I want Yea Forums's opinion on this faggot

the guy is based

I like him and the message he's putting out.
he's well read, intelligent and religious
I like his views on religion and his Bible series is great.

>clean your room
My room is clean, thank you very much. There might be an empty can of red bull on the desk but I just finished it, gimme a break.

Having children is a good thing, if you don’t its tough to find meaning in life, it’s literally what ever animal was put on earth to do

“Dr Peterson, Why do you believe in god?”

“Well that depends on what you mean believe, and it also depends on what you mean by god. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”

Just personal opinion, I guess. Even at an early age, I've always viewed having kids as immoral and have been afraid of what my life would be reduced to if I knocked up some skank.

Why not? He appears to have more logic than 90% of the western political elite combined.

>you should look inward for answers to your problems
>buy my next book and listen to me speak

Don’t knock up some skank instead find someone who you love and trust

I've never heard him say anything useful. He either states things that are obvious or goes into vague nonsense.

Just curious, not judging, but are you a wizard? Context matters.

>idiots who live their life through Disney quotes
so you do exist

The whole kid thing.. why would I subject another being to this shit existence? Just to give ME some meaning? That's pretty fucking selfish

>dude uses logic to explain simple shit
>gets attacked by people who can't suffer to listen

If you think existence is shit, kill yourself.

Based internet daddy
Free speech protector
Keeper of the sanity

well that is a complicated question. religious belief is something very personal.
and people expecting a quick, simple answer are simply dense.

He also goes into bizarre metaphorical gibbering.

Jordan "Smuggler" Peterson.

>bitch boys try to bash him with invented quotes

I think the mere fact that he says obvious things is useful. Considering that the vast majority of the population is not very smart, I praise him for having the balls to spread these controversial truths. I know these truths, I have seen them for myself, but I'm too lazy and unmotivated to spread the word. Or maybe I just don't give a shit. I don't know.

I thought this quote would be utterly annoying and insufferable. You proved me right.

I don't know, man. I think having kids would make me happy. It's in the simple things that one finds happiness. Carpe Diem, that's what the guy said. And I guarantee my life got 10x better when I stopped giving a shit and going back to the basics.

no shit sherlock

Hes great. His videos have gotten me close to fixing my shit a few times. Gotten me periods of lowered depression. Made me clean my room and taking care of my hygiene a few times. While its never stuck or completely gotten me out of my rut i feel like it could have. And he have definitely helped others. His views on politics are pretty good - if people took ot to heart wed have less division and fighting. Esp since people seem to be getting more extreme in politics nowadays. All in all he seems like a stand-up guy. Very honest. Admits when hes wrong about something right away when he says something ill thought out. 10/10.

well, most people can't suffer to listen. People are stupid, that's the way we are. Knowledge is a curse, but also a blessing. Only you can decide what to do with it.

this thread:
>a bunch of barely educated basement dwellers judging a successful, experienced psychologist and professor

Thanks for this honest review, user.

Yes, that's true enough. The most heinous acts are usually done by people governed by ideals, not pragmatism.

Skanks are just an example. It would be actually worse with someone you trusted since then you'd feel beholden to support them. I've never wanted to have someone relying on me and I genuinely feel nothing but pity towards men with children. I often wonder what stops them from ending themselves.

No. Against my better judgement, I did get married.

Thats my nigga Rick Sanchez

Attached: 1553562174531.jpg (1024x633, 57K)

no u

>No. Against my better judgement, I did get married.
do you believe it was a mistake? Did yo find happiness in marriage or is it just some bullshit we all tell ourselves because we're afraid to die alone?

Yur mom gay

who's judging shit? learn to read

giving your opinion =/= judging

no u

You don't understand nothing

why are you responding to an obvious bait

You're not making any sense

Yur dad lesbian

cause I want to, what are you gonna do about it?

OH SHIT MY NIGGA I JUST GOT ROASTED

Yes, of course. My take on marriage is that the upside is negligible and the downside can be outright ruinous.

It actually shouldn't be done unless you actually commit to having children. And you shouldn't have children unless you are quite wealthy. So... I guess I believe that only the very wealthy should get married....?

I have to say, that's an odd belief, and I've never thought of it that way. But it does follow from my other positions so there it is.

Imma hump your cat

>Even at an early age

you are not more than 25 with these edgelord beliefs. lol

He's beloved by incels.
He thinks atheists are evil.
He says logical proof always comes down to God.
He thinks divorce is wrong.
He believes women wearing makeup are asking to be sexually harassed.
He says all women secretly want to be brutally dominated by men.
He claims ancient Egyptians and Hindus somehow discovered DNA's structure.
He thinks men should look to lobsters for inspiration. (Yes, really.)

All reasons for me to think he's a con man at best (using incel language to get their money & support) and a complete fucking asshole at worst.

whiwh one? both are female so if you're a faggot you're sol

I bet 5 bucks that all this shit is written by one single shill, pathetic

Wut

No, I'm already middle-aged.

What if your the shill?!?!?!?

He's overrated

Is he? Good. Incels needs all the help they can get.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Never heard him say that. Link plz.
No.

Whatever opinion you have is fine, but do get your facts straight.

fucking this.

>one shill
>20 unique posters
that is one VPN shill ninja then

keep weeping redditfag

Attached: 1553349787016.jpg (600x401, 59K)

user, just because you're a degenerate faggot who wants science to stop spending money on the LHC and invest it into how many cocks your asshole can take physically take at the same time, doesn't mean that his points are wrong, it's just you who is degenerate.

The eye patch was a cool touch in the Dr Evil movies

wash your penis

Attached: Jordan Peterson.webm (854x480, 1.22M)

i'm scarred for life now.

dont watch gay porn, sorry

Oh papa jordan more yumyums in my tumtum please!!!

Identity politics is for low IQ losers

Then I just gonna do what the jews did to Hitler when he was a little boy

He threatens the very existence of beta males and feminists, so he is a great man, in my book.

nothing then, oky doky

A Rabbi high on bath salts broke in to his house, had sex with his mother in front of him and jizzed on lil hitlers pillow.

Damn Rick if you need pussy just hit me up, ill let you cum in my ass anytime.

Attached: 1553561523406.jpg (741x1024, 96K)

>He says all women secretly want to be brutally dominated by men.
Isn't this a fact?

What kind of dressing do you prefer on your word salad?

He is a master troll of plebs

Yes now dominate me fag

Attached: 2019-03-17 20.17.34.png (719x1105, 788K)

What kind of up do you like on your shut the fuck up.

He's a harsh man, just like the truth

He's bamboozled a bunch of simpering brainlets with grandiose word salad, but is actually a tremendous gaylord who loves attention.

Is that why I speak truth when I drink 151

None of that is true btw; maybe the first claim, who knows

Daddy issue Lidocaine for men.

If you hate him you can blame single moms & voluntarily emasculated dads. Guy chews up liberal journalists and quasi intellectuals like nobody else without even breaking a sweat. Hope he keeps at it for many decades

Attached: 1553706118276.jpg (800x450, 44K)

Faggot dectected

dawwwwww...is there some pains in your anus right now? me so sorry :( no make cry bb

You don't speak the truth when you're drunk, you spout your opinion, and those can be shit

1) Incels are fucking awful shadows of men. They should be ignored, not supported.
2) He says atheists have no rational morals to prevent them from becoming murderers, and that Stalin was so bad because he's an atheist. In other words, atheism is evil (unless you think Stalin and murdering people are good things).
3) Peterson's Twitter: "Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved[note 3]). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof."
4) Peterson wrote "Why Shackle Yourself In Marriage" that claims divorce means you avoid "truth" and "spiritual transformation". In other words, marriage good, divorce bad.
5) In one of his videos, Peterson said that women who do not want to be sexually harassed need to avoid makeup, as that's hypocritical.
6) In another video (youtu.be/eV4iXfjonqI?t=420), Peterson said women secretly wish to be brutally dominated by men.
7) youtube.com/watch?v=J9j-bVDrGdI&t=65m49s Says hindu art "is DNA, but I can't tell you how I know that".
8) theconversation.com/amp/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489 Peterson on how lobsters serve as inspiration for our society

Sorry that your gaslighting attempt was so easily destroyed. Maybe you're spending too much time thinking like this asshole?

Asspain Critical
Achievement Unlocked

Yes but its only cause the buttplug

Lol wut

Awww, poor baby got all triggered because someone doesn't believe exactly the same way you do. Sad, really. But hey, keep imaging your boy Peterson as some kind of god, as maybe he'll let you swallow his cock if you agree with everything he says without thinking.

Well that's just like your Opinion man

A based normie who has become the circle jerk of all edgy normies and basement dwellers alike. Has a bunch of good points but due to the current political state the world is in he will never be taken seriously by anyone cause one stupid side idolize him and the other stupid side vilify him.

It's all true, actually. You just have to stop worshipping the guy long enough to look critically. I know it's so much easier to just ditto everything he says, but doing the easy route is not always a good thing.

Seriously, try the hard route where you fact-check and listen critically to Peterson. Warning: This can challenge your paradigm and make you feel all icky and stuff.

Awfull lot of faggots here...

Takes one to know one

i really liked him as Iron-Man

I've come to think he's alright actually. I liked his talk on the gender paradox on Joe Rogan.
Has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't take him as gospel.

It's hard to take a religious nutcase like this guy as some kind of pro-science and pro-logic guru. But you do, so yay?

In shock you cucks fall for his shit.

rekt

Bruh Rick sanchez aint never been in iron man

Awful lot of people here who think "ur a faggot lol" is a valid way to dismiss criticism. Which just proves how Peterson's zealots don't actually care about logic, reason, etc. They heard what they wanted to hear (that they're male victims of evil feminists) and nothing will change their mind.

Enjoy playing your victim card, incel assholes.

Masha's Interview part2c

I remember, I came the next day, when everyone would scrutinize these photos and videos to each other, and they say to me: “That's it, don't come tomorrow. Come - you fucked up. " And suddenly they call me to the college administration and start showing me photos. They turn my monitor to me, leaf through photos and type: “What is this?”. I say: “You, damn it, what, I'm 16 years old, why are you showing me this? Call the prosecutor’s office, let them tell you all this, you don’t have the right to stick a nose at me at this. ” Well, I left, right that day. Lasted somewhere up to the third pair and just left. My mind could not stand it.

In the last school I already studied on the evening basis, and only there everyone was not interested. Only those who did not finish their studies there studied: adults who want to get a certificate. Everybody didn't care at all.

About suicide attempts
There was no help: neither school psychologists, nor ordinary ones. She appeared only when I tried to kill myself. But this is already clear: they register, write you down to a psychologist, you go to him.

In total, I had three attempts at suicide. The first - in 14 years. Twice the pill, once - cut the veins. And every time I was saved.

And suddenly I realized that I could not let my parents down so much - they really helped. If I die, they will be very painful, and my friends will also be who have appeared. By the way, at some point, my father even offered to leave the city, move to the grandmother in the Krasnodar Territory, but I myself did not want to move, did not want to run away.

Eh, I don't care at all about him to do that; why would you care for someone else's opinion about your life style?

And thats how you find faggots.

let us see more of that gorgeous ass!

Autism flocks to autism.

Jordan weaponizes his to try and get you fellow autists to do meaningful things besides obsess over video games and being furries.

Ok but only since you asked nicely.

Attached: 2019-03-17 20.18.44.png (1060x671, 721K)

how is he not? sure hes a globalist jew puppet but his stance on masculinity and the gender pronouns is good

kys faggot

chuds are completely obsessed with worshiping him

Fuck me virgin

unlike most leftists, he doesn't think in a bubble. the left is making him famous for if not for the outrage against him, we would not know him.

You know you love my ass

Attached: 2019-03-17 20.20.32.png (1133x672, 817K)

This. There is no greater responsibility on this earth. Imagine if everyone took care of their shit, didnt steal, kill, etc. Taught their children to be morally responsible adults, and to reinforce these believes throughout the community. Imagine how much better our societies would be.

dude this is just some random whore you found online and now youre trying to pass it off as your own. youre most likely a fat manlet gathering dust and premature cum in your grandmas basement.

>implying no one will try their best to get in the way of that

Attached: file.png (452x523, 10K)

H-hey um user, can I ask you for a favour? Come join this /pol/ Discord server please, it's a really good server I promise! It would really make my day if you did... so join using this link right now:
discord
=|+|=|10|=|+|=
.gg/vvftDyy

Attached: join degeneracy akarin 10.png (320x360, 219K)

Nah brah it's oc

Attached: 2019-03-17 20.19.52.png (720x1073, 709K)

Since most opinions been covered he was right about one thing.. Transgenders using their pronoun game as a weapon. UK is seeing a ton of that. And its only getting worse. Need to stop having protected classes. Peterson is well versed and a good voice.

>Traps are not gay because there is no such thing as a trap. They are nothing.
>There are no chicks with dicks only dudes with tits.
>Fuck your pronouns.

Gotta say, pretty based

>I think Jordan promotes babying yourself too much
He's a psychologist, so that is a stance that comes naturally to him

Procreation is literally your biological purpose in life. You think your biological purpose is immoral? GMAB

I find his message very useful, his attitude arrogant. I prefer his book over his lecturing which is overly zealous. Overall I admire him.

Damn, someone on Yea Forums who is into nuance.

yikes are you a guy, honestly tranny fags should be lined up and shot. absolutely disgraceful

Attached: file.png (980x652, 985K)

basically the conservative christian deepak chopra
all woo woo, feelings, and word salad without any actual substance

15 metaphysical substrates to this based lad

except hes not conservative you absolute cuck

m.youtube.com/watch?v=im8cMIiz0K4

the perpetually recovering neurotic, almost as woke as watts or maynard

Unfortunately you are right.

What the fuck? You can trust a dishonest man to be dishonest? Are you just shitting on your keyboard?

I don't even know if I want to read the rest of the thread.

You're either missing the point, you're a retard, or you're building strawmen. You're wrong on pretty much every point.

>He's beloved by incels
Yes, and Hitler ate food. Do you eat food? Then you're basically Hitler.

>He thinks atheists are evil
He outright said atheists are able to have a working framework of morality outside of religion. But he claims that Western morality is ultimately derived from a combination of Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian writings. Which is absolutely true. Sorry user, you can't rewrite history.

>He says logical proof always comes down to God.
I've herd him use logical proof repeatedly, without mentioning God. I have no idea what you're talking about.

>He thinks divorce is wrong.
It is, if you believe in marriage to begin with.

>He believes women wearing makeup are asking to be sexually harassed.
Strawman. He believes makeup is sexual signalling, which it clearly is. That does not equate to "asking to be harassed"

>He says all women secretly want to be brutally dominated by men.
Link a source, I've never heard him say anything even remotely similar to this.

>He claims ancient Egyptians and Hindus somehow discovered DNA's structure.
Are you pulling things out of your ass?

>He thinks men should look to lobsters for inspiration.
He says hierarchical structures are innate in most biological organisms. So you can see similar behavior in lobsters and humans, because we share an evolutionary past that predisposes us to hierarchies. This is not looking to lobsters for inspiration... it is a simple biological fact.

>All reasons for me to think he's a con man at best (using incel language to get their money & support) and a complete fucking asshole at worst.
I think you are lazy at best, or are purposely misrepresenting his points to be an asshole. Peterson approaches the world from a few distinct perspectives, but he's intelligent and honest. You are neither.

I think he's struggling trying to come up with an explanation for deceptiveness.

An openly or proved dishonest man is someone you don't have to worry about, his dishonesty is no longer a mystery, but a seemingly honest man could actually be or become a dishonest one.

At least that's what I took out of that

>but a seemingly honest man could actually be or become a dishonest one
That makes no sense. It is an honest man.

An honest man does what?

based, i would have said the same but im just too tired to waste the braincells

Attached: file.png (807x659, 520K)

Given today's suicide rates, treating yourself nicer isn't bad advice at all.

That's what deceptiveness does, it twists your perception of what's the truth and what's the lie; under its principles, it does make sense, but so do many things; that's why brainwashing is effective.

he's a crazy leftist cult leader, worshiped by man-children all around the world

Here's my hot take: hero worship has tainted anything Peterson could've brought to the table, from an outsider's perspective. No one can actually parse the few novel genuine articles of his, if droves of robots are squawking about Chads and this buzzword and that buzzword and manhandling the entire fucking thing.

You didn't define what an honest man does. God fucking damn it, you are describing dishonesty still. An honest man isn't deceptive.

Honesty. Hon-es-ty. Brain. Use. No pull from ass.

...

You're being too literal with the word "honesty", I'm being literal with the word "deceptiveness".

I've explained that twice now you slow ass fag.

He advocates taking as much responsibility as you can possibly handle, strongly. And he things that a focus on personal happiness and rights is fundamentally flawed. As far as a focus on babying oneself, it's more of a distillation of what you are, rather than treating yourself as incapable. He would never suggest that someone should act as incapable-- but the psychologist in him does want to look into the more basic components of people's pasts.

He's aware of the suicide rates. His solution is to find meaning in your life, primarily through responsibility. That doesn't really describe what you're talking about.

Jordan Peterson is a scrawny old man with an eating disorder who has never worked a real day in his life but thinks he's in a position to lecture on what masculinity is.

Attached: peterson.jpg (555x474, 46K)

literally who?

He's ok

Isn't that the evil sorcerer from Dungeons and Dragons? ...the one with Marlon Wayans?

I don't agree with a lot of his points but I think he means well and is a smart and articulate guy. a lot of his supporters online are super annoying though

His haters don't really seem to know how to attack him. He's been accused of being everyone's puppet lol but face it, this is a man who's challenged the status quo, and those with influence will do whatever they can to undermine him

Saying "no" and nothing further is a clear cut indicator that you're speaking out of your ass. He said all of those things.
>defending incels
fucking kek. Guess we REALLY know whst kind of argument we're having now, huh?

10/10 god damn user you deserve an award

leftypol cuck spotted, eat shit and cry tranny fag

Motherfucker, at no point would asking for the literal definition of one thing make irrelevant the "literal" definition of another. You are giving me sophist rambling about the maybe-kinda-ises about deception. Not honesty. Unambiguous honesty. The very same honesty.

Honest man. Honest, man. The direct, semantic opposite of a dishonest man. A child could define this, instead of dancing around interpretations.

This is the quality of person you find suckling at Peterson's toes, on average.

Psychotherapists tend to be crazy themselves.
Jordan Peterson exploded into fame, and it's his station now to hash out ideas he's pondered for years.
Some of them are ok, others indicate a serious lack of understanding of the basics.
On one hand, he seems like a decent man at heart, and it's worth highlighting larger social problems that would allow someone so relatively inoffensive to accumulate such controversy and backlash.
On the other, the massive patreon donations he receives should contribute to a larger project by him which hasn't materlized.
As a therapist, he's probably perfectly aware he's at risk of inspiring a cult of personality, and his most adamant followers need to hold to him to the same standard of vigorous critique that he himself makes his career on.

Regardless of your opinion the fact that the establishment are banning his books and deciding for you that you shoudln't read or support his ideologies should tell you there is at least some truth in what he is saying.

Attached: 1553666856652.jpg (615x690, 133K)

>argues jordan peepeeson looks like a tranny fag
>somehow this makes him leftypol
ok fag keep whining about how you dont get laid all day lol

SJW ALERT SJW ALERT

MAGA chuds want us to believe this weepy frail old man is an expert on masculinity!

Attached: peterson.jpg (1280x720, 59K)

>the fact that the establishment are banning his books
citation needed

>An honest man isn't deceptive

How would you know that? If the man is deceptive he will look honest, if the man looks honest, that doesn't mean he's not deceiving you.

Honesty is this case is a perceptive asset of deceptiveness; can you prove a man is honest and -as established on the examples within time- will always be honest?

>Unambiguous honesty.

Is that actually a thing? Name a person who has been proved to have been honest all his life.

like everyone who said anything against SJWs, incels venerate him for total and utter mediocrity

C L E A N
Y O U R
R O O M

A dishonest man has a goal; an honest man has a reason
At the end of the day, both will fuck your girlfriend if they convince themselves it's in the 'right'

1)should you be supported? Who are you to judge and decide who should be?
2-8) context matters

kys nigger

Master spinner. Essentially argues from unassailable points. If cornered he draws back to morally untouchable arguments (ie. his freedom of religion)

He's a piece of shit with nothing of value to say

>context matters
Yeah, the context is that Jordan Peterson is a superstitious dipshit who thinks that multiple ancient cultures knew about the microscopic double-helix structure of DNA. Despite none of them having even simple microscopes.

Jordan Peterson is a moron.

Attached: ben (2).jpg (537x500, 40K)

and if all else fails, "but muh God"

lol die

kike shill

>If the man is deceptive he will look honest
>if the man looks honest
>that doesn't mean he's not deceiving you
Do you recall what was said earlier?

>An openly or proved dishonest man is someone you don't have to worry about
What do we have here? Something you need to reconsider.

>Honesty is this case is a perceptive asset of deceptiveness
The fuck it is. Re-read the initial reply about honest men that you need to watch out for. It's right there. It's wholly contradictory; there are dishonest men you can always trust to be dishonest, but you never know when an honest man will turn against you (because the assumption is now that) a dishonest man will play at being honest, thus making those who appear honest without secret knowledge potentially deceptive, meaning all men are potentially dishonest men, but it's the honest men you have to look out for, where all dishonest men can be trusted to be dishonest- AKA, outwardly honest.

What the fuck.

>can you prove a man is honest and -as established on the examples within time- will always be honest
Can you do the appropriately inverse for the dishonest man? Spoiler: apparently you can.

In a Peterson thread, you're asking user to name someone so they can talk about a thing firmly seated in the hypothetical, invoked for the sake of demanding consistency in definition. Furthermore... you're confusing unambiguous honesty, an instance, for a life lived without one instance of dishonesty.

That's reaching, if I ever saw it in action.

Sure.

ever tried ayahuasca or DMT or mushrooms? The helix shows up there

Psychedelics are why we are the way we are

/SoS/ - Sons of Saturn General
Welcome to Saturn!

>Discord Invite Link
/aFVUT8v

>What does Saturn have to offer?
It's got E-Girls and Boys, Nudes, Lewds, Boipussy (Traps/Femboys)
Also but not limited to....
E-Sex, Dropbox, Megafiles, Vola, Meetups, VC, Links, Snapchat adds and more!

>What is the #comfy channel about?
This is the place you can talk and be chill about whatever you want and escape the cancer of #general.

We're working to improve and make S.O.S. better!:)

(Make sure to talk if you want your Pleb Role Removed! Plebs eventually get wiped from the server.

Attached: 37112511_230531271115632_3618565772864913408_n.jpg (1080x1350, 162K)

Attached: 1548633027574.png (590x594, 439K)

Pretty cool dude, sound rational arguments against the rise of the far left & far right, scares the shit out of establishment far left extremists because he's become so infuential. Angers the far right because he's shown a moderate alternative for dispirited young men & women looking for a purpose in life. The fact he makes SJW's & legit Neo-Nazis both shriek in jealous rage shows he's on the right track.

Selling almost 4 million copies of his latest book & having over 7 million followers on social media definitely speaks to the success he's had.

I did DMT long before any of you normies ever knew it existed, and I never saw any double-helixes.
People see helixes and gnomes and shit because they were told they were going to see them and believed it.
Also, seeing a double-helix pattern and then knowing that's DNA is not a thing.
Spirals are an incredibly common shape and dumbfuck Peterson deciding that it means something that they appear in ancient art is idiotic.
So do circles, squares, triangles, waves, and every other simple shape.
Stop drinking the Koolaid.

He has few novel ideas, sure, but he is well-read, usually well-spoken and certainly has a gift for transmitting ideas.

For the most part I agree with him on todays issues and that's enough for me

This is fucking you...holy shit, so much strawman.

1) Yes, they are at the moment. If they find a spiritual leader in Peterson to better themselves everyone profits.
2.-3) I want the exact quote on that
4.) He is saying that divorce is the very last resort and not a linear path to happyness
5.) He is talking about sexual signals and their role in the workplace. He explicitely said that high heels or make up don't justify sexual harrassment, but that signals and dialogue about this topic has to be refined.
6) He said that women are submissive and like to be dominated, which is true.
7) Yeah he is a bit whacky on his metaphysical stuff
8) He used lobsters to illustrate that hierarchies are a concept, that is deeply ingrained in evolutionary history since millions of years. He used lobsters as an example of a species that is not closely related to us at all yet shares this mechanism with us. Lobsters were explicitely not an inspiration it just goes to show the universality of hierarchies in nature.

Attached: c11.jpg (968x503, 92K)

Yeah man, Peterson has so much to offer women!
Live a traditional old-fashioned gender role subservient to men.
What a visionary!

Attached: alpha country.jpg (558x743, 104K)

except he literally espouses traditional conservative views, dumbfag

He's a reactionary conservative that has been given a platform to express his crazy ideas. He's also a daddy figure to lots of fedora-wearing alt right boys who love to look at "self improvement" videos on YouTube all day everyday, because apparently they didn't get enough love at home - I don't know if I should think of it as a good or a bad thing.

Attached: kissa_b.jpg (500x375, 37K)

>An openly or proved dishonest man is someone you don't have to worry about

That part only works with one example, but we're explicitly using time as well; can someone remain honest forever? No.

Honesty is a moral stance you may take, deceptiveness an asset you occasionally rely on; I'll concede that the first poster is as stupid and naive as you by suggesting honesty is perpetual.

>8)
That asshole doesn't even get the lobster thing right.
Just a pseudo-scientist making it up as he goes along.

theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

No one talks about subservience, but being a mother is probably very fullfilling for women in the long run. What do you think will happen to a majority of these instagram addicted girls once their beauty fades and they lose value on the sexual market place? They will have absolutely nothing and become a cool whine aunt aka alcoholic.

he is a very well aducated and mature faggot.

OP is always a faggot.

I mostly like his school stuff, his politics does get a bit word salady and way to obscurely big picture.

>Meritocracy that doesn't focus on gender / race / sex iz uh traditional subzseviant ctutoure dat makez women servz menz...durrr

Gotta love when uneducated obese leftist 3rd wave feminists fail to grasp the basics of Peterson's views. Center-left egalitarian views have never been "traditional", let alone make women "subservient" to men. I don't blame you for being uneducated & unable to grasp basic egalitarian philosophy. You're a far leftist, afterall. Your sheer level of stupidity & stunted intellect are completely inherent. Given your obvious cognitive limitations, I'm merely surprised your parents didn't name you Dunning Kruger.

