Jump to content
bad_teammate

Running Alt-Right Thread of Mockery

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It doesn't. Socratic method means asking questions. The questions he asks he answers himself immediately, no waiting or latency; he is setting himself up because he loves to hear himself talk and is a godawful listener and participant in back-and-forth because he's not listening to understand, he's listening to formulate his next argument. 

Self-awareness evades you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Lol.  I bet there are some guys with this pic hanging on the wall of their cell just waiting for the newb to arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It doesn't. Socratic method means asking questions. The questions he asks he answers himself immediately, no waiting or latency; he is setting himself up because he loves to hear himself talk and is a godawful listener and participant in back-and-forth because he's not listening to understand, he's listening to formulate his next argument. Watch the famous video of him DESTROYING THE SJWs on his own campus.

That's why the right loves him. His worldview, which is essentially a fuddy duddy white partriarchy traditionalist, is 100% set in stone. So yeah, he's not a big supporter of anti-semitism or anti-black ideology, but he is a huge supporter of the exact worldviews and mindsets that make anti-semitism and anti-black ideology thrive.

Sure, there are definitely instances of him pacing the floor while uttering some variance of free association and seemingly forgetting there’s an audience, so your point is not without merit. While I’m sure it’s a hindrance to participation at times, I attribute it to him being eccentric rather a terrible listener, but to each their own I suppose. 

I’ll have to watch that video, but I must admit that most of those “own so and so” videos always leave me feeling a bit underwhelmed, the only exception being Christopher Hitchens. Peterson often uses practical examples that can be applied to everyday life and I think that appeals to many on the right. Although I’d venture to say that the majority of them haven’t read his book Maps of Meaning, so they tend to misconstrue his point of view, for which I ultimately can’t hold Peterson responsible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, man....y'all remember Jade Helm, when the United States military came THIS close to, ummm, occupying the United States?  Yeah, thank God we dodged THAT bullet.

Except, you know, the bullet was Russian bullshit, and our governor put the gun in our mouth and pulled the trigger...

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/hysteria-over-jade-helm-exercise-in-texas-was-fueled-by-russians-former-cia-director-says/269-548511739

Good job, Governor Feckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Hey, man....y'all remember Jade Helm, when the United States military came THIS close to, ummm, occupying the United States?  Yeah, thank God we dodged THAT bullet.

Except, you know, the bullet was Russian bullshit, and our governor put the gun in our mouth and pulled the trigger...

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/hysteria-over-jade-helm-exercise-in-texas-was-fueled-by-russians-former-cia-director-says/269-548511739

Good job, Governor Feckless.

Read the Tribunes thing on it. He doesn’t really make the case for it.  It’s the opinion of a guy with a lot of insight, so it carries weight, but it is really only that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Read the Tribunes thing on it. He doesn’t really make the case for it.  It’s the opinion of a guy with a lot of insight, so it carries weight, but it is really only that.  

Agreed.

But come on.  Anyone with a lick of sense knew it was complete and utter bullshit.  And our super-patriot america-loving governor.....asked the State Guard to keep an eye on the operation so “Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”  He asked the State Guard to keep an eye on those shifty bastards - OUR OWN MILITARY, WHICH ALREADY HAS A HUGE PRESENCE IN OUR STATE, SOME OF IT AT THE FUCKING GOVERNOR'S INVITATION - so they didn't put us in underground Wal-Mart jails.

It's one thing for your deranged Uncle Elmer to fall for such insane bullshit on his FB feed.  For the FUCKING GOVERNOR TO LEGITIMIZE IT.  We're toast.  We are a state of the morons, led by the morons, for the morons.

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed.

But come on.  Anyone with a lick of sense knew it was complete and utter bullshit.  And our super-patriot america-loving governor.....asked the State Guard to keep an eye on the operation so “Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”  He asked the State Guard to keep an eye on those shifty bastards - OUR OWN MILITARY, WHICH ALREADY HAS A HUGE PRESENCE IN OUR STATE, SOME OF IT AT THE FUCKING GOVERNOR'S INVITATION - so they didn't put us in underground Wal-Mart jails.

