/lit/ - Literature

Well he means it TECHNICALLY.

>>10748123
Praise Lord Kek!

>>10748123
>*sniff*What is postmodernity? It reminds me of joke I hear in yugoslavia. A Serbian man is having sexual intercourse with a chicken, when a Croat walks buy and says "Where is the cow?" *sniff* and the man says "I have sold cow to a German man" and the croat says "I was speaking to chicken" and Serbian man says, "Oh, he does not understand. He is Polish" *sniff* like the cow, capitalist society is sold to the German when we are not looking, but the Polish is Marxist who do not speak this language, and therefore, *sniff* cannot understand language of capitalist system which is why they are fucked!

>>10748123

>So what if [thing] is true
>So you're saying [thing] is true
>Of course it is. That's just a fact
>So then what do we do about it?
>Wait a minute, I never said [thing] is true. I just suggested the possibility of it being true and what things would mean if it were true.
>But you just said it was absolutely true.
>No I didn't.
>OK, so if this is true, what do we do about it?
>I don't know.
>So are you saying [thing] is true?
>NO YOU FUCKING LIBERAL SJW PC KEK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

every Peterson video

Peterson is good.

The public dialog for, against, and neutral towards Peterson is almost unwaveringly the most unintelligent and deeply flawed trough of slop I've ever seen. Not even the abortion debate fills me with such disgust at the level of intelligent conversation as the Peterson discussion does. You people are filling me with a horrible blend of hopelessness and disgust. I like Peterson to an extent, and yet whenever I see someone sing his praises or even just bring up his name in a talking point, I am filled with an urge to run far, far away.

What is it about this dude that makes everyone, regardless of their feelings towards him, throw basic common sense and respect for productive and honest discourse out the window and go full fucking retard mode? For fuck's sake, even Slavoj Zizek can't talk about him without making uninformed and plainly incorrect claims.

>>10748828
That's actually not true though, and I don't even like Peterson much. It's hilarious how divisive he is, the people who get unreasonably angry about him make me want to defend him, whereas the people who unreasonably glorify him make me want to hit him down a notch. If you take the interview with Cathy Newman, he did nothing like this and Newman actually did let her preconceived biases and built-up strawmen get far too much in the way of her interview. It was less of an interview than a rabid and vicious attempt to attack him and make him sound like a sexist brute. It wasn't just an "aggressive" and "to-the-point" interviewing style meant to bring out his ideas clearly, it was genuine idiocy. And Peterson did handle it pretty well, in my opinion.

>>10748143
incredible
this would get Zizek himself

>>10748883
It really isn't and it really wouldn't. This board has done much better

>>10748870
>>10748828
(same poster here), if you want something more accurate, it's more like this:

>Peterson: Well, psychology studies show that women and men seem to have personality differences, which may mean that women and men having an equal distribution in all careers is unlikely---
>Newman: So you're saying women aren't intelligent enough to be CEOs? So you're saying we should just go back to a lobster society? So you're saying that we should give up on trying to create an equal and fair society? So you're saying that men are superior to women? You're saying that a woman can't be neurotically domineering and controlling and have a weak boyfriend she can manipulate if it makes her feel good?
>Peterson: No, no, that's not what I'm saying at all--
>Newman: So you're saying that women are lobsters, is that it, is that what you're saying?

>>10748123
When did he say this?
I hate it when faggot quote OP's don't provide their source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdEbOzcN1U

>>10748862
I concur

>>10748911
>OP posts some of the most blatant bait an internet connection can get you
>"uhhh, what's your source on this? god what a retard... I bet you just made all that up..."

>>10748915
Love it

>>10748921
Hey, man, people on /lit/ have taken shit quotes seriously before. OP made his sound sort of believable to someone who hasn't actually looked into Peterson.