1) You can't realistically ignore 20% of a population and expect things to work out.
2) There are few rational morals, fewer that can truly become zeitgeist, he never said atheists or atheism is evil. He truthfully has stated that our morality is mostly a derivation from Christianity, and that without it we'd be just like the sandniggers.
3) He has decided we can't define truth, he's a philosopher, stop acting like it matters. He still thinks things are true in a purely naturalistic way like all of us.
4) Divorce is probably the worst thing in our society, not only for women and children, but also for men. With the option left open to just "opt out" once the going gets tough you're ruining the fabric of society.
5) It is. Make-up or short skirts or push up bras are made to attract attention of males. If you don't want it, don't wear it.
6) They usually do, have you ever been with one?
7) He's a bit of a loon when you get into metaphysics, I agree.
8) Did you read it? How the fuck can't you see the logic in it?

What do you think happens to women who end up with someone who buys into Peterson's pseudo-science masculinity bullshit?

Damn. Destroyed.

Attached: kekin.jpg (800x450, 61K)

>I'll concede that the first poster is as stupid and naive as you by suggesting honesty is perpetual.

Actually, no I'll correct that; the original poster is playing with perception, so a man is only seemingly honest until he's proven to be deceitful.

Holy shit, that's gonna leave a smear. lmao

Attached: holy shit.gif (312x176, 1.03M)

How about because Peterson isn't a biologist and based his dumbshit theory on a poor grasp of how lobsters actually work?
See:

Attached: stop-stop-hES.png (250x250, 107K)

Yeah, Peterson the Egalitarian.
Congrats on parroting a bunch of terms you don't understand, stupid.

Attached: peterson (2).jpg (606x187, 30K)

dude you just got obliterated.

Attached: omg.jpg (616x425, 19K)

Attached: 6601780870.jpg (908x1586, 137K)

This article beats arround the bush a lot. Low levels of serotonin induce states of depression which are comparable but maybe not equal between lobsters and humans. These mechanisms can be observed through similar mechanisms in human and lobster hierarchies. It then completely drops the ball arguing that such an ancient concept _shouldn't_ be part of our civilized world, acting as if that was a choice and you could change human nature based on what ought to be.

"Dude", a bunch of insults you copied from other people isn't an argument, so you can stop replying to yourself now.

>That part only works with one example
You... Ugh.

You said.
>How would you know that
>If the man is deceptive he will look honest
And so. Do you know, how you would know that an honest man isn't deceptive? It's a radically controversial opinion.
>An openly or proved dishonest man is someone you don't have to worry about

What one example? What are you working at? You want all the examples? Because that gives everything equal footing. The fuck. user. The very thing we are talking about, are honest and dishonest men. You want an unambiguous way to define dishonest men, exactly, without fault, without assumption, for the sake of actually talking about anything at all that isn't ass-fuck convoluted?

An openly or proved dishonest man. There. Otherwise, talk about fucking icecream.

>but we're explicitly using time as well
Time never factored into this until you encouraged it to by introducing it in an attempt to go on a tangent that has nothing to do with the particular fucking division between honest and dis-honest. Can someone remain honest forever? Probably, yes. Why not? It certainly has nothing to do with the difference between the matter of dishonesty and honesty. It has everything to do with anecdotes and extemporaneous factors like, oh, time.

>Honesty is a moral stance you may take
You fucking... no. Honesty. Definition. Word. No morals. No ass-pulls. Red is red. Blue is blue. No interpretations that require personal information or bias. Cold, hard, placid depictions that are unanimously found in text meant to unilaterally define meaning in context to the human language known as English. Words. What in the fuck are you doing.

>I'll concede that the first poster is as stupid and naive as you by suggesting honesty is perpetual
Oh, great. Congratulations. It's nothing.

Wow!

>Trump is president
>his son-in-law is running international affairs
>meritocracy

Attached: mfwandyktilt.jpg (160x160, 5K)

Wonder why you chose to leave out the context of the discussion - that being that neither gender / sex should be trying to usurp the other in the social order, but see each other as equals. Oh, you lack the intellect ot grasp the point he was making? And you spew out an ad absurdum post hoc response due to your inability to understand even simple concepts - let alone terms any 8th grade primary student could grasp.

Again, there's a reason you mouth foaming uneducated far left wing & far right knuckle draggers fear him so much.
twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810162542160920576?lang=en

Clinical narcissist, notorious lier, spiritualist faggot and complete hack.

Uh, dude - the discussion that Tweet was cherry picked from was discussing why neither men, nor women should try to usurp one-another in society & the most talented / best suited should be given opportunities, without taking into account their gender, skin colour, or other immutable characteristics. You merely proved user right about you being too stupid to grasp simple discussions.

Again, have you read Petersons bit about lobsters? You can insert any animal where the male is bigger and stronger, that naturally creates hierarchies and that is superficially similar to us in certain ways. Hell, the best thing is probably using ourselves and our ancestors. It doesn't matter. Why lobsters? Because he knew lobsters would make a meme.

Yeah Peterson is not a biologist and he is not holding a presentation on the intricacies of lobster hierarchies. All he wanted to show is that the evolutionary mechanism of hierarchies is not socially constructed but even recognizable in animals as far removed from us as lobsters. The lobster was picked as an example not because its hierarchies are so similar too us, but because the concept is recognizable even in something so alien to us.

It goes without saying that hierarchies in our close relatives aka great apes are much more similar and easier to point out, but that was not the point.

Samefag.

you didn't even read the overall twitter exchange that post was from, did you? peterson was arguing AGAINST gender superiority on either end, instead allowing for ability to decide without taking into account one's biological sex or race...holy fuck you just refuted your initial point about peterson being a traditionalist who wants to keep men in power. what an absolute fucking imbecile.

>ctrl + f: apple cider
>zero replies

firstly he's a canadian, that's strike one. secondly he's a hysteric reactionary, that's strike two. thirdly he shamelessly shills his daughter who really isn't anything anyone should spend any time or attention on at all, so in my mind he is abusing his fame to enrich those the market would otherwise ignore: you guessed it strike three.
I'm glad he took the trannies on, but I wish him and his army of neckbeards would go the way of Athiests + already.

God tier human

The context is that stupid thinks there's some pre-determined universal role for men and women in the social order. All based on his pseudo-science ramblings and shallow knowledge of actual biology.

>"I see women as equals but they should only be allowed to have certain roles in society."

Yeah, but go on calling me lacking in intellect, you stupid sack of shit.

ya know people can actually google the twitter convo that came from, right? that was part of a conversation about Peterson opposing supremacy of gender, stating that neither men nor women should usurp one another & power should be shared equally irregardless of sex or race. how stupid are you, exactly? be honest.

Watch Jordan Peterson break down over apple cider, commentated by a self-righteous communist: bing.com/videos/search?q=jordan petersen on the rogan cider&&view=detail&mid=04F02968374EAE17A58D04F02968374EAE17A58D&&FORM=VRDGAR

>how you would know that an honest man isn't deceptive? It's a radically controversial opinion.

And the biggest truth in honesty; deceptiveness is not necessarily an evil thing, it has instinctive formation and value for our survival.

What I believe the original poster was trying to say (and failed miserably), is that no true honest man or woman exist, only our perception of it; people are good or bad, honesty and dishonesty plays a role in both while not being tied to one specifically.

>No interpretations that require personal information or bias.

We're talking about honesty on a human being, it's not bias to point out it's a moral stance.

yeesh, you REALLY should Google the discussion that screen shot was taken from, Yea Forumsruh. It literally destroys your claim that Peterson is a mysoginist. I mean, you outright lied in your prior comment about Peterson being a traditional type.

>"I see women as equals but they should only be allowed to have certain roles in society."

He never said that. He is saying that a majority of women, not all would probably be more happy in a nurturing role since it is part of their biology. There seems to be something to that since the happyness levels of women and polls went down with feminism.

He's promoting himself by appealing to the conservative to alt right youth with easily defendable positions. People buy into his shit too much and don't realize he doesn't give two shits about anything but his own riches.

Leftists in a nutshell. Context is impossible for them to grasp, they've been raised on 5 second talking points.

Just read the original Twitter ineraction your screen shot originated from, and in it, Peterson was arguing against limiting gender roles for either group & was responding to a Canadian radical feminist who stated all Canadian government offices should be turned over to women, limiting men to only specific roles in a supporting social class.

So the other anons were completely correct in citing that you are either being purposely disingenuous to the point of lying, or you are actually a fucking idiot that failed to grasp the actual discussion.

>“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”

torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/

There are so many quotes of Peterson being misogynist. Are you really fucking dumb enough to play this game?

Good guy, I like him.

MEN ARE BIG, STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE

WOMEN ARE WEAK, LOVING AND MAKE BABIES

Do you not understand this simple fact? It is biology. It does not mean every single person on this earth will fit those roles, nor that they should. However if left free to choose, more often than not, they fit well enough that we enter them and it makes us happy. Women are not men, and can never be. Men are not women, and can never be.

That does not mean we're unequal, or should be treated unjustly, just that we are, in fact different. Instead of trying to eradicate it, a healthier solution is to incorporate and celebrate it.

That commentator makes it unwatchable.

>MEN ARE BIG, STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE

So you're saying old pipe-cleaner-arms blow-away-in-a-light-breeze Peterson is a woman, then?
Controversial!

>And the biggest truth in honesty
>deceptiveness is not necessarily an evil thing
You fucking idiot. Do you read? Read, nigger, read. Read.

Stop. Going. On. Unrelated. Tangents.. Dickhead.

What the fuck.

>is that no true honest man or woman exist
The message is extremely clear when not one asshole who decides to stand on this hill bothers to give me any, any definition of honesty that deals with this neatly functional, mechanical value that would even deal with survival or information.

>We're talking about honesty on a human being
So don't fucking duckspeak on the good and evil of this and that. What the fuck does good and evil have to do with the particular matter of deception or adhering to the facts? Do you want to explain that one without using the crutch of morality and subjectivity?

Because you're showing a hell of a lot of bias going on and on about how people are good or bad, and how honesty and dishonesty is merely a perception issue and survival and time and... fuck me. You even say that there's a biggest truth in honesty. How the fuck do you not see what I'm asking you to do? It's as simple as fuck, one fucking line for you to walk down, but instead you run around in all kinds of directions, going this way and that, eventually arriving at some other scrambled, hollow point.

Jesus fuck.

Not the user you're responding to, but your own link clearly states that he was referring to instances in recorded history where women had higher social status than men in primarily matriarchal societies / cultures, while he also noted that for the vast majority of recorded human history, men held socio-economic power in most instances. So I'm bound to agree with most others in this thread that you're completely taking out of context what Dr. Peterson said....or you indeed do lack the prerequisite intelligence to grasp the overall discussion. It's especially amusing that you cite a link that directly contradicts your overall premise.

No its not, his whole fame rests on an intentional misrepresentation of c 16 and pointing out that SJW are annoying is not "a strong stance".

>People buy into his shit too much and don't realize he doesn't give two shits about anything but his own riches.

You are naive for even considering any public person to be not at least partially motivated by selfish reasons. Point is he is an eloquent counterweight.

> I don't think he's being dishonest, but he's a bit too sure of his own position.

He is the ultimate bad faith actor. His fame rests entirely on him lying about the content and impact of C 16. Hell, he even lied about apple cider. On public radio.

The patriarch we don't deserve but the daddy we need!

Good argument! My knees are trembling.

This must be bait. That or you never learned to think critically.

This fucking meme. JP is not eloquent. He is the stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like. Everything he says is either vague bullshit "implying nothing", self-contradicting, mentally unstable spiritualist rambling or outright strawman arguments.

Being the sole fucking man standing up against forced speech, in Canada, pretty damn strong.

Here's a fucking litmus test. When you are honest, you:
>complete the sentence
>this is not a trick question

I swear if you say one more thing about good and evil you have the awareness of a sea sponge

Attached: 2917064669.jpg (1884x1454, 169K)

>you never learned to think critically.
You think too highly of yourself, faggot. The guy you referenced just overemphasized certain aspects of JP's antics with a specific bias, which looks entirely intentional.

He’s a faggot. And not a cool faggot like Freddie Mercury.

Attached: VaultBoyFacePalm.jpg (217x232, 7K)

There is no such thing as forced speech. It is entirely a lie made up by right-wing pundits and Jordan Peterson to crete hysteria and further their own carreers.

Good thing you read the first sentence in my post. Try again.

Used to find him valuable. But he's a charlatan selling a basic bitch book. He is guilty of what he accuses other of doing: taking the least charitable interpretation of concepts and people, and weaving a deluded narrative.

The UK would beg to differ:
"Police investigate woman for 'misgendering' in social media discussion"
bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527

>The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”

What a lefty-cuck do you have to be to consider this a controversial mysogynist quote. Of course this reductive feminist lense is absolutely simplistic in a historical context.
Men and women worked together within the context of their class, they thought of how to feed their family first. Women ruled over men, if they were part of the nobility.

To regard history as a antagonistic power struggle between the sexes is absolutely one dimensional and frankly implausible.

He is the goddamned God of eloquence if you enjoy a bit of rambling.

The "stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like"-soundbyte doesn't really do much to anyone but your lefty friends. You should, perhaps, try disassembling and arguing against something he's said instead of repeating shit you read. If you want to get anywhere except laughed at that is.