It's one thing for your deranged Uncle Elmer to fall for such insane bullshit on his FB feed.  For the FUCKING GOVERNOR TO LEGITIMIZE IT.  We're toast.  We are a state of the morons, led by the morons, for the morons.

 Of course it was bullshit. My pushback was on the opinion that it was some Russian test run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chrispy

I think you'll find this interesting. Peterson is, in a way, besieged by the very psychopaths that are making him rich. And I think he's so used to essentially filibustering and speaking while alone that he genuinely has not considered enough intersecting concepts and is generally WAY out over his skis a lot of the time.

I mean, I'm a stupid asshole who is nowhere near a Brain Genius and I could address this guy's question about the holomodor and the potential for a new one. It's not even that hard to simply say, "The Soviet Union cannot be characterized as a Jewish enterprise and the potentially-purposeful starvation of Ukranians in order to feed the industrial working class of the Soviet Union cannot be characterized as 'anti-Christian'. Your question is built upon false pretenses and is purposefully designed to invoke anti-Semitic feeling and rhetoric at a time when white supremacy, white identitarianism, and jingoistic nationalism are on the rise. I am not going to deal with your question further because it is dishonest in its formation specifically to advocate hatred."

What Brain Genius says is "it's hard to disentangle" ... "I can't do it".

So what is Brain Genius, either inadvertently or on purpose, actually saying to the white supremacist talking directly to him? He's saying the Jews are scheming bastards with high IQs. Why is it so hard to speak out against obvious anti-Semitism? It's either because he wants to keep his own anti-Semitism hidden or he knows his livelihood depends on pleasing anti-Semites.

He's either a racist or a pussy: Neither looks good on him.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Take that ducking longhorn shirt off.  

Yeah no shit. He has a shitty salt-and-pepper beard and it's convinced him that he's tough like a biker* when he's a fat piece of shit who was about to get his shit fucking annihilated by a 16-year-old boy who weighs 90 lbs because that boy would at least be able to physically move for more than 10 seconds in a physical confrontation. It's like all the anti-ANTIFA guys who get clowned by vegans in black ski masks because the vegans have stamina and the CHUDs have diabetes.

It's sad to see how he's really trying to coach himself up to fight a bunch of kids. What a fucking pathetic worldview.

* bikers are also fat pieces of shit who couldn't actually last more than 10 seconds in an actual fight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

@Chrispy

I think you'll find this interesting. Peterson is, in a way, besieged by the very psychopaths that are making him rich. And I think he's so used to essentially filibustering and speaking while alone that he genuinely has not considered enough intersecting concepts and is generally WAY out over his skis a lot of the time.

I mean, I'm a stupid asshole who is nowhere near a Brain Genius and I could address this guy's question about the holomodor and the potential for a new one. It's not even that hard to simply say, "The Soviet Union cannot be characterized as a Jewish enterprise and the potentially-purposeful starvation of Ukranians in order to feed the industrial working class of the Soviet Union cannot be characterized as 'anti-Christian'. Your question is built upon false pretenses and is purposefully designed to invoke anti-Semitic feeling and rhetoric at a time when white supremacy, white identitarianism, and jingoistic nationalism are on the rise. I am not going to deal with your question further because it is dishonest in its formation specifically to advocate hatred."

What Brain Genius says is "it's hard to disentangle" ... "I can't do it".

So what is Brain Genius, either inadvertently or on purpose, actually saying to the white supremacist talking directly to him? He's saying the Jews are scheming bastards with high IQs. Why is it so hard to speak out against obvious anti-Semitism? It's either because he wants to keep his own anti-Semitism hidden or he knows his livelihood depends on pleasing anti-Semites.

He's either a racist or a pussy: Neither looks good on him.
 

 

I took his laughter and rubbing of his forehead as a sufficient answer. I don’t think he’s a racist or a pussy, he just knows engaging with a nutjob is a losing proposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I took his laughter and rubbing of his forehead as a sufficient answer. I don’t think he’s a racist or a pussy, he just knows engaging with a nutjob is a losing proposition. 

