Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
averagejoel 02/16/18 6:57:23 PM #101:	nicklebro posted... Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right. he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896221796] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.</quote> he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 7:01:43 PM #102:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right. he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best I mean he himself says he's on the left, I'd like to know why you think he isn't though. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896222036] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.</quote> he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best</quote> I mean he himself says he's on the left, I'd like to know why you think he isn't though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 02/16/18 7:04:21 PM #103:	Romes187 posted... Ok...how about all of his other content? How about all of his cited work He's almost never talking about his actual cited work. If he were to make actual academic arguments based on any of his actual published science, that would be an entirely different story. At best, he gets closest when he talks about his bullshit Freudian/Jungian books, which aren't actually peer reviewed scientific literature, as if psychoanalytic theory ever would be. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:896222166] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>Ok...how about all of his other content? How about all of his cited work</quote> He's almost never talking about his actual cited work. If he were to make actual academic arguments based on any of his actual published science, that would be an entirely different story. At best, he gets closest when he talks about his bullshit Freudian/Jungian books, which aren't actually peer reviewed scientific literature, as if psychoanalytic theory ever would be.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 7:04:49 PM #104:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right. he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best I mean he himself says he's on the left, I'd like to know why you think he isn't though. enlighten me: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas has he condemned? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896222182] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.</quote> he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best</quote> I mean he himself says he's on the left, I'd like to know why you think he isn't though.</quote> enlighten me: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas has he condemned?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#105	Post #105 was unavailable or deleted.
Anteaterking 02/16/18 7:11:50 PM #106:	Romes187 posted... Hmm...what about him being a professor of psychology and having a clinical practice...that doesn't give him authority to talk about the psychological effects of cleaning your room? No, for the same reason that I can't talk from authority about operator algebras. Psychology is a wide field and if you colloquially let it cover everything involving people's emotional and mental actions, then you're going to call any psychologist an expert in essentially everything. Romes187 posted... Which experts in which areas say he's talking out of his ass btw just so I can check it out. I know evolutionary biologists like bret weinstein continually reaffirm what he is saying (most specific example being the vice interview where he discussed the sexual advantage of wearing high heels and make up) but you may not take too much stock in his opinion...not sure. I don't know who Bret Weinstein is, so I can't speak to that. Outside of math and the lobster thing, I think the biggest thing you'll find are his views on Postmodernism, which he cites his knowledge of is based on "studying their brains". This is also the source of most of the things that people on CE like him for, like anti-identity politics, etc. nicklebro posted... I have yet to see anyone actually do that tho. I've seen people nitpick irrelevant details but never have I seen any of his actual points be refuted. I mean I just asked you exactly what he got wrong and you didn't answer me, which is pretty much par for the course. Can you go back and actually explain what he's saying that is inaccurate? You want me to explain which thing that is wrong? The Godel thing? --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896222564] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>Hmm...what about him being a professor of psychology and having a clinical practice...that doesn't give him authority to talk about the psychological effects of cleaning your room?</quote> No, for the same reason that I can't talk from authority about operator algebras. Psychology is a wide field and if you colloquially let it cover everything involving people's emotional and mental actions, then you're going to call any psychologist an expert in essentially everything. <cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>Which experts in which areas say he's talking out of his ass btw just so I can check it out. I know evolutionary biologists like bret weinstein continually reaffirm what he is saying (most specific example being the vice interview where he discussed the sexual advantage of wearing high heels and make up) but you may not take too much stock in his opinion...not sure.</quote> I don't know who Bret Weinstein is, so I can't speak to that. Outside of math and the lobster thing, I think the biggest thing you'll find are his views on Postmodernism, which he cites his knowledge of is based on "studying their brains". This is also the source of most of the things that people on CE like him for, like anti-identity politics, etc. <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>I have yet to see anyone actually do that tho. I've seen people nitpick irrelevant details but never have I seen any of his actual points be refuted. I mean I just asked you exactly what he got wrong and you didn't answer me, which is pretty much par for the course. Can you go back and actually explain what he's saying that is inaccurate?</quote> You want me to explain which thing that is wrong? The Godel thing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 7:12:26 PM #107:	-Gavirulax- posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful. He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to. I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right. he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best lmao, uh huh, we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side rather than the usual blanket bullshit which envelops the majority when it comes to politics. any good ideas from the right were co-opted from the left --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896222597] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>-Gavirulax- posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote> But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.</quote> He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.</quote> I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.</quote> he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best</quote> lmao, uh huh, we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side rather than the usual blanket bullshit which envelops the majority when it comes to politics.</quote> any good ideas from the right were co-opted from the left</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 7:13:35 PM #108:	-Gavirulax- posted... lmao, uh huh, we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side rather than the usual blanket bulls* which envelops the majority when it comes to politics. I think the term radical centrist is essentially someone on the political spectrum whose views average to 0 but have high standard deviation. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896222671] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>-Gavirulax- posted...</cite> <quote>lmao, uh huh, we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side rather than the usual blanket bulls* which envelops the majority when it comes to politics.</quote> I think the term radical centrist is essentially someone on the political spectrum whose views average to 0 but have high standard deviation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#109	Post #109 was unavailable or deleted.
nicklebro 02/16/18 7:27:54 PM #110:	averagejoel posted... enlighten me: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas has he condemned? https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself. Anteaterking posted... You want me to explain which thing that is wrong? The Godel thing? Take your pick. averagejoel posted... any good ideas from the right were co-opted from the left lmao --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896223402] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> enlighten me: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas has he condemned?</quote> https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself. <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>You want me to explain which thing that is wrong? The Godel thing? </quote> Take your pick. <cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>any good ideas from the right were co-opted from the left </quote> lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NinjaBreakfast 02/16/18 7:30:02 PM #111:	lol @ the OP. honestly not surprised. -Gavirulax- posted... we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side hahaha --- http://i.imgur.com/nGZeEqw.png Do you really think you can beat me? <cite>NinjaBreakfast posted [p:896223513] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>lol @ the OP. honestly not surprised. <cite>-Gavirulax- posted...</cite> <quote>we centrists are so radical wanting to take the best from each side</quote> hahaha</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#112	Post #112 was unavailable or deleted.
averagejoel 02/16/18 7:41:49 PM #113:	nicklebro posted... https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself. he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896224132] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself.</quote> he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 02/16/18 7:49:32 PM #114:	nicklebro posted... Take your pick. http://archive.is/khKVm This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic). He follows this up sometime later with: https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622 This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system. In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated). So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it. Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:896224540] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Take your pick.</quote> http://archive.is/khKVm This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic). He follows this up sometime later with: https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622 This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system. In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated). So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it. Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 7:51:02 PM #115:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself. he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn? All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896224636] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself.</quote> he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn?</quote> All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 02/16/18 7:55:56 PM #116:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself. he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn? All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare. And redistribution of wealth <cite>Romes187 posted [p:896224927] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206 Just listen to the man himself.</quote> he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology. "hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right" again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn?</quote> All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.</quote> And redistribution of wealth</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 7:57:49 PM #117:	Anteaterking posted... nicklebro posted... Take your pick. http://archive.is/khKVm This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic). He follows this up sometime later with: https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622 This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system. In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated). So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it. Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight. This appears to stem from his weird definition of what "God" is. He actually adheres to a god of the gaps philosophy from the christian side, which is unique to say the least. But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896225017] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Take your pick.</quote> http://archive.is/khKVm This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic). He follows this up sometime later with: https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622 This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system. In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated). So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it. Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight.</quote> This appears to stem from his weird definition of what "God" is. He actually adheres to a god of the gaps philosophy from the christian side, which is unique to say the least. But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NinjaBreakfast 02/16/18 8:04:36 PM #118:	nicklebro posted... All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. Lol wtf --- http://i.imgur.com/nGZeEqw.png Do you really think you can beat me? <cite>NinjaBreakfast posted [p:896225391] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.