His fanbase is cancer. You're malignant proof.

it is actually a fairly decent dismemberment of your statement. if men are strong and women are weak, peterson is not strong but weak, therefore peterson is a woman.
let's not forget this fag has cried publicly a handful of times, he could just be a tosser but that isn't addressed by your statement

>This fucking meme.
>He is the stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

That's the real meme, parrotted by haters everytime Peterson gets brought up.
He is pretty good at getting fairly complex points accross in understandable terms for a wide audience. His language is pretty concise and to the point, he knows how to utilize his voice. I'd call that eloquent.

Not every presentation has to be a techno babble, fancy word salad.

>Stop. Going. On. Unrelated. Tangents.. Dickhead.

Make me bitch, I'm answering to your own bias the way I fucking want.

>he message is extremely clear when not one asshole who decides to stand on this hill bothers to give me any

Then why the fuck are you even arguing, if you have nothing better to do, go jerk-off to trap porn or w/e you overly-reactive edgelords do.

he makes me wish more people got famous when they're older.
>more time to figure your shit out.

Excuse me?
If you want me to say "she" to a dude dressed in drag, or else face prosecution, what exactly is that? Whatever YOU want to call it, I call it forced speech. Period. And regardless of what you decide to call it, I'm still against it.

>I'm answering to your own bias the way I fucking want
Incorrectly, and with the spirit of a hamster.

>Then why the fuck are you even arguing
Because you're engaging me, jeanius!

>It would be actually worse with someone you trusted since then you'd feel beholden to support them

There in lies your problem.

Have you ever realised that every relationship that has ever existed in the past, that will ever exist in the future & that currently exists now in the present will have 1 of 2 things happen?

Either those people will stay together until one of them dies, or they won't.

If you don't feel like you want to support someone then do not expect to have a lasting relationship ever.

He is a scientist, a professional, an activist and overall a good man. I wish him a good life and hope that his voice resound everywhere, we need him in the cause.

Attached: fb8992576142d59dfbea5e0b39fc2776.jpg (280x280, 10K)

Find a quote from him on all these things & I'll believe you. I want to hear it from the man himself not some article about him.

Unless of course this is a troll, if so fair play you bamboozled me

And I did because you're too stupid to understand that perception is the important factor here; I established the rule that deceptiveness is what makes a seemingly honest man be or become dishonest. You can go ahead and try to make a logic out of technical terms based on the hypothetical scenario a man can be undeniably and objectively honest while completely ditching deceptiveness for your convenient horse-cock-starving-ass, I don't care.

If you truly mean that, and I'm serious right here, please, look into yourself right now and check. Do you really believe that was a "dismemberment of my statement"?.

If so please go get help. I don't know where, honestly, but quitting gender studies and trying to have actual arguments with living human beings might be a first step.

What discussion? I only see a single tweet. From the wording alone you can plausibly deny that he defends patriarchic control over women and their exclusion from leadership roles, and you can plausibly assume that he does. He is, as always, intentionally vague to create drama, from which he then profits massively. His "brave" stance against the evils of "SJW" is bringing him top dollar, because his audience can't tell liquid feces from solid poop.

your attacks against him only bolster his position, like a mad little girl acting out against her father.

if he's not strong or aggressive but an emotional shrimp how could he be a man?
he couldn't assuming the shit dripping out of your head was in anyway true.
you're attacking my person thinking I'm a sjw but I just wanted you to know your statements, and presumably reasoning and thoughts are inherently incorrect. it's nothing personal, bucko.

buy my 1000 dollar rugs wash your penis and clean your room.
he's smart enough not to go too far with his rhetoric, exploits naive losers.

Attached: 1551619640878.jpg (499x500, 150K)

Nobody ever faced procecution for deadnaming under C 16; nobody ever has been persecuted for deadnaming under the various state level laws that had already been in place way before C 16. Jordan Peterson is a straight up lier. Just google "Jordan Peterson lies about C 16", or watch a video: youtube.com/watch?v=xb3oh3dhnoM

My statement stands even if you're not a gender studies major, as you probably understand it was made in jest. Try arguing with something besides your computer for a start, and you will get immediate and visceral responses from real human beings.

In those environments, if you want to convince anyone that you are, in fact, right, your way of holding discourse leads nowhere.

>he's smart enough not to go too far with his rhetoric

He goes way overboard with his insane spiritualist antics. The only reason that his fans don't call him out for it is that they don't actually read anything longer than 280 signs or are very, very good at pretending it isn't there.

>you're too stupid
You're too stupid. You're continuing to operate under the idea that perception rules the day. But you'll use words in ways that you, yourself, are willing to believe are correct and convey exactly what you've otherwise been taught.

All this shit, over a yes or no type answer. You still haven't answered the yes or no type question, either. An honest person does, what? Is that too hard of a question? Apparently it is... because the bare minimum reply requires 4 words.

>perception is the important factor here
Bull to the shit. The discussion included proven or openly deceptive men. You can't imagine or pretend your way out of that one- that is knowledge independent of perception.

>I established the rule that deceptiveness is what makes a seemingly honest man be or become dishonest
No you didn't. user did. Unless you're that user too. Which means this entire thing is one masturbatory, wishy-washy miasma of maybe-kindas about something that, taking your newly introduced criterion into account, makes "sense".

>You can go ahead and try to make a logic out of technical terms based on the hypothetical scenario
Literally, what is supposed to be happening here. Literally, what the logic is about. Genuinely what you're arguing against, thinking it connects or is related in any way to what is being argued. Oranges disproves arithmetic because you have 2 oranges? Okay.

>completely ditching deceptiveness
Hey retard. Point to where I ditched deceptiveness.

youtu.be/7ES7Rei0kgA

.

You're telling this to someone who puts no effort in formatting his text. For many people its not about being right, much less convincing others.

I don't care what he writes. To me he's just another pseudo-intellectual who got lucky and struck a gold mine of losers. He's going far enough to keep his adopted internet children happy but not enough to antagonise the world like Alex Jones did. To me he's just a gatekeeper and scum.

>I'm a bit shocked and completely at odds on his stance on having children being a good thing.
Faggot.

>doesn't realize he is on the end of the joke.
Is that what they call "kek"? I'm a little bit out of touch.

please be a samefag.
if not, by god, how embarrassing

He's a PhD psychologist and trust me, for the most part I don't like much of what he says either or his word salads. But on the right topics, where he's staying in his field, in his lane, you can learn some things from him.

I don't believe in entirely dismissing someone.

Don't even know who that is nor do I really care.

Attached: 1552054934473.jpg (500x576, 32K)

What do you mean by gatekeeper?

That hurt, didn't it?

yeah I didn't realize I hadn't been writing formally on Yea Forums all these years until you pendantically pointed it out. my real concern is that you're either the same person pretending to be a different faggot or a different faggot pretending to be a person.

He talks about feminism and antifa bullshit. But he peddles the very ideas that led to them - individualism and capitalism. He only mentions symptoms like feminism but not the disease that spawned them, he doesn't touch the JQ. He actually ostracises anyone who does.

