Current Events > Joe Rogan: Jordan Peterson Is NOT Alt-Right!

(+) Yeah! (+)

RebelElite791 posted...

Idiot with useless opinions commenting on idiot with useless opinions.

Yes, I'm sure that everyone was looking for the opinions of a "woke" millennial trapped in a vegan bubble.
---

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

Even less so than all that other shit. It was meant to describe a particular kind of person, but now it's anyone with a progressive thought. Obviously racist and all that other shit has a meaning, it's just thrown around so much that when someone gets a label, maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

---

shnangyboos posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

Even less so than all that other shit. It was meant to describe a particular kind of person, but now it's anyone with a progressive thought. Obviously racist and all that other shit has a meaning, it's just thrown around so much that when someone gets a label, maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

I agree.
---

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth.

So its basically reality. Good to know.
---

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think my explanation was pretty neutral.
---

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think it would be difficult to argue that they gained their wealth and power unjustly without implying that everyone else with wealth and power also gained it unjustly.

NeoShadowhen posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think it would be difficult to argue that they gained their wealth and power unjustly without implying that everyone else with wealth and power also gained it unjustly.

.....nah, I think it's pretty easy to argue that a group in society that gave themselves political and economic power and excluded everyone not white, not male, and not straight through control of social norms, the criminal justice system, outright violence, and the Constitution itself from the founding of the country until the 70s at earliest, got that power unjustly. Wtf is unjust if that's not unjust? No one else was even allowed to compete, so how was it fair?
---

NeoShadowhen posted...

I think it would be difficult to argue that they gained their wealth and power unjustly without implying that everyone else with wealth and power also gained it unjustly.

Hoo, that's also a fair point.

Still, if the already unfair game of obtaining wealth and power is further rigged along racial and gender lines (which it has been), I don't think its wrong to suggest that the power-and-wealth disparity along racial lines is even more unfairness onto the unfairness pile. But ultimately, I think its important to be wary of the liberal notion that we need more black people and women in positions of power and influence, because that isn't going to solve the problem of power and influence. We need fewer and weaker sharks in the ocean of humanity, not a more diverse selection of them.
---

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I'm always curious with these types, like at which point in history do they think the imbalance was erased? We know for a fact how men had more power and wealth back when they used to practically own women. We know women were barely allowed outside alone before they fought to get the right to vote. And we have all these metrics showing how men held disproportionate amounts of wealth and power back then, and we know they haven't gone up to even yet. So like, which point of history are we missing where women (and other marginalized groups) suddenly came into their own and got the wealth and power traditionally held by men? And why isn't it showing up?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think my explanation was pretty neutral.

Neutral in that it cuts out all of history. That definition includes anyone who is aware of....anything.
---

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think my explanation was pretty neutral.

Neutral in that it cuts out all of history. That definition includes anyone who is aware of....anything.

All of history, including military conquest by all groups of people, slave ownership by all groups of people, a disproportionate amount of scientific discoveries by Europeans in recent history, the discovery of penicillin, modern agriculture and medical care, etc.

Life isnt as simple as intersectional feminists and alt righters make it seem. Each demographic has a mixed contribution to humanity. No group has a monopoly on violence.
---

NeoShadowhen posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

At a high level, the alt right has the below ideas.

1. Hate Jews and Israel: N/A for JP
2. Want a white ethnostate: N/A for JP
3. Oppose foreign intervention by US military: Ive never heard JP touch on this subject so I dont know.
4. Left leaning economic views: I believe this is true for JP.

So overall, outside of his potentially left leaning economics, JP doesnt have much in common with the alt right. Of course thats going to be lost on people who think alt right = criticism of SJWs.

Way to leave out the other characteristics of the alt right to fit your narrative.

List them.

1: definitely reactionary principles
2: pro patriarchy misogynistic foundation
3: outright ban or really strict immigration laws in regards to countries with brown population
4: using skewed science and descriptive loaded to claims to a make a case that white men are the most superior human beings without outright declaration
5: any more?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think my explanation was pretty neutral.

Neutral in that it cuts out all of history. That definition includes anyone who is aware of....anything.

All of history, including military conquest by all groups of people, slave ownership by all groups of people, a disproportionate amount of scientific discoveries by Europeans in recent history, the discovery of penicillin, modern agriculture and medical care, etc.

Life isnt as simple as intersectional feminists and alt righters make it seem. Each demographic has a mixed contribution to humanity. No group has a monopoly on violence.

All of the other groups weren't even allowed to participate in the scientific discovery you're talking about! Because they were slaves or property or outcasts.

Yes, groups of people throughout history have participated in heinous acts and taken advantage of others. But if we're talking about the factors that led to the current distribution of wealth and power in modern society, it was definitely white men doing most of that because again, they were the only ones who were allowed to play the game. Everyone else wasn't just lazing around relying on white men to discover everything, they were deliberately excluded from every mechanism that allows discovery to happen.

It certainly wasn't women and minorities depriving themselves of the right to vote or excluding themselves from law firms etc. No one ever asserted that anyone has or ever had a monopoly, that's a strawman constructed from whole cloth.
---

I don't think Peterson is himself some sort of alt-righter. But it's easy to see why his messages appeal to those who are. His thesis, as I understand it (and admittedly I haven't watched the 400 hours of YouTube lectures his fans sometimes demand) is that hierarchies in society are natural, and because of their naturalness, good. He believes those (postmodern neo Marxists, in his parlance) who seek to undo these hierarchies are putting society in danger of going horribly astray from the structures that led us to our present condition.

This is all gussied up with academic language, but strip that away and you can end up with a message that sounds an awful lot like "those SJWs are tearing straight white men down"
---

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters
---

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right
---

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right

Saying **** like enforced monogamy and women dont belong in the workplace is as alt right as you can get
---

It's funny, you'd think JBallen would have more sympathy for the alt-right given the fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
---

*shrug*
I don't like peterson in the slightest, but his overall rhetoric seems different to me than the likes of the undisputed alt righters like lauren southern, steven molyneux, richard spencer, blah blah
---

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

creativerealms posted...

Related question, do you think SJW has a meaning?

It applies to intersectional feminists who think that straight white males have unjustly obtained a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. It has a lot in common with alt right views if you replace straight white males with Jews. That comparison still misses the fact that SJWs and alt righters have polar opposite views on LGBT issues.

.....wait, are you arguing that straight white makes HAVEN'T unjustly gained a disproportionate amount of wealth and power? You say that like it's some type of conspiracy theory and not a historical and currently existing fact.

I think my explanation was pretty neutral.

Neutral in that it cuts out all of history. That definition includes anyone who is aware of....anything.

All of history, including military conquest by all groups of people, slave ownership by all groups of people, a disproportionate amount of scientific discoveries by Europeans in recent history, the discovery of penicillin, modern agriculture and medical care, etc.

Life isnt as simple as intersectional feminists and alt righters make it seem. Each demographic has a mixed contribution to humanity. No group has a monopoly on violence.

All of the other groups weren't even allowed to participate in the scientific discovery you're talking about! Because they were slaves or property or outcasts.

Yes, groups of people throughout history have participated in heinous acts and taken advantage of others. But if we're talking about the factors that led to the current distribution of wealth and power in modern society, it was definitely white men doing most of that because again, they were the only ones who were allowed to play the game. Everyone else wasn't just lazing around relying on white men to discover everything, they were deliberately excluded from every mechanism that allows discovery to happen.

It certainly wasn't women and minorities depriving themselves of the right to vote or excluding themselves from law firms etc. No one ever asserted that anyone has or ever had a monopoly, that's a strawman constructed from whole cloth.

You cant use historical oppression to explain all differences in outcomes away. For example, when the Dutch arrived in South Africa, they brought modern agriculture. Tribes have been living on that land for a long time, and tribes have been fighting each other there for just as long. White people werent stopping anybody from learning how to farm during all those centuries. Since then, the Dutch instituted racist and terrible policies... and fed millions of people.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right

Saying **** like enforced monogamy and women dont belong in the workplace is as alt right as you can get

That's not what he says though.

He's the kind of person that if you want to find clickbait that mischaracterizes what he says in horrible ways there's plenty of it out there, but when it comes to what he literally says it's pretty tame.
---

ThyCorndog posted...