</quote> Lol wtf</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 02/16/18 8:07:23 PM #119:	nicklebro posted... But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point. This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out: Balrog0 posted... as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:896225541] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.</quote> This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out: <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 8:12:05 PM #120:	nicklebro posted... All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. uh no this is blatantly incorrect, and I have no idea how this idea could even have occurred to you And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare. this might be a decent start if he was American rather than Canadian, but it would still necessitate a lot more information than this. if you want me to accept that he is left-leaning, I'm going to need many left-wing positions that he supports, and many right-wing positions that he condemns. the fact that he's anti-collectivist, in my mind, inherently keeps him out of any leftist ideologies, so you're going to need all the more evidence for that. the fact that he became famous for protesting against a transgender protection bill on the laughable notion that it would restrict free speech (another stereotypical right-wing "anti-PC/pro-Free Speech" position) is another strike against this idea. in addition, he's a fucking university prof who has spoken at length about Marxism but has never, to my knowledge, done an actual deconstruction of the ideology, focusing instead on certain areas where the Soviet Union did bad things (and simultaneously giving cartoonish exaggerations of those bad things). to top it all off, he's obviously aware that his audience is largely right-wing (at least, I hope he is). has he done anything specifically to disavow them beyond disavowing collectivist ideologies as a whole? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896225796] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.</quote> uh no this is blatantly incorrect, and I have no idea how this idea could even have occurred to you <quote>And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.</quote> this might be a decent start if he was American rather than Canadian, but it would still necessitate a lot more information than this. if you want me to accept that he is left-leaning, I'm going to need many left-wing positions that he supports, and many right-wing positions that he condemns. the fact that he's anti-collectivist, in my mind, inherently keeps him out of any leftist ideologies, so you're going to need all the more evidence for that. the fact that he became famous for protesting against a transgender protection bill on the laughable notion that it would restrict free speech (another stereotypical right-wing "anti-PC/pro-Free Speech" position) is another strike against this idea. in addition, he's a fucking university prof who has spoken at length about Marxism but has never, to my knowledge, done an actual deconstruction of the ideology, focusing instead on certain areas where the Soviet Union did bad things (and simultaneously giving cartoonish exaggerations of those bad things). to top it all off, he's obviously aware that his audience is largely right-wing (at least, I hope he is). has he done anything specifically to disavow them beyond disavowing collectivist ideologies as a whole?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 8:50:19 PM #121:	COVxy posted... nicklebro posted... But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point. This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out: Balrog0 posted... as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science. You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy. Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896227575] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.</quote> This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out: <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.</quote> You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy.</quote> Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:02:58 PM #122:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. uh no this is blatantly incorrect, and I have no idea how this idea could even have occurred to you And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare. this might be a decent start if he was American rather than Canadian, but it would still necessitate a lot more information than this. if you want me to accept that he is left-leaning, I'm going to need many left-wing positions that he supports, and many right-wing positions that he condemns. the fact that he's anti-collectivist, in my mind, inherently keeps him out of any leftist ideologies, so you're going to need all the more evidence for that. the fact that he became famous for protesting against a transgender protection bill on the laughable notion that it would restrict free speech (another stereotypical right-wing "anti-PC/pro-Free Speech" position) is another strike against this idea. in addition, he's a fucking university prof who has spoken at length about Marxism but has never, to my knowledge, done an actual deconstruction of the ideology, focusing instead on certain areas where the Soviet Union did bad things (and simultaneously giving cartoonish exaggerations of those bad things). to top it all off, he's obviously aware that his audience is largely right-wing (at least, I hope he is). has he done anything specifically to disavow them beyond disavowing collectivist ideologies as a whole? You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896228150] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.</quote> uh no this is blatantly incorrect, and I have no idea how this idea could even have occurred to you <quote>And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.</quote> this might be a decent start if he was American rather than Canadian, but it would still necessitate a lot more information than this. if you want me to accept that he is left-leaning, I'm going to need many left-wing positions that he supports, and many right-wing positions that he condemns. the fact that he's anti-collectivist, in my mind, inherently keeps him out of any leftist ideologies, so you're going to need all the more evidence for that. the fact that he became famous for protesting against a transgender protection bill on the laughable notion that it would restrict free speech (another stereotypical right-wing "anti-PC/pro-Free Speech" position) is another strike against this idea. in addition, he's a fucking university prof who has spoken at length about Marxism but has never, to my knowledge, done an actual deconstruction of the ideology, focusing instead on certain areas where the Soviet Union did bad things (and simultaneously giving cartoonish exaggerations of those bad things). to top it all off, he's obviously aware that his audience is largely right-wing (at least, I hope he is). has he done anything specifically to disavow them beyond disavowing collectivist ideologies as a whole?