas Tate does, with or without the "alleged" crimes. When it comes to Peterson, eh, whatever, I guess. He's like a saint compared to Tate. Hell, he's not even (that) bad, he just has his stupid statements. And the comment literally says that they indeed used to listen to Peterson, so... Regardless, yeah, you could remove that "someone / something you like" part from my comment, the "mad" comments occur in other cases as well, just not as much.

JP is funnel. From there, things get worse.

Yeah where other people choose to go after listening to Jordon has nothing to do with the man in question. Don't hold him responsible for other people, it makes you look like a tribalistic fool.

[Shodan 2.0]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah, I'll admit, there's actually one thing Jordan Peterson does in a clever way which is delivering his messages in a way that you can't accuse him of something that easily. There are always obvious implications, but he says it in such a way that you can't just immediately say something like "THIS GUY IS A SCUMBAG WHO HATES WOMEN" in the headlines unlike that Tate moron, he's on the level of an animal when it comes to self-control, but Peterson actually tries to appear calm, civil and willing to listen and talk. However, it doesn't take long to turn into some kind of conspiracy theories and generally crap and what not, but he's not "radical" for today's standards, so that's something.

Yeah, icing on the cake is probably this whole "but muh free speech br0!", right up until you start making them look like idiots. Then you're just a meany and should be silenced.

Yeah, that sounds accurate from personal experience, especially in the thread about Tate.

Mattmoo님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah, I'll admit, there's actually one thing Jordan Peterson does in a clever way which is delivering his messages in a way that you can't accuse him of something that easily. There are always clear implications, that's why he's popular in... uh... certain circles, but he says it in such a way that you can't just (immediately) say something like "THIS GUY IS A SCUMBAG WHO HATES WOMEN" in the headlines unlike that Tate moron, he's on the level of an animal when it comes to self-control, but Peterson actually tries to appear calm, civil and willing to listen and talk. However, it doesn't take long to turn into some kind of conspiracy theories and generally crap and what not, but he's not "radical" for today's standards, so that's something.

I don't actually suspect he does hate women.

But if you want to pull up an example where he seems to think that, be my guest. I’d be more than happy to receive it =)

That's why I put "immediately" inside brackets, meaning maybe you really can't say that. He most likely doesn't actually hate women, he just probably doesn't really support female rights either. I don't know, that's why I phrased it that way in my previous comment. I do know he did had some stuff against feminists, feminism and gender pay gaps which is pretty suspicious (like I said, he's good at subtlety, at least compared to others anyway), I think he also tried to pull some "ohhh men are the victims today" kind of thing in response, but don't quote me on that. Again, I don't know, I'm outright saying I don't know and I don't care because there are much bigger problems than him on that issue and that would be Tate. People desperately defend that guy, that's scary. Peterson is not a threat.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

Shodan 2.0님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah, I'll admit, there's actually one thing Jordan Peterson does in a clever way which is delivering his messages in a way that you can't accuse him of something that easily. There are always obvious implications, but he says it in such a way that you can't just immediately say something like "THIS GUY IS A SCUMBAG WHO HATES WOMEN" in the headlines unlike that Tate moron, he's on the level of an animal when it comes to self-control, but Peterson actually tries to appear calm, civil and willing to listen and talk. However, it doesn't take long to turn into some kind of conspiracy theories and generally crap and what not, but he's not "radical" for today's standards, so that's something.

Yeah, icing on the cake is probably this whole "but muh free speech br0!", right up until you start making them look like idiots. Then you're just a meany and should be silenced.

As a man who is a free speech absolutest I'd appreciate it if you didn't strawman. People calling you an idiot or telling you to your face to shove it because your statements about him are nonsense or just spiteful is not a breech of free speech. No one is stopping you from speaking, we're just sharing our opinion of your speech. No one wants you banned or your statements removed on the basis they are insulting someone. If they did then they aren't adocates of free speech are they.

I really hope you understand difference between "oh shut up!" and a formal call for suspension or banning of your account.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Bukov님이 먼저 게시:

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah where other people choose to go after listening to Jordon has nothing to do with the man in question. Don't hold him responsible for other people, it makes you look like a tribalistic fool.

Teams don't always wear colors. Usually when their true motivations look very bad in the public light.

He not a team dude. Either provide literally him saying "you should go see X person," or both of the person(s) saying they are part of X team, or just admit you're making ♥♥♥♥ up. Your imaginary associations are nothing but your imagination. You can't put that on others.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

[Moved to first post]