>lobsters share a lot of neurochemistry with us
How is this more true for lobsters than any other animal? They don't even have a central nervous system

>>10748955
They do
You must have never CONSIDERED them before
>fuck I'm lonely

>>10748955
did u read the book u sad pseud? he talks about lobsters because the lobster brain is easy to monitor and analyze the synapses so scientific mother fuckers can understand them real good n shit

>>10748972
No they don't

>>10748982
This still doesn't mean they share any more neurochemistry with us than any other animal.
And how on earth am I pseud for not reading some random psychologist's book

>>10748955
His full point isn't "lobsters live hierarchically and monitor status with serotonin, therefore we do too," it's that 1. humans do indeed have a part of the brain that actively measures social status and influences our behavior accordingly (the amygdala). Its volume correlates positively with the size and complexity of social networks, as well as the ability to make accurate social judgments about others' facial expressions. Monkeys with amygdala lesions have even been shown to approach predators and humans more recklessly. 2. That part of the brain and the existence of social hierarchies mediated by the nervous system is so old that it is also found in the nervous systems of lobsters, which we diverged from 350 million years ago.

>>10749018
Sounds a lot like unfalsifiable psychology trite desu fampai

>>10749024
And here's this fucking non-argument again

>>10749024
yeah scientific research is unfalsifiable, but lacan's theories are obviously very scientific kys

>>10749037
Look, I dislike Lacan as much as the next thinking person, but Peterson's political conclusions do not follow from the premise that humans have evolved to be sensitive to social status.
Also, his lobster example is retarded. There are many animals that are more closely related to us that do not have any sort of serotonin system. Only some species of lobster have social hierarchies in the first place, others have none at all and show no aggression even in close quarters.

>>10749037
>psychology
>not a pseudo-science

>>10749058
i don't think u get it dude, psychology is not just some unfalsifiable bullshit like freudian and marxian bullshit, have you ever taken a psychology class? psych 101 is a required class for most degrees

>https://www.jstor.org/stable/4608416?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>10749058
>There are many animals that are more closely related to us that do not have any sort of serotonin system.

but humans do have serotonin so whats your point? sorry u cant just use the sort of hand waving faggotry that works in philosophy debates in psychology research

>>10749058
>Only some species of lobster have social hierarchies in the first place, others have none at all and show no aggression even in close quarters.
Social hierarchy =/= aggression in close quarters
>but Peterson's political conclusions do not follow from the premise that humans have evolved to be sensitive to social status.
Except the only reason the lobster section was in the book (and hence why it was brought up in the interview) is because it was supplemental to one of his rules: "stand up straight with your shoulders back." It isn't political. He is using them as an example to back the proven claim that perceived social status and emotion have an effect on posture, and that intentionally altering posture can also have an effect on perceived social status and emotion

>>10749083
In animals like lobsters, aggression is required to enforce social hierarchies. It's a dominant social behavior. If you want to get pedantic, there are species of lobsters that have no dominant or submissive social behaviors when around other lobsters i.e. they have no social hierarchies.

I often hear the lobster thing referenced as a way to justify extant hierarchies in human societies, but if he's only trying to use it to talk about how body language affects how others perceive you/how you feel about yourself then I have no beef with that. That's not how I usually hear his supporters talking about it though.

>there are actual Room Cleaners on this board now

will it never end?

>>10749103
the point was once a lobster is defeated it shrinks down and does the "virgin walk"

>>10748982
>>10749082
>>10749070
Do you know how hard it is to take you seriously when you can't even type out a proper sentence?

>>10749103
care to link us to the non-heriarchical marxist-pacifist lobsters? and which one evolved first?

>>10749116
nice ad hom bro

>>10749116
sentences are for yids

>>10749103
>I often hear the lobster thing referenced as a way to justify extant hierarchies in human societies
He doesn't "justify" social hierarchy in humans, he acknowledges they exist, which is not a controversial claim in any way among people who aren't dismissing it because it's incompatible with their own socio-political theory.