Silence in the face of hate is not a virtue. If you know how to refute a racist in front of an audience and you are positioning yourself as a bold truth-teller in the face of unreason, then why avoid addressing it? Why is Jordan Peterson more likely to virulently engage a feminist or trans-activist than a Nazi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Silence in the face of hate is not a virtue. If you know how to refute a racist in front of an audience and you are positioning yourself as a bold truth-teller in the face of unreason, then why avoid addressing it? Why is Jordan Peterson more likely to virulently engage a feminist or trans-activist than a Nazi?

Cuz you don't shit where you eat.

Anyone with a lick of sense has that figured out.

Same reason Trump said there were good people on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Silence in the face of hate is not a virtue. If you know how to refute a racist in front of an audience and you are positioning yourself as a bold truth-teller in the face of unreason, then why avoid addressing it? Why is Jordan Peterson more likely to virulently engage a feminist or trans-activist than a Nazi?

Like I said, I didn’t interpret his laughter as silence, I believe he was genuinely stunned by the absurd question. 

My answer to your second question is purely speculation on my part. You have to remember that not long ago his job and entire livelihood was hanging in the balance with the introduction of Bill C-16, which compelled speech regarding gender pronouns and introduced the possibility of criminal prosecution if not followed. While that hasn’t happened, he’s been denied research grants as retaliation from the University of Toronto, who has been less than supportive. Thank god we have the first amendment, eh? It’s in this context that I believe he is much more eager to combat those that have tried so hard to destroy him and defame his character.

Also, I think it’s important to understand that he’s not against feminism, he’s against a rather virulent strain that seems to have picked up steam recently. Some feminists have begun espousing this nonsense that men and women are not biologically different, which is tied directly to the gender issues above. If they were to actually read his thoughts on the subject, he states that women will gain the upper hand as countries become more civilized due to male aggression and physical force being less prevalent, allowing women’s psychological prowess to flourish. But they don’t read his actual thoughts, just what will grab headlines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Like I said, I didn’t interpret his laughter as silence, I believe he was genuinely stunned by the absurd question. 

I agree with you that his laughing/uncomfortable silence was a result of being stunned. And it was, literally, silence and not a matter of interpretation. He says "it's so hard to disentangle" and then "I can't do it".

You could argue that his nonverbal behavior expressed disapproval, but why is he even leaving his response open to interpretation with nonverbal cues? Yes, he was stunned, but the guy talking to him was obviously a fan so a clear-thinking person would immediately realize, "Oh, some of the things I say might be appealing to the hateful, so let me distance myself from the hateful emphatically."

But he didn't. He passed.

Richard Spencer will laugh off the ridiculousness of open Naziism when there's a camera on him. I don't think Peterson is a racist like Spencer, but laughing at someone saying the anti-Semitic thing and not speaking out against it is... not good.

Quote

My answer to your second question is purely speculation on my part. You have to remember that not long ago his job and entire livelihood was hanging in the balance with the introduction of Bill C-16, which compelled speech regarding gender pronouns and introduced the possibility of criminal prosecution if not followed. While that hasn’t happened, he’s been denied research grants as retaliation from the University of Toronto, who has been less than supportive. Thank god we have the first amendment, eh? It’s in this context that I believe he is much more eager to combat those that have tried so hard to destroy him and defame his character.

He's working for a public university. Play stupid games (refuse to respect trans students, advocate for essentially defunding your own university), win stupid prizes. He's actively hostile to his students and his university, so... I can understand their reluctance to prioritize limited resources in his direction.

But even taking all of that at face value, his worldview essentially prioritizes his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minority groups or their needs. Which is, of course, why the hateful love him so much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even taking all of that at face value, his worldview essentially prioritizes his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minority groups or their needs. Which is, of course, why the hateful love him so much.

His worldview, seems to me, is that the world should organize around individuals, not identity.  He calls left wing SJW-types idiots and calls alt-right white nationalists losers.  He seems to say that identify politics is wrong all the way around.  The question coming from tin-foil guys (Bolsheviks, Russia, the media, Jews, wtf?) is nonsensical.  That’s why he can’t “disentangle” it.  From what I’ve seen, Peterson is high strung, super serious, and might have a touch of autism.  I think he was genuinely trying to wrap his head around it.  

Peterson has thousands of hours of lectures on-line.  The left would LOVE to find evidence of bigotry.  There is none as best as I can tell.  The best they can seem to find is him laughing off a bullshit question and not denouncing it forcefully enough for their liking.  Equating his worldview (individual, not identity) with anti-semitism or being anti-black or saying his worldview strengthens those causes is just a bullshit smear.  Equating his laughing off tin-foil guy with Trump’s “both sides” comment is the new post-trump Brisket (and I say that as a member of the Brisket fan club).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I agree with you that his laughing/uncomfortable silence was a result of being stunned. And it was, literally, silence and not a matter of interpretation. He says "it's so hard to disentangle" and then "I can't do it".

You could argue that his nonverbal behavior expressed disapproval, but why is he even leaving his response open to interpretation with nonverbal cues? Yes, he was stunned, but the guy talking to him was obviously a fan so a clear-thinking person would immediately realize, "Oh, some of the things I say might be appealing to the hateful, so let me distance myself from the hateful emphatically."

But he didn't. He passed.

Richard Spencer will laugh off the ridiculousness of open Naziism when there's a camera on him. I don't think Peterson is a racist like Spencer, but laughing at someone saying the anti-Semitic thing and not speaking out against it is... not good.

He's working for a public university. Play stupid games (refuse to respect trans students, advocate for essentially defunding your own university), win stupid prizes. He's actively hostile to his students and his university, so... I can understand their reluctance to prioritize limited resources in his direction.

But even taking all of that at face value, his worldview essentially prioritizes his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minority groups or their needs. Which is, of course, why the hateful love him so much.

 

I could tell he was reeling and although it wasn’t one of his finer moments, I also don’t believe him to be complicit in any anti-Semitic behavior. I understood the laughter for what it was, but clearly others interpreted it for something else entirely. 

Your second point I have to take issue with though, because he wasn’t playing any games. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he must call individuals pluralistic pronouns, even when referencing one individual. This is not prohibiting hate speech, this is compelling speech, which is entirely different. Besides it being grammatically incorrect, it’s utterly insane. That’s the essence of totalitarianism, of which he has studied extensively and was understandably horrified when experiencing it for himself. That’s not being hostile, that’s fighting for one’s right to speak. The punitive measures put forth by the University were petty and is meant for him to give in and comply, which I hope he does not. 

I don’t agree that he “priorities his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minorty groups or their needs”. That’s too general to dissect anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he must call individuals pluralistic pronouns, even when referencing one individual. This is not prohibiting hate speech, this is compelling speech, which is entirely different. Besides it being grammatically incorrect, it’s utterly insane. That’s the essence of totalitarianism, of which he has studied extensively and was understandably horrified when experiencing it for himself.

Who told him he "must"? What punishment was threatened for non-compliance? You're playing one of the most wildly inappropriate victimhood cards I might have ever seen in my life. A white male professor at a publicly-funded university protected by tenure was asked to use trans-friendly pronouns and you invoke fucking TOTALITARIANISM.

This is precisely what I mean by saying that he “priorities his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minorty groups or their needs”. The concept of changing his speech patterns is so abhorrent and offensive to him that he goes on a years-long campaign to speak out against the horrors of being asked politely to do something and face *gasp* open criticism if you do not. That is reactionary white politics in a nutshell; even the smallest of concession to the forward march of history is seen as losing a limb.

Further, incorporating gender-neutral pronouns is neither grammatically incorrect nor insane. Language, and the grammatical structures that underpin it, are pure constructs. There is nothing absolute or fundamentally true about language. All we need to do in order to change any grammatical rule or habit is for us to simply start doing it. God did not write the Book of English Grammar and place it at our feet.

The language we are using was created by white Christian Europeans, but is now the lingua franca for groups of people well beyond that. To argue that we should not incorporate gender-neutral or otherwise trans-friendly pronouns because it is "grammatically incorrect" is to argue that we should freeze the language itself at some arbitrary time for some unarticulated reason. Xe and Xim are no more "insane" than He and She; they are simply words used to describe reality.

I agree with PeeWeeSherman that Peterson has his share of the 'tism, which is why his profound and deep outrage centers almost entirely around largely-imagined slights to himself personally and is almost 100% blind to the needs of his disadvantaged and minority students. When asked to use gender-neutral pronouns, his first (and only) thought is how painful it is that it makes him challenge his own rock-rigid worldview.

Transgendered Student: "I'd like to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns."
Brain Genius: "TOTALITARIANISM! You are destroying our culture and society!"

Nazi Skinhead: "We should gas all the Jews."
Brain Genius: *silence* *pantomimed laughter* "Well, oh boy!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for him reeling, when will he stop being surprised that racists adore him? Is he going to be shocked by that reality forever even though it is obvious and screaming in his face for years at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who told him he "must"? What punishment was threatened for non-compliance? You're playing one of the most wildly inappropriate victimhood cards I might have ever seen in my life. A white male professor at a publicly-funded university protected by tenure was asked to use trans-friendly pronouns and you invoke fucking TOTALITARIANISM.

This is precisely what I mean by saying that he “priorities his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minorty groups or their needs”. The concept of changing his speech patterns is so abhorrent and offensive to him that he goes on a years-long campaign to speak out against the horrors of being asked politely to do something and face *gasp* open criticism if you do not. That is reactionary white politics in a nutshell; even the smallest of concession to the forward march of history is seen as losing a limb.

Further, incorporating gender-neutral pronouns is neither grammatically incorrect nor insane. Language, and the grammatical structures that underpin it, are pure constructs. There is nothing absolute or fundamentally true about language. All we need to do in order to change any grammatical rule or habit is for us to simply start doing it. God did not write the Book of English Grammar and place it at our feet.

The language we are using was created by white Christian Europeans, but is now the lingua franca for groups of people well beyond that. To argue that we should not incorporate gender-neutral or otherwise trans-friendly pronouns because it is "grammatically incorrect" is to argue that we should freeze the language itself at some arbitrary time for some unarticulated reason. Xe and Xim are no more "insane" than He and She; they are simply words used to describe reality.

I agree with PeeWeeSherman that Peterson has his share of the 'tism, which is why his profound and deep outrage centers almost entirely around largely-imagined slights to himself personally and is almost 100% blind to the needs of his disadvantaged and minority students. When asked to use gender-neutral pronouns, his first (and only) thought is how painful it is that it makes him challenge his own rock-rigid worldview.

Transgendered Student: "I'd like to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns."
Brain Genius: "TOTALITARIANISM! You are destroying our culture and society!"

Nazi Skinhead: "We should gas all the Jews."
Brain Genius: *silence* *pantomimed laughter* "Well, oh boy!"

Bill C-16 told him he must, you need to read it, it will scare the hell out of you. Again, they didn’t ask him to call them these pronouns, they told him to use these pronouns, there’s a distinct difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who told him he "must"? What punishment was threatened for non-compliance? You're playing one of the most wildly inappropriate victimhood cards I might have ever seen in my life. A white male professor at a publicly-funded university protected by tenure was asked to use trans-friendly pronouns and you invoke fucking TOTALITARIANISM.

This is precisely what I mean by saying that he “priorities his own high level of privilege over essentially anything else involving minorty groups or their needs”. The concept of changing his speech patterns is so abhorrent and offensive to him that he goes on a years-long campaign to speak out against the horrors of being asked politely to do something and face *gasp* open criticism if you do not. That is reactionary white politics in a nutshell; even the smallest of concession to the forward march of history is seen as losing a limb.

Further, incorporating gender-neutral pronouns is neither grammatically incorrect nor insane. Language, and the grammatical structures that underpin it, are pure constructs. There is nothing absolute or fundamentally true about language. All we need to do in order to change any grammatical rule or habit is for us to simply start doing it. God did not write the Book of English Grammar and place it at our feet.

The language we are using was created by white Christian Europeans, but is now the lingua franca for groups of people well beyond that. To argue that we should not incorporate gender-neutral or otherwise trans-friendly pronouns because it is "grammatically incorrect" is to argue that we should freeze the language itself at some arbitrary time for some unarticulated reason. Xe and Xim are no more "insane" than He and She; they are simply words used to describe reality.

I agree with PeeWeeSherman that Peterson has his share of the 'tism, which is why his profound and deep outrage centers almost entirely around largely-imagined slights to himself personally and is almost 100% blind to the needs of his disadvantaged and minority students. When asked to use gender-neutral pronouns, his first (and only) thought is how painful it is that it makes him challenge his own rock-rigid worldview.

Transgendered Student: "I'd like to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns."
Brain Genius: "TOTALITARIANISM! You are destroying our culture and society!"

Nazi Skinhead: "We should gas all the Jews."
Brain Genius: *silence* *pantomimed laughter* "Well, oh boy!"

Also, calling a single person “they” is absolutely moronic. It’s changing a singular into a plural when it’s not correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Fess up, boys, which one of you is this?

 

Badmotherfucker81 is exactly how I pictured him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say it wasn't? Did you read the article? They address using they as a gender neutral third person singular pronoun, for a variety of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Did I say it wasn't? Did you read the article? They address using they as a gender neutral third person singular pronoun, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, I did. The article says to use it sparingly in American English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If racists adore Peterson, it's because they're too dumb to know his message (not too surprising really.  Peterson disavows collectivist thinking consistently.  It's not a secret.  The alt-right likes him because Peterson loathes the far left/identity politics crowd.  Enemy of my enemy and all that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So despite the fact that third person singular "they" is grammatically correct, and has been for literally centuries at this point, now it's not okay for trans and nonbinary to request that people use the word to refer to them because it should be used "sparingly." Okay, sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Fess up, boys, which one of you is this?

 

He wouldn’t have tried that shit if the students were strapped

Edited by Sawbonz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

So despite the fact that third person singular "they" is grammatically correct, and has been for literally centuries at this point, now it's not okay for trans and nonbinary to request that people use the word to refer to them because it should be used "sparingly." Okay, sure. 

It’s to be used sparingly in American English, but that’s not my main point. They can ask to be called whatever they want to pretend to be, and I’m sure I’d be polite in company, but compelling someone to call them such names is very different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Bill C-16 told him he must, you need to read it, it will scare the hell out of you. Again, they didn’t ask him to call them these pronouns, they told him to use these pronouns, there’s a distinct difference. 

Vague, melodramatic, and unsourced portents of doom? You have studied the Dark Professor well!

Who told him he "must"? What punishment was threatened for non-compliance?

I mean, in a totalitarian situation you would be able to answer those questions with some measure of specificity. After all, Brain Genius's Rule #10 is Be precise in your speech.

Bill C-16 portends no doom for edgy, Autistic tenured professors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad_teammate, if you do not mind me asking, what's your beef with Peterson?  The general message of getting your shit together, growing the hell up, taking responsibility seems to be a pretty positive one.  Yeah, some far right winters might like him (he hates the left afterall), but what about his message is off putting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Vague, melodramatic, and unsourced portents of doom? You have studied the Dark Professor well!

Who told him he "must"? What punishment was threatened for non-compliance?

I mean, in a totalitarian situation you would be able to answer those questions with some measure of specificity. After all, Brain Genius's Rule #10 is Be precise in your speech.

Bill C-16 portends no doom for edgy, Autistic tenured professors. 

They added “gender identity or expression” to their criminal code. Well, technically an amendment to the existing code. So now it’s a criminal offense to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression.  Speaking of vague... Of course, this is exactly what people claim Peterson is doing by not using these made up pronouns. Under this ridiculous law, Peterson nearly lost his job is absolutely subject to criminal prosecution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeeWeeSherman said:

The general message of getting your shit together, growing the hell up, taking responsibility seems to be a pretty positive one. 

If that was the long and short of it, fine, but it should be obvious what I dislike.

- Vague bullshit about "Western" culture

- Anti-feminist

- Anti-transgender

- Endless vague lecturing about virtually nothing

Yes, insofar as Peterson is ripping of Dale Carnegie and writing rote self-help books, I've got zero issue. But insofar as he sees oppressed minorities as vehicles of TOTALITARIANISM, I've got a huge fucking problem with him, because the transgendered and homosexual and female are not hostile actors destroying our glorious "Western" culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

They added “gender identity or expression” to their criminal code. Well, technically an amendment to the existing code. So now it’s a criminal offense to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression.  Speaking of vague... Of course, this is exactly what people claim Peterson is doing by not using these made up pronouns. Under this ridiculous law, Peterson nearly lost his job is absolutely subject to criminal prosecution. 

