Never gets old:
And the oscar for best picture goes to
It's a totally real quote from one of his books - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9702164-i-dreamed-i-saw-my-maternal-grandmother-sitting-by-theThe feck have I just listened to? Please tell me this is a deep fake or a really good impressionist!
It's a totally real quote from one of his books - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9702164-i-dreamed-i-saw-my-maternal-grandmother-sitting-by-the
Jordan Peterson seems to take issue with school making a statement against racism...
Even Jung is scratching his head at this one.What's the jungian interpretation of this?
Don't think he said anything else about it tbh, just one of his many daily tweets to get his fans frothing.I assume he offers some veiled "free speech" argument to his objection?
I assume he offers some veiled "free speech" argument to his objection?
Birds of a feather flock together and all that.I like Tim Pool, I think
Even if we ignore the accusations of racism, gun advocacy, Islamophobia or that he cultivates a general maliciousness amongst his flock, Sam Harris speaks to a particularly type of lazy impressionable, one that seeks the appearance of intellectual or cerebral engagement, without wanting to bother with the rigour. That his slick act has proved so mesmeric to these preening dolts, makes him arguably the most pernicious of the lot. Sam Harris' supporters routinely justify his shallow unpleasantness with appeals to his self identified image of public intellectual.Admittedly I’ve not read much of this thread, but I have to ask why Harris is grouped into this thread with semi-loonies like Peterson? Harris is neither right-leaning, nor is he ‘mad’.
Even if we ignore the accusations of racism, gun advocacy, Islamophobia or that he cultivates a general maliciousness amongst his flock, Sam Harris speaks to a particularly type of lazy impressionable, one that seeks the appearance of intellectual or cerebral engagement, without wanting to bother with the rigour. That his slick act has proved so mesmeric to these preening dolts, makes him arguably the most pernicious of the lot. Sam Harris' supporters routinely justify his shallow unpleasantness with appeals to his self identified image of public intellectual.
This is a pretty good summation of why he is such a problem:
Jordan Peterson wearing a fedora moaning about lack of testosterone in men and how women date arseholes instead of nice guys He couldn't look or sound any more like typical "Redditor". I thought it was deepfake until it zoomed in
You couldn't make a better parody video to take the piss out of him.This is like a Brass Eye skit that got left on the cutting room floor.
He must be on something. That’s 4 minutes of accidental self-parody.
Jordan Peterson wearing a fedora moaning about lack of testosterone in men and how women date arseholes instead of nice guys He couldn't look or sound any more like typical "Redditor". I thought it was deepfake until it zoomed in
You couldn't make a better parody video to take the piss out of him.
One day they'll break into the den of some guy who went out and shot a load of feeeemales and that will be playing on multiple screens on a loop.
Even if we ignore the accusations of racism, gun advocacy, Islamophobia or that he cultivates a general maliciousness amongst his flock, Sam Harris speaks to a particularly type of lazy impressionable, one that seeks the appearance of intellectual or cerebral engagement, without wanting to bother with the rigour. That his slick act has proved so mesmeric to these preening dolts, makes him arguably the most pernicious of the lot. Sam Harris' supporters routinely justify his shallow unpleasantness with appeals to his self identified image of public intellectual.
This is a pretty good summation of why he is such a problem:
I would like you toThere’s a reddit thread ‘proving’ the earth is flat - hardly a convincing argument. What you have done, though, is betray the fact that you’ll believe anything, no matter how flimsy, if it supports your preconceived opinion of something/someone. Even in your little paragraph denigrating Harris, you rely on multiple logical fallacies to assassinate the man’s character - I can highlight them individually if you’d like. It’s all rather ironic, as I do believe you criticised a poster recently for a fallacious post. Gotta see the funny side!
Yup, this is the main problem on both sides. Social media has made this worse by amplifying your beliefs while totally cutting out the other side. All this labelling doesn't help either. I mean, a lot of people say good and not so good stuff, and change over time. This blind following, saying my side is always right doesn't take us anywhere.The idea that we have to like people, rather than things that people say, is insane.
Theres this crazy culture whereby ordinary people will just endorse every single thing that anyone on their ‘good’ list says. It’s mad.
I loved Jim Davidson when I watched Big Break as a kid. Now I realise he’s an ass-hat. I loved Rogan in the early years, then he seemingly thought millions of viewers endorsed all his views. I loved Peterson the first time I heard him speak. Shit, I thought Boris was a harmless anti-politician 15 years ago.
But I’m so comfortable in having my mind changed. I don’t feel stupid. It’s surely how we should all operate. I can get taken in by character and personality just as easily as I can give it up.
That a growing pool of talking heads have realised that there are enough folks that prefer to be a sheep/disciple and are happy to speak to them in a certain way, as long as you tell them that the ‘others’ are sheep... it’s grim. Really disheartening.
Yup, this is the main problem on both sides. Social media has made this worse by amplifying your beliefs while totally cutting out the other side. All this labelling doesn't help either. I mean, a lot of people say good and not so good stuff, and change over time. This blind following, saying my side is always right doesn't take us anywhere.
We're back to why I don't bother with Sam Harris amongst others. Its not just that he's not very charismatic, his work is weakIf i'm interested in a person's work, I just read their work or listen to their podcasts and interviews. I'm not particulary interested in the purity test or reddit hit jobs, I can make my own mind up about what I think about a person or his/her work. I don't really have a cult of personality type of mentality. Flawed people can make some very good points and correct the mistakes they have made in the past. And even if they are not 100% spot on everything they made be spot on other topic or provide a meaningfull perspective.
We're back to why I don't bother with Sam Harris amongst others. Its not just that he's not very charismatic, his work is weak
Yes, making your own mind up about something or someone by reviewing their work is the best way to go about it.If i'm interested in a person's work, I just read their work or listen to their podcasts and interviews. I'm not particulary interested in the purity test or reddit hit jobs, I can make my own mind up about what I think about a person or his/her work. I don't really have a cult of personality type of mentality. Flawed people can make some very good points and correct the mistakes they have made in the past. And even if they are not 100% spot on everything they made be spot on other topic or provide a meaningfull perspective.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of it. A 14 page essay on free will with about 4 pages of whitespace. Then theres the atheism bit, riding on the coattails of Dawkins and Hitchens which i haven't read tbf. Sounds like you're more familiar with him than me tbhSure. I havn't read Sam Harris work yet, I've only listened to his debates, interviews and a few podcasts.
Sam Harris is a sort of Carole Caplin lifestyle guru for dull, wannabe-hip, middleaged men and dull teenagers with Early Onset Middleaged-man Brain; a dress-caj dilettante that sells comforting, clean-cut justifications for half-arsed reactionary opinions, for blokes that no longer understand the world.There’s a reddit thread ‘proving’ the earth is flat - hardly a convincing argument. What you have done, though, is betray the fact that you’ll believe anything, no matter how flimsy, if it supports your preconceived opinion of something/someone. Even in your little paragraph denigrating Harris, you rely on multiple logical fallacies to assassinate the man’s character - I can highlight them individually if you’d like. It’s all rather ironic, as I do believe you criticised a poster recently for a fallacious post. Gotta see the funny side!