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

[Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed]

Twelve Rules for Life: Don't Lie
DW+ rules for shekels: Lie to goyim

Being in DW has really sucked Peterson dry on religion.

He said “Christ is king” is antisemetic, then goes to a conversation called “One Christian vs. 20 Atheists” yet doesn’t identify as a Christian?

Is Shapiro trying to convert Peterson to Judaism? Because this whole need to please Jews and rabbis from Shapiro, Boreing and Peterson, on top of boomer logic from Walsh and Knowles, has let me to stop listening to DW altogether.

 

[wobinbobin]

Disagree. Peterson should've bent the squeaky little shitlib over his knee and given him six of the best.

And I don't like Jordan Peterson.

The shitlib was just being a faggot, couldn't even keep his composure, At least Peterson showed some respect.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Is Shapiro trying to convert Peterson to Judaism?

Convert?

 

[TruffleSpark]

The thing that saved Peterson's ass is that the shitlib he was arguing with couldn't resist the urge to start with the insults instead of sticking to his own line of reasoning. I think you have to avoid that in debates no matter how tempting it is because if you do it to someone who is losing to you anyway you just look like a smug bully and it undermines any points you happen to have been making.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

View attachment 7457493
The thing that saved Peterson's ass is that the shitlib he was arguing with couldn't resist the urge to start with the insults instead of sticking to his own line of reasoning. I think you have to avoid that in debates no matter how tempting it is because if you do it to someone who is losing to you anyway you just look like a smug bully and it undermines any points you happen to have been making.

It's one of the reasons Peterson did so well in the Cathy Newman video, because right when got her, instead of parading happily, he explained the importance of what she was doing and the importance of having freedom of speech. It was a kind of extension of an olive branch and part of the reason he kept getting invited to similar shows.

But even so, it's embarrassing for someone like him to be at the bullied end of a stick with a couple of college students.

I wonder if Peterson's point about the hypothetical was that instead of hiding jews and lying about it, he would have done something to get himself carted off to the camps before that. That he imagines he would have resisted in that situation.

 

[Turquoise]

View attachment 7457493
The thing that saved Peterson's ass is that the shitlib he was arguing with couldn't resist the urge to start with the insults instead of sticking to his own line of reasoning. I think you have to avoid that in debates no matter how tempting it is because if you do it to someone who is losing to you anyway you just look like a smug bully and it undermines any points you happen to have been making.

Correct.

This is the reason Dave Farina can't win debates against flat earthers. His comments sections fill up with his own fans telling him to ease up on the smug but he can't. It also reminds me of that groyper kid who was bouncing Steven Crowder off the ropes until he called Steve an autist which gave the big grifter an excuse to derail the whole debate.

I do wish we could see JP do more debates. He's an unbelievably bad debater, technically and faithfully. It really brings out the lunatic in him as well.

"I've done mushrooms. That's evidence." - vs Dillahunty

"I believe in dragons." - vs Dawkins

"I can't do it." - vs Groyper

 

[Lemmingwiser]

It also reminds me of that groyper kid who was bouncing Steven Crowder off the ropes until he called Steve an autist which gave the big grifter an excuse to derail the whole debate.

Yusuf. He was interviewed by early pre controversy Fuentes, but I don't think he was a groyper.

He also didn't do anything wrong. He called the argument autistic, but Crowder made it personal and said ysuf called him autistic, because using showmanship and physicality was the only way he could claw back control.

 

[Grog]

This is the reason Dave Farina can't win debates against flat earthers.

Nobody can win debates against flat earthers the same way you can't convince a christian that god doesn't exist.

 

[One Winged Pear Farmer]

Correct.

This is the reason Dave Farina can't win debates against flat earthers. His comments sections fill up with his own fans telling him to ease up on the smug but he can't. It also reminds me of that groyper kid who was bouncing Steven Crowder off the ropes until he called Steve an autist which gave the big grifter an excuse to derail the whole debate.

I do wish we could see JP do more debates. He's an unbelievably bad debater, technically and faithfully. It really brings out the lunatic in him as well.

"I've done mushrooms. That's evidence." - vs Dillahunty

"I believe in dragons." - vs Dawkins

"I can't do it." - vs Groyper

If calling a retard a retard causes anyone to disregard a debate, they are in fact also retarded. These kids should’ve called Jordan a retard native fucker till he wept

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

The thing that saved Peterson's ass is that the shitlib he was arguing with couldn't resist the urge to start with the insults instead of sticking to his own line of reasoning.

Peterson was also saved somewhat by the fact that the main shitlib in the viral "Are you a Christian? / You are nothing?" appears and sounds like a smug faggot themselves.

Even if one enjoys seeing Peterson get called out & get his comeuppance, many won't truly think it's a win for the other side simply because the shitlib gives such a visceral "ick" with even short exposure.

These kids should’ve called Jordan a retard native fucker till he wept

Does Tammy Peterson claim any Indigenous ancestry?

I didn't consider it, but I also didn't come across anything when I was doing some light research about Peterson defending about claims of cultural appropriation and building a third level of his Toronto professor home as a replica of a West Coast BC Aboriginal Longhouse like a eccentric try hard with too much money.

If Tammy was even Elizabeth-Warren-Pocahontas level Indian, I would've assumed JBP would've used that defense against his critics rather than "I have great reverence for Indigenous peoples, have commissioned lots of their art & have been accepted as an honourary member of their own".

 

[One Winged Pear Farmer]

Peterson was also saved somewhat by the fact that the main shitlib in the viral "Are you a Christian? / You are nothing?" appears and sounds like a smug faggot themselves.

Even if one enjoys seeing Peterson get called out & get his comeuppance, many won't truly think it's a win for the other side simply because the shitlib gives such a visceral "ick" themselves.



Does Tammy Peterson claim any Indigenous ancestry?

I didn't consider it, but I also didn't come across anything when I was doing some light research about Peterson defending about claims of cultural appropriation and building a third level of his Toronto professor home as a replica of a West Coast BC Aboriginal Longhouse like a eccentric try hard with too much money.

If Tammy was even Elizabeth-Warren-Pocahontas level Indian, I would've assumed JBP would've used that defense against his critics rather than "I have great reverence for Indigenous peoples, have commissioned lots of their art & have been accepted as an honourary member of their own".

No, I’m saying he’s probably a closet faggot that sucks shaman cock

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

View attachment 7457493
The thing that saved Peterson's ass is that the shitlib he was arguing with couldn't resist the urge to start with the insults instead of sticking to his own line of reasoning. I think you have to avoid that in debates no matter how tempting it is because if you do it to someone who is losing to you anyway you just look like a smug bully and it undermines any points you happen to have been making.

As hilarious as I find your meme, I need to say out of fairness that Peterson's rejection of the "would you lie to a Nazi officer to save Jews?" hypothetical is the only controversial move he did in this debate that's actually completely correct and righteous in my opinion.
Real moral decisions do not exist in vacuums, and every real life situation arises from a long chain of causally entangled choices, personality traits, social conditions, and prior actions. Saying "I wouldn't be in that situation" is not dodging the question, it's pointing out that the question is metaphysically incoherent.
Like, ethics is not some mental board game where you teleport into someone else's boots without any history, principles, and choices up to that point. Ethics isn't what you do in a fantasy some retard constructed to trap you, it's how you live, what you build, and what kind of person you become in a way that these dilemmas never materialize.
As retarded as Peterson is, this was the only good point he made. Namely, that these hypothetical questions are often epistemically useless. They ask you to imagine impossible scenarios with no connection to reality and ask you to draw moral conclusions for them. That's theater at best and "gotcha" traps at worst.
That was pretty much the only moment in this long-ass video where he treated moral reasoning with the seriousness it deserves.

 

[Donald_J_Trump]

"You're really quite something."
"Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing."

Destroyed.

I think this one little exchange with this kid may have officially ended Jordan Peterson's career.

They must have paid Peterson so much fucking money to go on this sfw humiliation gangbang.

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

They must have paid Peterson so much fucking money to go on this sfw humiliation gangbang.

The last viral Jubilee clip was the one a few months back rocketing Sarah Stock to the front of culture war relevancy, who was an absolute nobody, previously working in Canada at Ezra Levant's Rebel News before moving south to join Elijah Schaffer's staff that no one watches either at Censored.tv with Gavin McInnes.

Stock was across the table debating Sam Seder. Who is at least a known quantity on the left, but not nearly at Peterson's star level. But Seder is a Jew, so probably doesn't come cheap.

The last video of this style before that where I recall it going so viral was the feminist panel with Sydney Watson that shot Pearl Davis to fame.

Though that might not have been Jubilee, but Vice or some other clickbait slop outlet.

Edit: Looks like the Watson/Pearl Davis panel was VICE, Jan 2023

Edit: Doing a little research on Jubilee media


Amazing they have a 10M sub YT channel I've never heard until 3 months ago


Their top videos have 15-30M views. Most are from 5-6 years ago. Except the Charlie Kirk one from last year where he creeps out the POC leftist girl with his smile

Kind of surprised that the recent JBP vid "only" has 6 million views and doesn't even crack their Top page.


Archive

In 2010, Jubilee started with a single video of me busking at a New York subway stop to raise money for charity. 13 years later, we’re creating weekly videos for our beautiful 8M+ community all around the world. It all started with a single idea: to create a movement of empathy for human good

Sure sounds like vapid coastal claptrap.

Their Team page on their website lists 35 profiled employees. Their second in command is listed as "Head of People".


Archive

Jubilee's YouTube content shifted towards politics after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Lee. "disappointed" by the division in the United States, sought to create content encouraging political discussions across spectrums.
...
Several prominent figures, including Pete Buttigieg, Ben Shapiro, Destiny, Charlie Kirk, and Dean Withers, have appeared in Jubilee's "Surrounded" series.

Boy, Dean WIthers is definitely the "one of these things is not like the others" name on that list of guests.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

That's theater at best and "gotcha" traps at worst.

All of this is theater anyways, and this was not a good performance of post coma peterson. Getting out of irrelevance by having people make videos on why you failed is not a resurrection, it's an epitaph.

 

[scathefire]

Their top videos have 15-30M views. Most are from 5-6 years ago. Except the Charlie Kirk one from last year where he creeps out the POC leftist girl with his smile

Geez that is creepy, it’s more of a flehmen response than a smile.

 

[TruffleSpark]

You can say that in actual real world scenarios things are going to be more complex than an ethics thought experiment could ever let on, and as such ethics thought experiments can't ever be a 100% reliable guide to correct decision-making. i.e, maybe the Jewish family he is protecting is actually a family of serial killing cannibals, so whilst in general protecting Jews from Nazis is an unambiguous good there might be some extremely specific scenarios where the morality gets a bit gray.

But I don't think that's what is going on with Peterson. I think he's just being a weird autist. Autists love rules, they often have a strong sense of right and wrong and to them right and wrong means following The Rules™. Having to be in a situation where you have to break The Rules™ in order to do good is a form of torture to them. So I think what Peterson is saying is that despite knowing that he would have to break The Rules™ in order to protect the Jewish family hiding in his attic in this particular scenario. He would never put himself in that situation. As his commitment to The Rules™ is so strong that he would find a way to protect The Jews without having to break The Rules™. He thinks he would be able to pull this off because he has such a strong faith in his own intellect that he knows he can outsmart Nazis without breaking The Rules™. I think he imagines himself as an Oscar Schindler type figure who would find a way to use the Nazis own rules against them in order to save lives.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

You can say that in actual real world scenarios things are going to be more complex than an ethics thought experiment could ever let on, and as such ethics thought experiments can't ever be a 100% reliable guide to correct decision-making. i.e, maybe the Jewish family he is protecting is actually a family of serial killing cannibals, so whilst in general protecting Jews from Nazis is an unambiguous good there might be some extremely specific scenarios where the morality gets a bit gray.

But I don't think that's what is going on with Peterson. I think he's just being a weird autist. Autists love rules, they often have a strong sense of right and wrong and to them right and wrong means following The Rules™. Having to be in a situation where you have to break The Rules™ in order to do good is a form of torture to them. So I think what Peterson is saying is that despite knowing that he would have to break The Rules™ in order to protect the Jewish family hiding in his attic in this particular scenario. He would never put himself in that situation. As his commitment to The Rules™ is so strong that he would find a way to protect The Jews without having to break The Rules™. He thinks he would be able to pull this off because he has such a strong faith in his own intellect that he knows he can outsmart Nazis without breaking The Rules™. I think he imagines himself as an Oscar Schindler type figure who would find a way to use the Nazis own rules against them in order to save lives.

I don't think you're far off, but his idealized version of himself seems less to be like Trump (who sees himself as someone that wins), and more of a pessimistic martyr figure (Peterson thinks he would have been courageous enough to get himself hauled to the camps before that, or stopped the regime from taking power, one or the other).

 

[Waffle Iron]

break The Rules™ in order to do good is a form of torture to them

He would just not take jews in and convince himself that was the right thing to do. Then he would simply not have to lie to protect them.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Look it's a bit of a sidetrack, but Piers Morgan did an panel discussion including the two guys that went viral debating Peterson.

I thought their facial reactions in regards to talking about using the N word was so funny.

(at 37:50)