If his entire argument for the existence of human hierarchy consisted of the lobster example, that'd be fucking insane and I'd be right there with you mocking him. But it isn't. He's just using them as a simplified model for a kind of behavior we consistently observe in humans. Humans are obviously more complicated than "I won a fight so now I am big/I lost a fight so now I curl up" but the simplicity of the lobster allows for exploration of the behavior in an environment with few variables

Peterson is a gnostic (jungian) biological determinist. Believes in mechanistic naturalism and Darwinism. Thinks that anyone who is critical of Israel is "jealous of Jews". Should be avoided at all costs.

>>10749141
ppl can talk shit about his comments on post-modernism and biblical hermeneutics or whatever, but his psychology work isn't something you can just dismiss with "yeah but im an anarchist so i don't believe in lobsters"

>>10749146
His talks about postmodernism and biblical hermeneutics are based off his psychology though.

>>10749142
>biological determinist
You either don't know what that means or are deliberately plugging your ears and humming if you truly believe it's in any way accurate to call him a biological determinism

We are living in a world where arguing against the fucking nonsense beliefs of extreme social constructionists makes you a biological determinist in the eyes of the public. That is heartbreaking, man

>>10749153
I called him a biological determinist, not a biological determinism. I'll redirect you to this guys post: >>10749116

>>10749141
Yes, thank you for a concise demonstration of what he was trying to say. The lobster example has been unfairly memed to all hell, he was trying to simplify a concept and people took it and ran with it as if he was basing his entirely philosophical worldview on the nervous system and social hierarchy of lobsters.

>>10749153
>e are living in a world where arguing against the fucking nonsense beliefs of extreme social constructionists makes you a biological determinist in the eyes of the public.
They're religious lunatics anon, just accept that our society is run by cultists and live your lfie.

who lysenkoist here?

>>10748123
He sounds like a more intellectual version of Mitt Romney. As Napoleon once said, "You don't reason with intellectuals. You shoot them."

>>10749176
lol

>>10749142
>gnostic (jungian) biological determinist
How can someone be a gnostic and a biological determinist at the same time?

And he is not a Jungian. He abuses Jungian psychoanalysis for his own ends

>>10749122
Spiny lobsters and slipper lobsters, which I just looked up and realized are not "true" lobsters, so I was mistaken. It doesn't matter which evolved first because almost any terrestrial animal will be a closer relative to us. Just looking at mammals sociality spans from asocial animals (like tigers) to eusocial animals (like naked mole rats) with elaborate social structures more akin to bees or ants than humans.

truly the l ron hubbard of our generation

>>10749260
dude are you that socially retarded that you can't sense the social hierarchy among humans? you never noticed that awkward time when a new kid comes to your school their place in the heirarchy isn't clear so they talk to both nerds and cool kids and then eventually they end up with one or the other, or when you go out with a bunch of friends from work or whatever

they even design prisons based around human hierarchies, up to about 50 people humans will sort themselves into an order and more or less live peacefully, the problem is when you get 300 people in one cell block and there are too many people to sort that you start having fights and violence as small hierarchies form and clash

saying human hierarchies don't exist is not a counter to the fact that human hierarchies exist

>>10749294
Where did I ever say humans don't have social hierarchies? The problem is when people use the existence of human hierarchies to get an ought from an is.

>>10749306
who got an ought from an is? i missed that part

>>10749294
>saying human hierarchies don't exist is not a counter to the fact that human hierarchies exist

>>10749294
>What is the is/ought problem?

>>10749308
Anyone who uses Jordan Peterson to inform their political views. There are many such people.

>>10749311
nerd bullshit

>>10749314
what do those people have to do with jordan peterson?

>>10749317
>nerd bullshit
Petersonfags are truly the most basic bitch of pop-intellectualism

>>10749330
i don't get why peterson makes u so mad? a psychologist publishes a book of basic life advice for young men, autists on the internet spazz out with rafe

>>10749336
>l-lol you mad bro
Weak damage control desu.

>a psychologist publishes a book of basic life advice for young men
Oh boy here is that Petersonfag playing that card again, saying how he helps people with his self help shit. You assume everyone wants you to continue living your shit life where people only want to critique and tell Peterson that is he wrong. Him being wrong doesn't mean shouldn't improve your life retard.