*shrug*
I don't like peterson in the slightest, but his overall rhetoric seems different to me than the likes of the undisputed alt righters like lauren southern, steven molyneux, richard spencer, blah blah

Because he plays a different strategy
---

joe40001 posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right

Saying **** like enforced monogamy and women dont belong in the workplace is as alt right as you can get

That's not what he says though.

He's the kind of person that if you want to find clickbait that mischaracterizes what he says in horrible ways there's plenty of it out there, but when it comes to what he literally says it's pretty tame.

Thats what he does, hell give you a vague implied normative claim then say thats what I said and then proceed to his Jordan Peterson dance around the question strategy
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

joe40001 posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right

Saying **** like enforced monogamy and women dont belong in the workplace is as alt right as you can get

That's not what he says though.

He's the kind of person that if you want to find clickbait that mischaracterizes what he says in horrible ways there's plenty of it out there, but when it comes to what he literally says it's pretty tame.

Thats what he does, hell give you a vague implied normative claim then say thats what I said and then proceed to his Jordan Peterson dance around the question strategy

Can he be a bit obtuse in communication sometimes? Yes
Is he evil or alt-right? No
---

joe40001 posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

joe40001 posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah peterson is not alt right but his message resonates with the online alt righter crowd, who are the reason why he's become popular. so he's going to keep saying the things that have made him popular, aka the things that appeal to alt righters

Not alt right, but resonates with alt right?!?! Lmao

well, as an example: if ben shapiro only talked about the parts of his philosophy that appealed to alt right, would he be alt right?
shapiro is a straight up neocon and not an alt righter. what I'm saying is peterson focuses on the parts of his idealogy that appeal to the alt right because that's what makes him popular

an example of someone who's been doing that is sam harris. he's not alt right but if you only listened to what he's been saying recently, you might mistake him for being alt right

Saying **** like enforced monogamy and women dont belong in the workplace is as alt right as you can get

That's not what he says though.

He's the kind of person that if you want to find clickbait that mischaracterizes what he says in horrible ways there's plenty of it out there, but when it comes to what he literally says it's pretty tame.

Thats what he does, hell give you a vague implied normative claim then say thats what I said and then proceed to his Jordan Peterson dance around the question strategy

Can he be a bit obtuse in communication sometimes? Yes
Is he evil or alt-right? No

If he doesnt believe in these alt right principles then why cant he give an up straight answer or hell simple solutions to what he thinks can remedy the problem?
---

JPs not alt-right. Anyway, have we discovered that a member of Donald Trumps administration is a CEman going by the name of FrisbeeDude?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHWEKpelJqs" data-time="
---

He's a neocon like Ben Shapiro. He has a lot of basic good-to-know info and is encouraging to young people most of the time, but he also shits on anyone who has a socially left view and got exposed by Zizek on his reactionary nonsense in regards to academia. He's also an arrogant hot head and easily thrown off at which point he can claim being attacked like is so often the move for his type these days.
---

Correction: jp is literally hitler. Alt right overload joe rogaine strikes again!

---

Whats wrong with being alt right? Ive noticed this trend on how ashamed of themselves the alt right is?
---

You cant use historical oppression to explain all differences in outcomes away. For example, when the Dutch arrived in South Africa, they brought modern agriculture. Tribes have been living on that land for a long time, and tribes have been fighting each other there for just as long. White people werent stopping anybody from learning how to farm during all those centuries. Since then, the Dutch instituted racist and terrible policies... and fed millions of people.

I never said it explained all differences in outcomes, I said it's a basic, bedrock historical fact that straight white men unfairly gained and hold disproportionate power and wealth in our society. I don't know how we can even discuss politics or society without acknowledging something so demonstrable and elemental.

You seem to have some other theories about why different groups have different outcomes, and they must be very strong indeed if they can produce our current and historical results while you discount the role of oppression.
---

legendary_zell posted...

You cant use historical oppression to explain all differences in outcomes away. For example, when the Dutch arrived in South Africa, they brought modern agriculture. Tribes have been living on that land for a long time, and tribes have been fighting each other there for just as long. White people werent stopping anybody from learning how to farm during all those centuries. Since then, the Dutch instituted racist and terrible policies... and fed millions of people.

I never said it explained all differences in outcomes, I said it's a basic, bedrock historical fact that straight white men unfairly gained and hold disproportionate power and wealth in our society. I don't know how we can even discuss politics or society without acknowledging something so demonstrable and elemental.

You seem to have some other theories about why different groups have different outcomes, and they must be very strong indeed if they can produce our current and historical results while you discount the role of oppression.

I love how the guy you quoted simply ignored apartheid
---

tennisdude818 posted...

You cant use historical oppression to explain all differences in outcomes away. For example, when the Dutch arrived in South Africa, they brought modern agriculture. Tribes have been living on that land for a long time, and tribes have been fighting each other there for just as long. White people werent stopping anybody from learning how to farm during all those centuries. Since then, the Dutch instituted racist and terrible policies... and fed millions of people.

lmao are you serious
---

I don't know if Jordan Peterson is actually alt-right, but he certainly skates around espousing alt-right rhetoric. Specifically, MGTOW. I just don't know if he actually believes his nonsense or he saw a business opportunity.

Besides, Joe Rogan himself cornered Peterson in a logic loop when he was on before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoDX1HheFY" data-time="
---

Jaded_Dragon posted...

I don't know if Jordan Peterson is actually alt-right, but he certainly skates around espousing alt-right rhetoric. Specifically, MGTOW. I just don't know if he actually believes his nonsense or he saw a business opportunity.

Besides, Joe Rogan himself cornered Peterson in a logic loop when he was on before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoDX1HheFY" data-time="

Sam Seder is such a smug chore. IMO.

There may be something in the clip itself, I've watched all the Joe Rogan/Jordan Peterson interviews and it's not like I agree with Peterson 100% of the time. But I don't want to deal with the wrapper of Sam Seder to get to it.

Overall Peterson is a smart guy who has helped a lot of people and isn't hateful or bigoted.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

He isnt

Then who is?

joe40001 posted...

Sam Seder is such a smug chore. IMO.

Sam Seder is probably the most intelligent and easy to listen to political commentators out there.

I'd agree that every single one of his sidekicks are a smug prick who are insufferable, though.

---

Shablagoo posted...

JPs not alt-right. Anyway, have we discovered that a member of Donald Trumps administration is a CEman going by the name of FrisbeeDude?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHWEKpelJqs" data-time="

as a black person, it's best for my mental health not to engage with certain people when they display anti-black sentiments. I'm slightly more willing to do it when black people do it, but even that is sparingly.


---

DeadBankerDream posted...

joe40001 posted...

Sam Seder is such a smug chore. IMO.

Sam Seder is probably the most intelligent and easy to listen to political commentators out there.

I'd agree that every single one of his sidekicks are a smug prick who are insufferable, though.

Anybody like him or Crowder who has a peanut gallery of people who just agree and cheer on every little fucking thing somebody says is just such a chore to watch.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Never understood the obsession with labels.

Labels here are used to discredit someone. They do it out of malice.

FrisbeeDude posted...

shnangyboos posted...

Look, my ethnicity is about to be used to invalidate my position.

If you're not comfortable giving out that info, I would totally understand why

Wow
---

fhqwhgads posted...

Wow

"Alt-right, bigot, racist, transphobe, etc... these have all become totally meaningless words."

I'm not arguing with a white person about this. sorry not sorry

---

FrisbeeDude posted...

If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me

---

FrisbeeDude posted...

fhqwhgads posted...

Wow

"Alt-right, bigot, racist, transphobe, etc... these have all become totally meaningless words."

I'm not arguing with a white person about this. sorry not sorry

Youre woke enough to realize that the message is less important than the skin color of the person delivering it. Yaaaaas
---

Dismantling traditional hierarchies allows us to evolve as a species. JPs words. His concern is the temporary unstabilty that results because of it. You know... like white males raging. So in a sense, hes right. He warns that its a dangerous path because it is. That doesn't mean hes some sort of alt right looney.

tennisdude818 posted...

Youre woke enough to realize that the message is less important than the skin color of the person delivering it. Yaaaaas

cool.

---

@FrisbeeDude what are your thoughts on white people?
---