You have obviously not seen a single one of Petersons actual videos about gender pronouns or you'd know the entire thing you just wrote makes no sense as an argument.

>796050138
He does what the majority of "alt/right-wing" channels do. Promotes liberalism, critcises antifa and feminism, etc.

>You're continuing to operate under the idea that perception rules the day.

Because they do, do you believe everything you're told? In what website are you?

>But you'll use words in ways that you, yourself, are willing to believe are correct and convey exactly what you've otherwise been taught.

I have my own bias, we all do, but they were a response to what I thought was your bias; stupid of me not to get that you're just interested in the most technical terms because you can't grasp the real world.

>The discussion included proven or openly deceptive men

I used the word "dishonest", but what does that even have to do with anything? A man can be proven to be dishonest, and you can prove a man is honest more than once, but not forever; I mentioned time several times you slow ass faggot.

>Which means this entire thing is one masturbatory, wishy-washy miasma of maybe-kindas

Maybe-kindas are part of human behavior, unlike your technical terms for objective scenarios. Your premise is at fault for the whole thing.

>Genuinely what you're arguing against

Well that's the problem isn't? You can't grasp what we're talking about here.

>Hey retard. Point to where I ditched deceptiveness.

The moment you disregard it with technical terms of honesty; I'm using deceptiveness practically.

"An honest man is not deceptive" is your argument, to which I asked "How would you know it's an honest man?"

I'm asking under principles of perception, I'm thinking about it, you're ditching it with dictionary terms in a thread that aims to question the rhetoric of a man like Jordan Peterson... Are you actually retarded?

at face value he's not awful. but i think he's pushing the NWO agenda, and sometimes his arguments end up as "serfs should be happy to be a serf, happy that they are alive at all! it's a miracle! also praise jesus"

He's not the only one who thinks we take life for granted. Steven pinker talks about how affluent and great the times we are currently in. The world's never been this wealthy before. Poverty is declining. Life spans are increasing globally.

He's a piece of shit. Makes racist, dumbass descriptive statements so he can weasel out of criticism because he doesn't make any prescriptive ones.

I responded to someone specifically mention persecution by saying JP lied about that specific point. I cant stand watching his drivel, but I sometimes read newspaper articles featuring him, such as this one: torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/

>JQ
Okay, you want me to ask about that one, so you can redpill me, right? Keep your fash bullshit to yourself, faggot.

I have a low opinion of him

Attached: TIMESAND___777777766666622doge.png (276x512, 134K)

Ignorance is bliss. Fascism is knowledge.

Attached: 1531612675398.jpg (600x600, 125K)

>but i think he's pushing the NWO agenda
That' basicall what all conservatives do.

>The world's never been this wealthy before. Poverty is declining. Life spans are increasing globally.
The world is not an average. Life is still shit for most people and unlike the boomers that ruined the economy, we will only see a world in decline.

"life coaching" lol

I knew it. Well played, though.

>perception doesn't rules the day
>you'll use words you are willing to believe are correct and convey exactly what you've otherwise been taught
>tl;dr stop being retarded and answer my fucking question without dancing in circles about how things look

>do you believe everything you're told
Way to go, genius. That was totally an appropriate reply. Yeah, hey. Perception. Do you believe everything you're told?

Woah! That makes perfect sense. user is pointing out that I use words, better accuse him of believing everything despite vehemently disagreeing with the bullshit I'm flapping out with my fingers.

>I have my own bias, we all do
Hey, funny thing about that. Words? They can be unambiguous. That's why we have dictionaries.

>stupid of me not to get that you're just interested in the most technical terms because you can't grasp the real world
Let me get this straight.

Perception does rule the day. Everyone has a bias, and everything in the world is slated to appear a way, primarily, than be a way, primarily, and then be interpreted individually on a case-by-case basis. Everything depends upon the bias of a human being, without question...

But.

user is focused on the most technical terms because they can't grasp the real world. What real world? Everything relies on perspective, remember? Oh wait, it's all just confused, angry nonsense being regurgitated by a brainlet.

>I used the word "dishonest"
>but what does that even have to do with anything
The entire argument? Didn't you just accuse me of ditching the concept of deceptiveness? Way to go.
>A man can be proven to be dishonest
No shit.
>and you can prove a man is honest more than once
No shit.
>but not forever
This is literally another argument that has nothing to do, that has no bearing on the topic of that which you are trying to take up, the one that I am espousing. Your inability to grasp any of that? The reason you think you're making strides here.

>Maybe-kindas are part of human behavior
You know what's not a maybe-kinda? A definition.

>unlike your technical terms for objective scenarios
My what what what? Want to unpack that one? Please, explain that.
>Your premise is at fault for the whole thing.
You idiot, your premises are at fault for going left instead of right.

>The moment you disregard it with technical terms of honesty
>I'm using deceptiveness practically.
Uh? Forget the fact that you can't quote or backlink
>exactly
where it happened. You just said that I disregard something with technical terms. But, you're using something practically.

You realize the inconsistency there, don't you? Of course you don't. Wow. That's remarkably stupid, congratulations. Technical terminology and practicality. Incompatible. Who would've thought. Objectivity and practicality, can't mix. No. Nope. Not even once.

>"An honest man is not deceptive" is your argument
Is it?
>to which I asked "How would you know it's an honest man?"
Completely stepping over everything else and creating the great problem known as misunderstanding, which you're suffering from as a result of your egregious oversight.

>I'm asking under principles of perception
Which is meaningless, because the argument, my argument, doesn't deal with perception. At all. Trying to address any of the shit you've been trying to address, when you claim to know where I stand and what tools I'm asking you to work with, demonstrates the kind of thickness guarding your gourd.
>I'm thinking about it
Your mistake.
>you're ditching it with dictionary terms in a thread that aims to question the rhetoric of a man like Jordan Peterson
I'm ditching... masturbatory circle-logic about perception... in a thread about Jordan Peterson. That's actually apt. I don't know if you realize that. I don't know if you even know who JP is.

better than my real dad at least

Psychology is a pseudo science

>A definition.

How dare you expect scientific conduct from a sscientist! Wait, is this still about JP?

Man, I hate my father, but at least he is genuine in his human conduct. Sorry, bud.

dont even recognize him

he kinda look like jeremy irons

I don't know, but I want to hear more basic bitch explanations and excuses from user.

Eh, bit too subversive and regressive for me. I generally think he's wrong but makes a fair couple good points. His message is a good stepping stone for NEETs into less asocial and antisocial behaviors. Most, however will quickly grow out of his philosophy once they get a bit smarter and realize that his teachings lack depth and don't hold up well to rigor and scrutiny. But, with how polarized and unforgiving society is at the moment he is at the very least a useful bridge into less destructive actions and behaviors