</quote> You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 9:08:01 PM #123:	nicklebro posted... You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896228381] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:22:50 PM #124:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede? Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896229081] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?</quote> Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 02/16/18 9:24:46 PM #125:	Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that --- http://i.imgur.com/bbRWLI8.gif https://i.imgur.com/A0BErSV.jpg <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:896229181] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:28:50 PM #126:	Bio1590 posted... Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896229385] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that</quote> Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 9:30:05 PM #127:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede? Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post. you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896229461] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?</quote> Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.</quote> you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:34:17 PM #128:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede? Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post. you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him. O ok, thank you for your opinion. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896229683] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?</quote> Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.</quote> you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him.</quote> O ok, thank you for your opinion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 9:35:24 PM #129:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something. are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede? Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post. you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him. O ok, thank you for your opinion. still waiting on your supposed evidence that Peterson is left-leaning --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896229730] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.</quote> are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?</quote> Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.</quote> you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning. you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him.</quote> O ok, thank you for your opinion.</quote> still waiting on your supposed evidence that Peterson is left-leaning</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 9:35:39 PM #130:	"It doesn't matter that he lied, you're just missing the meaning of what he says" is a weird defense of someone who says one should speak precisely, but then does anything but. JP is 100% a right-winger. He even says he's a classical liberal. Also any time someone who isn't in math or logic brings up Goedel, they're doing it to talk about things they don't understand. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896229744] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>"It doesn't matter that he lied, you're just missing the meaning of what he says" is a weird defense of someone who says one should speak precisely, but then does anything but. JP is 100% a right-winger. He even says he's a classical liberal. Also any time someone who isn't in math or logic brings up Goedel, they're doing it to talk about things they don't understand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 02/16/18 9:41:25 PM #131:	nicklebro posted... Bio1590 posted... Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that. No, it's a terrible sign. --- http://i.imgur.com/bbRWLI8.gif https://i.imgur.com/A0BErSV.jpg <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:896230028] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that</quote> Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that.</quote> No, it's a terrible sign.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:43:28 PM #132:	averagejoel posted... still waiting on your supposed evidence that Peterson is left-leaning k lderivedx posted... "It doesn't matter that he lied, you're just missing the meaning of what he says" is a weird defense of someone who says one should speak precisely, but then does anything but. JP is 100% a right-winger. He even says he's a classical liberal. Also any time someone who isn't in math or logic brings up Goedel, they're doing it to talk about things they don't understand. What did he lie about? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896230117] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote> still waiting on your supposed evidence that Peterson is left-leaning</quote> k <cite>lderivedx posted...</cite> <quote>"It doesn't matter that he lied, you're just missing the meaning of what he says" is a weird defense of someone who says one should speak precisely, but then does anything but. JP is 100% a right-winger. He even says he's a classical liberal. Also any time someone who isn't in math or logic brings up Goedel, they're doing it to talk about things they don't understand.</quote> What did he lie about?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:47:29 PM #133:	Bio1590 posted... nicklebro posted... Bio1590 posted... Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that. No, it's a terrible sign. So agreeing with Proudclad is good? I'm not sure what your argument is. Regardless, I don't base my beliefs on what Proudclad thinks, so do you have anything of actual substance that I can see? Really guys, if Peterson did or said something to make me question his integrity, I'd like to know. Like sincerely. So maybe stop trying to convince me and just show me what convinced you? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896230302] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Dude Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson. Think about that</quote> Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that.</quote> No, it's a terrible sign.</quote> So agreeing with Proudclad is good? I'm not sure what your argument is. Regardless, I don't base my beliefs on what Proudclad thinks, so do you have anything of actual substance that I can see? Really guys, if Peterson did or said something to make me question his integrity, I'd like to know. Like sincerely. So maybe stop trying to convince me and just show me what convinced you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 9:47:29 PM #134:	nicklebro posted... What did he lie about? Well, C16 for starters. He doesn't get much right in the way of lobsters, either. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896230303] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>What did he lie about? </quote> Well, C16 for starters. He doesn't get much right in the way of lobsters, either.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:49:00 PM #135:	lderivedx posted... nicklebro posted... What did he lie about? Well, C16 for starters. He doesn't get much right in the way of lobsters, either. Ok can you outline those lies? Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896230366] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>lderivedx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>What did he lie about? </quote> Well, C16 for starters. He doesn't get much right in the way of lobsters, either.</quote> Ok can you outline those lies? Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 9:49:30 PM #136:	nicklebro posted... anything of actual substance that I can see? well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896230389] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>anything of actual substance that I can see? </quote> well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:53:14 PM #137:	averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... anything of actual substance that I can see? well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing There's literally no substance whatsoever in that post. Seriously, even if what you were saying was actually true, you didn't actually include any substance. Saying "Jordan Peterson was wrong" isn't substance, even if he was in fact wrong. You have to actually show what he was lying about, y'know actual substance. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896230579] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>anything of actual substance that I can see? </quote> well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing</quote> There's literally no substance whatsoever in that post. Seriously, even if what you were saying was actually true, you didn't actually include any substance. Saying "Jordan Peterson was wrong" isn't substance, even if he was in fact wrong. You have to actually show what he was lying about, y'know actual substance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 9:53:40 PM #138:	nicklebro posted... Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied. Uh huh. It's not "compelling" you to use someone's preferred pronouns, for one. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896230601] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied.</quote> Uh huh. It's not "compelling" you to use someone's preferred pronouns, for one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 9:56:23 PM #139:	lderivedx posted... nicklebro posted... Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied. Uh huh. It's not "compelling" you to use someone's preferred pronouns, for one. Ok well from what I've read, it is. Can you prove that? I'm not a lawyer so I obviously can't claim any kind of authority on the subject. And if this is true, I don't think that'd be Peterson lying, I think that'd just be him being wrong. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896230733] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>lderivedx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied.</quote> Uh huh. It's not "compelling" you to use someone's preferred pronouns, for one.</quote> Ok well from what I've read, it is. Can you prove that? I'm not a lawyer so I obviously can't claim any kind of authority on the subject. And if this is true, I don't think that'd be Peterson lying, I think that'd just be him being wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 9:59:49 PM #140:	nicklebro posted... averagejoel posted... nicklebro posted... anything of actual substance that I can see? well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing There's literally no substance whatsoever in that post. Seriously, even if what you were saying was actually true, you didn't actually include any substance. Saying "Jordan Peterson was wrong" isn't substance, even if he was in fact wrong. You have to actually show what he was lying about, y'know actual substance. I never claimed he was lying. I claimed he was not left-leaning. the fact that you bring this up to me is evidence that you either didn't read or didn't understand my post. read it again (or for the first time) and address something in it, or I will assume that you concede everything in the post --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896230896] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>anything of actual substance that I can see? </quote> well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing</quote> There's literally no substance whatsoever in that post. Seriously, even if what you were saying was actually true, you didn't actually include any substance. Saying "Jordan Peterson was wrong" isn't substance, even if he was in fact wrong. You have to actually show what he was lying about, y'know actual substance.</quote> I never claimed he was lying. I claimed he was not left-leaning. the fact that you bring this up to me is evidence that you either didn't read or didn't understand my post. read it again (or for the first time) and address something in it, or I will assume that you concede everything in the post</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 10:00:01 PM #141:	nicklebro posted... Ok well from what I've read, it is. Do you get your news from bloggers and other hacks? Page 3-4 http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f nicklebro posted... And if this is true, I don't think that'd be Peterson lying, I think that'd just be him being wrong. "He wasn't wrong and if he was, it wasn't intentional anyway." He's milked it for over a year now. The relevant experts disagree with his assessment, but his patreon donors sure don't. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896230906] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>Ok well from what I've read, it is.</quote> Do you get your news from bloggers and other hacks? Page 3-4 http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>And if this is true, I don't think that'd be Peterson lying, I think that'd just be him being wrong. </quote> "He wasn't wrong and if he was, it wasn't intentional anyway." He's milked it for over a year now. The relevant experts disagree with his assessment, but his patreon donors sure don't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 10:02:34 PM #142:	The OHRC has produced a policy on gender identity and expression and what constitutes harassment and discrimination, including refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun. Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination. Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory. https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/ Seems pretty straightforward to me... --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896231018] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><quote>The OHRC has produced a policy on gender identity and expression and what constitutes harassment and discrimination, including refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun. Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination. What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination. Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory.</quote> https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/ Seems pretty straightforward to me...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 10:04:05 PM #143:	It's really, really weird how people feel the need to defend everything about a rambling professor who likes to talk outside his expertise, has an unhealthy obsession with the USSR, blames women for being sexually harassed, and cries at the thought of "Western civilization" tumbling down. Really weird. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896231083] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>It's really, really weird how people feel the need to defend everything about a rambling professor who likes to talk outside his expertise, has an unhealthy obsession with the USSR, blames women for being sexually harassed, and cries at the thought of "Western civilization" tumbling down. Really weird.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/16/18 10:07:55 PM #144:	lderivedx posted... It's really, really weird how people feel the need to defend everything about a rambling professor who likes to talk outside his expertise, has an unhealthy obsession with the USSR, blames women for being sexually harassed, and cries at the thought of "Western civilization" tumbling down. Really weird. I think it's extremely normal that this doddering old man tells edgy libertarians and alt-righters to stand up straight and clean their rooms and they still follow him like he's the leader of their cult. extremely. normal. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:896231269] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>lderivedx posted...</cite> <quote>It's really, really weird how people feel the need to defend everything about a rambling professor who likes to talk outside his expertise, has an unhealthy obsession with the USSR, blames women for being sexually harassed, and cries at the thought of "Western civilization" tumbling down. Really weird.</quote> I think it's extremely normal that this doddering old man tells edgy libertarians and alt-righters to stand up straight and clean their rooms and they still follow him like he's the leader of their cult. extremely. normal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 10:13:27 PM #145:	Why can't anyone have a conversation about this guy without getting so emotional? I've literally been asking the same questions for how long now and you're just getting mad that I'm not just agreeing with you. Lol I mean you're literally claiming that you know for a fact that not only is Peterson wrong about C16, but he knew he was wrong and intentionally lied about it. You haven't proved the former, let alone the latter. And I don't think Peterson really talks about C16 very much anymore, but obviously if you don't actually listen to what he has to say its hard to know that. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896231530] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Why can't anyone have a conversation about this guy without getting so emotional? I've literally been asking the same questions for how long now and you're just getting mad that I'm not just agreeing with you. Lol I mean you're literally claiming that you know for a fact that not only is Peterson wrong about C16, but he knew he was wrong and intentionally lied about it. You haven't proved the former, let alone the latter. And I don't think Peterson really talks about C16 very much anymore, but obviously if you don't actually listen to what he has to say its hard to know that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 10:13:31 PM #146:	Also strange that I can't seem to find any cases where someone has been fined or jailed for using the wrong pronouns. Almost like it's a completely fabricated moral panic. nicklebro posted... https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/ The internet has done a nice job letting people live in their own reality. You found a commercial litigator's blog and this somehow is equal evidence to the canadian bar association's opinion? --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896231533] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Also strange that I can't seem to find any cases where someone has been fined or jailed for using the wrong pronouns. Almost like it's a completely fabricated moral panic. <cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/</quote> The internet has done a nice job letting people live in their own reality. You found a commercial litigator's blog and this somehow is equal evidence to the canadian bar association's opinion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 10:20:49 PM #147:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg Idk man, I'm not a lawyer. But Peterson is far from the only person saying this, and that proves that its at least a debate. Pretty sure that your bias is filling in the rest. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896231887] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg Idk man, I'm not a lawyer. But Peterson is far from the only person saying this, and that proves that its at least a debate. Pretty sure that your bias is filling in the rest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 10:21:33 PM #148:	lderivedx posted... The internet has done a nice job letting people live in their own reality. You ignore anything that contradicts your opinion and latch on to the few things you can find that confirm them. You're like an antivaxxer. Why JP is so important to you, I have no idea. --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896231917] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote><cite>lderivedx posted...</cite> <quote>The internet has done a nice job letting people live in their own reality.</quote> You ignore anything that contradicts your opinion and latch on to the few things you can find that confirm them. You're like an antivaxxer. Why JP is so important to you, I have no idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 02/16/18 10:23:23 PM #149:	But you're sure that doesn't apply to you? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:896232005] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>But you're sure that doesn't apply to you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lderivedx 02/16/18 10:26:06 PM #150:	Well, since my opinion is evidenced by more than just blogs (and nobody has gone to jail for it)... --- i cant get off unless we're violating at least four OSHA regulations <cite>lderivedx posted [p:896232144] in Noted inte... [t:76320153]...</cite> <quote>Well, since my opinion is evidenced by more than just blogs (and nobody has gone to jail for it)...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter