💊 Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
marfusha said:
There is no way Peterson would talk to a person who could actually challenge him. Even before his benzo ordeal multiple people such as Richard Wolf invited him to debate and he basically ignored it. He went to debate Zizek and made a fool out of himself despite Zizek going easy on him. Probably learned his lesson since then.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of Jews, due to ethnosupremacism, and even I enjoy Richard Wolff. Like Karl Marx no matter how wrong Wolff is at times with his ideology you can tell it all comes from a place of actually caring about the struggles of most of humanity from the bottom to top instead of other way around. Franz Lisp as I call Zizek, because a he is a lispy fuck who originates from the lands of the former Austrian Empire, is a total intellectual fraud like Peterson. Lisp is only much smarter than JP and thus better at it. Of Franz Lisp's 2 biggest influences: Hegel was a midwit retard who never left university and Jacques Lacan was a perverted charlatan whose dogma revolved around an even more perverted charlatan (Freud). Where Franz Lisp fucks up way worse the Peterstein is his personal life which is an absolute train wreck thanks to his egotism. The fact Peterson's ideology cannot even triumph over a guy who is basically the fence sitting equivalent of Tim Pool for people with post secondary social degrees truly is fucking hilarious though. Parts of that debate are simply brutal for penis washer ideology participants to watch.
 
marfusha said:
There is no way Peterson would talk to a person who could actually challenge him. Even before his benzo ordeal multiple people such as Richard Wolf invited him to debate and he basically ignored it. He went to debate Zizek and made a fool out of himself despite Zizek going easy on him. Probably learned his lesson since then.
Click to expand...

I think that debate along with one other did teach him a bit of a lesson. Back in 2018 Peterson debated William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher) and Rebecca Goldstein (Atheist philosopher) and Craig essentially wiped the floor with both of them. It was an eye-opening moment for me because I realized Peterson really isn't coherent at all outside of his small focus of psychology. There was a moment where Craig had to pause because Peterson confused a transcendental argument (a specific type of deductive philosophical argument) with an argument about transcendence and it was pretty embarrassing to watch. Transcript from the debate:

DR. CRAIG: There is a vocabulary confusion here that needs to be cleared up. You are talking about a transcendent reality beyond the natural realm. Rebecca doesn't believe in such a reality. She says everything is confined to the laws of nature and things subject to that. But she's using the word transcendental (a transcendental argument) like Kant where in order to justify, for example, reasoning you show that without the assumption of reasoning you couldn't even deny the validity of reasoning. It's almost kind of pulling it up by your bootstraps sort of argument.

It's not something a non-academic should know, but it's the kind of clarification a professor has to give when students are arguing about stuff confidently and they don't even know some basic terminology.

On a more macro level, Craig is a clear thinker who wasn't a jerk but wasn't going to put up with Peterson's hedging and over-complicating everything and it really showed. It's strange because Peterson has moments of cutting through others' BS like in the infamous Cathy Newman interview, but when he starts doing the weird hazy, over-complicating hedging, he doesn't know what to do when people cut through it. He just goes deeper into the weeds.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of Christianity but William Lane Craig was an excellent debater and Richard Dawkins was scared of him. He also rattled Chickenhawk Hitchens. One of the reasons WLC was so strong in debate is that he had the sense to not stray into areas he was unfamiliar with. If Dawkins had accepted his offer of a debate, he would've made absolutely sure to keep the conversation away from the details of evolutionary biology. The aforementioned Jared Taylor is undefeated in debate for the same reason. He never strays from the beaten track of race relations.

This isn't just a sensible debate tactic though. It's an expression of humility and accepting one's limitations. Egotists like Sargon, Vaush and Destiny will argue tangent upon tangent, googling and improvising as they go, refusing to back down on things they know absolutely nothing about. "Errr I think you'll find that the upsurge in Volvo car sales in the 4th quarter of 1988 was partially a result of tensions in Yugoslavia devaluing the Yugo."

Jordan should've taken a leaf out of WLC's book and stuck to debating what he knows about; Biblical fables and personality traits.
 
Last edited:
marfusha said:
There is no way Peterson would talk to a person who could actually challenge him. Even before his benzo ordeal multiple people such as Richard Wolf invited him to debate and he basically ignored it. He went to debate Zizek and made a fool out of himself despite Zizek going easy on him. Probably learned his lesson since then.
Click to expand...
I remember "Peterson vs Zizek debate" was a goddamn joke before it actually happened.
Two completely incompetent and incomprehensible hacks just talking past each over for an hour. What an absolute shitshow.

But how fucking dumb are you if you think Zizek "went easy" on him, or "won" that "debate"? The entire reason Peterson would never accept Richard Wolf's invitation but jumped on the chance to "debate" Zizek is precisely because, as you said, Peterson would never go on stage against anyone who knows what they're talking about.
 
Monuklear said:
I remember "Peterson vs Zizek debate" was a goddamn joke before it actually happened.
Two completely incompetent and incomprehensible hacks just talking past each over for an hour. What an absolute shitshow.

But how fucking dumb are you if you think Zizek "went easy" on him, or "won" that "debate"? The entire reason Peterson would never accept Richard Wolf's invitation but jumped on the chance to "debate" Zizek is precisely because, as you said, Peterson would never go on stage against anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
Jordan hasn't ingested a carbohydrate in like, a decade. Give him a stack of flapjacks and some maple syrup and he good to go.
 
lyga said:
It's not something a non-academic should know, but it's the kind of clarification a professor has to give when students are arguing about stuff confidently and they don't even know some basic terminology.
Click to expand...
Imagine giving this much of a shit about semantic arguments when talking about something so fucking vague and irrelevant as the nature of transcendence. I'd rather shit my hands and clap than have to argue with some retards about this nonsense.

To the fedoraflippers: You fags are too fucking narrow minded to recognize that humanity has a capacity for religious experience, despite it being measurable, and that said capacity for religious experience is not also fundamental to the moral framework of individuals but that it is also phenotypic.
To the tradlarpers: Everything that you have faith in has a material foundation. Your failure to protect and sustain said material foundation and your refusal to acknowledge that it is unique to your genetic heritage has resulted in your active efforts to destroy not just any hope for a future of your faith but any hope at all for the future of your people and western civilization.
 
Last edited:
Monuklear said:
I remember "Peterson vs Zizek debate" was a goddamn joke before it actually happened.
Two completely incompetent and incomprehensible hacks just talking past each over for an hour. What an absolute shitshow.

But how fucking dumb are you if you think Zizek "went easy" on him, or "won" that "debate"? The entire reason Peterson would never accept Richard Wolf's invitation but jumped on the chance to "debate" Zizek is precisely because, as you said, Peterson would never go on stage against anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this video was ever posted here but this post reminded me of it. Lmao
 
found this on /v/
Gallery_1679331506269.jpeg
 
I don't care what anyone says, I love seeing older men get drunk and just go for it and not care what other people think. Jordan is right, it's a very liberating thing, even for observers.
 
Jordan Peterson, Russel Brand and that JP Sears guy all sound like they're reading from some type of script with a gun held to their head on their Youtube channels lately. They repeat identical phrases about ''The left'' and ''Marxism'' - it's not so much the phrases but the manner in which they say it which sounds extremely rehearsed and fed to them off a script. And the scripts appear to all be quite similar these days. Jordan Peterson used to go off on crazy rants but his words were all his own ideas. And as far as Brand - the dude was an Atheist. You expect me to believe he's now religious and 'pro-life' now? come on.

So what exactly is going on here?

Oh wait never mind, I know

Screenshot 2023-03-25 19.37.15.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom