True that.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
True that.
I would say anyone who has been in treatment for benzo addiction is addicted to benzos
Why are you slurring Jordan Peterson? Not fair.
Addiction vs dependency is a fraught term. They changed the definition in the 80's before the advent of the Srri's. Now addiction means you need a higher and higher dose to achieve a desired effect. But a lot of smokers can manage 1 pack a day. We dont say they arent addicted. There is this weird cognitive dissonance where dependency on many psyciatric drugs are normalised but shots aimed at people who take benzodiapines and sleeping tablets with benzo effects.
If JP was taking a higher and higher dose to a achieve a desired effect. Pr. The new definition, he is an addict. If he wasnt he was just dependent.
But the reason why i chime in, i personally dont like shots aimed at people who take benzodiapines as prescribed by their doctor as if the field of psychiatric medicine isnt fraught with dependency with so many commonly prescribed drugs.
Last edited:
Yeah I agree with your last parapgraph. But I think I saw Perterson himself describe it as addiction, not that it matters.
Regarding Peterson escalating his dose, I think it's safe to say he was? He got so addicted they had to put him on ketamine, which fecked him up even more. Then he put himself in a coma and can't remember half a year.
I dont know tbh. Perhaps he was escalating his dose so much that he felt he needed he needed to put himself in coma in eastern europe whilst being fed beef through tubes or perhaps instead of tapering with diazepam under the advice of his doctor he went with his daughters wisdom instead. Which was coma and beef through tubes.
sorry I'm so stoned rn I've read this three times and still can't figure it out what it means
Last edited:
First 30 seconds. Didn't know Navalny's name or a single thing he's done but had already decided he's a baddie.
The guest is fecking insufferable too.
From the last few posts Peterson doesn't necessarily strike me as a go to source for reliable lifestyle choices.
Who would have thought that granny pubes, lobsters and Peter Pan life lessons was actually JP at his sanest.
At least he's coherent here. Rare thing for him.Memeing on Jordan Peterson has almost become too easy
speaking of which:Memeing on Jordan Peterson has almost become too easy
I'll put this here, in case someone has way to much time to read a Twitter thread about someone who truly does not matter. In fact, if you even know that this person exists you've gone too far.
Benzo-Boy at it again.
That conspiracy theory about the simulated universe gone wrong seems plausible when you look at this dude, formerly extolled as a major intellectual, having a public and loud grudge against Elmo.
Oh, simples...
I refuse to believe someone like Matt Walsh organically has an audience. He would be nowhere without being part of The Daily Wire.
What’s the appeal? While is dislike them, I can at least understand why the likes of Shapiro, Crowder and Peterson (pre meltdown) are popular. Walsh is just a super creepy middle aged man with no charisma.
You just need to ostensibly own the libs, and to sound like you know what you’re talking about, which is easy when pandering to a base that don’t know what critical thinking is.
Catturd belongs in here...
Perish the thought of someone listening to the whole podcast, but this is how discourse works these days I guess. Cherry pick a clip out of context, tie some nice images to it, prove someone is a nazi sympathiser, have the ACLU cancel them.
Behold the age of enlightenment.
For the record, there's about 50 things said in the full length podcast that would get a lot of posters on here vastly more angry than that snippet.
Behold the age of enlightenment.
For the record, there's about 50 things said in the full length podcast that would get a lot of posters on here vastly more angry than that snippet.
I'm not listening to 90mins of Sam Harris' pseudo-intellectual waffle. Assuming you have listened, could you explain how that might have been taken out of context?
So did he or did he not say that the Nazis didn't use their own women and children as human shields?
He doesn't have to be a nazi sympathiser for this quote to still be fecking dumb and completely unneccessary.
No he's got a point. I definitely represented the fall of civilization into a post-enlightenment world because I posted a tweet of a clip of man saying "Hitler didn't do thing" and then posting a picture of Hitler doing a thing. It's not hilariously overdramatic at all.
Firstly, I personally think Harris' obsession with jihadism is obviously not healthy, and don't share all of his beliefs. I can kind of understand his desire to turn things into simple, moralistic equations in which case it's hard to get worse than jihadism if you're into a successful society, but fine.
Secondly, it was reasonably tongue in cheek, and was more about highlighting how bad both are, not forgiving one and not the other.
Thirdly, those comments have already spun up a discussion on reddit where folks are trying to show 'human shields' equivalence and (I regret typing this in advance when shades of grey aren't allowed) I do think there's a pretty big difference between what ISIS did with women and children and what the Nazis did towards the end of the war in recruiting, training and yes deploying underage boys in service.
Fourthly, and I can't believe I have to type this: jihadism is really, really f*cked up. So is Naziism. Both are stains on humanity, and I personally don't have a big problem with saying we'd be better off if literally everyone who believes in either is hunted down and killed. But for some reason anyone can say anything they want about Nazis and face no repercussions on today's world, but there are a non-zero number of people that get really sensitive if you say means things about jihadists. Not Hamas, not mulsims, jihadists. The murderous dealth-cult. That's idiotic.
Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is this: if someone wants to argue that Jihadism has worse (or better) moral standards than other movements, that should be allowed to happen. You can disagree with it, you can argue against it but I hate this whole culture of glibbly tweeting a single comment or phrase. It's not discussion, it's 'gotcha' and it does nothing but make everyone involved look worse.
Secondly, it was reasonably tongue in cheek, and was more about highlighting how bad both are, not forgiving one and not the other.
Thirdly, those comments have already spun up a discussion on reddit where folks are trying to show 'human shields' equivalence and (I regret typing this in advance when shades of grey aren't allowed) I do think there's a pretty big difference between what ISIS did with women and children and what the Nazis did towards the end of the war in recruiting, training and yes deploying underage boys in service.
Fourthly, and I can't believe I have to type this: jihadism is really, really f*cked up. So is Naziism. Both are stains on humanity, and I personally don't have a big problem with saying we'd be better off if literally everyone who believes in either is hunted down and killed. But for some reason anyone can say anything they want about Nazis and face no repercussions on today's world, but there are a non-zero number of people that get really sensitive if you say means things about jihadists. Not Hamas, not mulsims, jihadists. The murderous dealth-cult. That's idiotic.
Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is this: if someone wants to argue that Jihadism has worse (or better) moral standards than other movements, that should be allowed to happen. You can disagree with it, you can argue against it but I hate this whole culture of glibbly tweeting a single comment or phrase. It's not discussion, it's 'gotcha' and it does nothing but make everyone involved look worse.
Within the scope of your own argument;
- Define Nazi
- Define Jihadist
Not being a prick. But that’s not a good faith argument, and kind of plays into why that weird little debate club cult sets their stall out in that manner.
Its not really a gotcha moment if they've quoted something verbatim, especially something as absurd as what Harris has said. So he's rightly going to be called out for it. From what I can see nothing has been lost in context nor has he been misquoted.
Jihadism isn't a movement either.
What makes jihadism not a movement? You might argue its a religious concept that creates a movement but im not sure if we are just nitpicking.
This is a good summary of the development of jihadism as a “distinct and identifiable movement” within the much broader Islamist current - Jihadism on its own terms: Understanding a movement