Cite

Your

Sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the long and short of it, fine, but it should be obvious what I dislike.

- Vague bullshit about "Western" culture

- Anti-feminist

- Anti-transgender

- Endless vague lecturing about virtually nothing

Ok.  Respectfully, there’s not a whole lot in that.  Yeah, he acknowledges differences between males and females.  Yes, he is opposed to COMPELLED speech but is not opposed to using pronouns for those he/she/they view as being genuine.  And the consequences to not complying with compelled speech laws (from what I understand) are fines and jail time.  Yay 1st amendment.  And holy shit he’s long winded. 

It seems to me that leftist have a huge problem with Peterson because he effectively argues that identity politics is complete horseshit and that intersectionality, followed to its logical conclusion (all of the intersections), results in individualism.  Not promoting any group over the other is not being anti anything, really.  If I were to start life not knowing what group I’d be a part of, I’d hope individualism would be the dominant world view.  Best chances for me and everyone else that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Can you show me where in that link that it is established that Peterson "nearly lost his job" or is "absolutely subject to criminal prosecution"? It's not there. I read the entire article. You're just posting links. 

Rule #10: Be Precise In Your Speech

1 minute ago, PeeWeeSherman said:

 And the consequences to not complying with compelled speech laws (from what I understand) are fines and jail time.

Can any of you people back this hysterical claim up? Listening to you guys talk you'd think Canada's gulags were full of xe/xir refusers, but... absolutely nothing.

Quote

It seems to me that leftist have a huge problem with Peterson because he effectively argues that identity politics is complete horseshit and that intersectionality, followed to its logical conclusion (all of the intersections), results in individualism.

Yes, he argues that racist/paternalist societies are merely outgrowths of biological realities as evidenced by the social orders of lobsters. Primarily, however, he doesn't actually make any arguments. He throws a bunch of vague nothing out there, creating a morass of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you show me where in that link that it is established that Peterson "nearly lost his job" or is "absolutely subject to criminal prosecution"? It's not there. I read the entire article. You're just posting links. 

Rule #10: Be Precise In Your Speech

Can any of you people back this hysterical claim up? Listening to you guys talk you'd think Canada's gulags were full of xe/xir refusers, but... absolutely nothing.

Yes, he argues that racist/paternalist societies are merely outgrowths of biological realities as evidenced by the social orders of lobsters. Primarily, however, he doesn't actually make any arguments. He throws a bunch of vague nothing out there, creating a morass of words.

Are you kidding? UofT told him to stop taking about gender (censuring his speech) because it was facing fines from the OHRC and that he could be fired regardless of tenure if they deemed it a hate crime. Same goes for the fines he personally faces from the OHRC, guess what happens if he doesn’t pay those?

I don’t think you read it at all my man.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that intersectionality, when followed to its conclusion, results in individualism, was kinda glossed over.  It's kinda of a big deal (though I doubt Peterson was the first to argue it).  It deserves consideration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical after hypothetical and no actual threats to silence him. The softest totalitarianism (!!!!) imaginable.

But a larger question: If one of his students prefers "xe"... why would a considerate professor/teacher NOT use that pronoun? I would be curious to see a serious answer to that question.

Honestly, if I was running a university an some 19-year-old whose live in suffering for years says, "hey, I don't feel comfortable as a man and have never felt comfortable, so I don't like being called 'he'." how fucking shitty are you as an old professor to be like, "FUCK YOU YOU HAVE A DICK YOU'RE 'HE'!!!!"?

Quote

The argument that intersectionality, when followed to its conclusion, results in individualism, was kinda glossed over. 

For good reason. What does "individualism" even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily, however, he doesn't actually make any arguments. He throws a bunch of vague nothing out there, creating a morass of words.

Then why do you give a shit?  Seriously.  Why expend internet energy on this guy?  There are scores of folks out there that say something and say nothing at once.  Why focus on this guy?  Why post a single interview question out of the thousands of hours on youtube?   Like it or note, he is very effective voice against leftist bullshit nonsense.  That’s why you post smear videos.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...