>>10749372
>Weak damage control desu.

what damage? i don't even know what you're mad about? it's weird man

>>10749377
you handwaved the is/ought problem away and are mad at getting called out for it

>>10749398
instead of moving the goal posts why don't u just clearly state why ur mad?

>>10749400
If that's not clear then you don't have the requisite reading comprehension to be posting on a literature board

>all opposition comes from a point of mental instability
petersuckers are literally 21st century scientologists

>>10749405
lmao this the STATE of peterson haters

>>10749400
I haven't move anything. The is-ought problem post is my first

>>10749410
>backpedaling this hard
We get it, sonny, you've not read Hume. Please stop, the fremdscham is killing me

>>10749070
Psychology is not a science. Deal with it.

I like Peterson, I've never understood why he's such a divisive figure. Nothing he says is all that controversial. He mostly just relates facts and common sense analysis of those facts.

>>10749441
if deepak choprah paid people to flood the board with spam we'd find him annoying as well

>>10749440
marxism is not a science, claims to "scientific socialism" aside

>>10749453
It's a good job that I'm not a Marxist then isn't it.

>>10749438
you have yet to engage with any thing from the text

>hurr durr something something is/ought haha gotcha nigga!

umm nope

>>10749462
you have yet to even state why peterson has u so rustled, i don't think you've thought this whole thing through son

>>10749445
I'll admit, I see his name on /lit/, /pol/, and even /b/ more often than is warranted, but do you really think he pays people to do that? That sounds a bit silly. How would that even benefit him? Most of his videos don't even have ads, and I doubt there are a lot of people buying his books because of 4chan.

>>10749445
the spam would be gay but it would have no relevance to whether chopra is "wrong" or not

>>10749486
Peterson would still be wrong if he weren't spammed, but no one would care

>>10749475
Peterson doesn't have me rustled, you're confusing me with someone else. And you seem to be very rustled that's why you're accusing me of random things twice now to avoid the fact psychology is not a real science.

>>10749493
what is he wrong about

>>10749464
The is/ought problem applies explicitly to the argument you're making. You better start thinking for yourself, because your teacher isn't here to spell it out for you, you little faggot.

>>10749507
AHA once again you illustrate your ignorance of the could/should paradox. Go back to school, kid! You're obviously unprepared to engage with the intellectual titans of /lit/.

>>10748862
>The public dialog for, against, and neutral towards Peterson is almost unwaveringly the most unintelligent and deeply flawed trough of slop I've ever seen
Wow, this might be the first "all sides are bad" post I've seen that rejects neutrality itself

>>10749441
>He mostly just relates facts and common sense analysis of those facts.
Not really, he says a lot of dumb and discredited shit and his mischaracterization of postmodernism is the main reason so many people on /lit/ hate him. He uses his position as an academic to make his ideas on fields outside his own seem more valid and even within psychology his unwavering faith in Jung's theories is questionable. But if you're just talking about the shallow "clean your room" self-help advice then I guess you're right.

>>10749674
he always talks shit about foucault but then has a chapter in his book called "discipline and punish" where he talks about how schools and hospitals and prisons all share similar designs as hierarchical power bureaucracies or whatever, it's like how diss foucault then poorly paraphrase his work as your own

I seen his video on YouTube. He’s a big smart man with a big brain and I give him ten dollars a month now :)

>>10749502
See
>>10749674

>>10749684
he seems to be similar to trump in the since that he says dumb shit on the internet to make boomers and feminists angry, but then the actual content of his work is professional and non-offensive

>>10749688
marxists just can't take it when somebody in academia actually starts to fight back

>>10748955
It's because while it's cooking the lobster turns from blue to red, ie liberal to conservative.
So the solution is to boil all the liberals alive until they freely become conservative.

>>10749502
>>10749688
>everything is archetypes
>postmodernism is a concrete and organized movement that's defined by relativism and Marxism
>that whole mess about the Canadian law that made him famous in the first place
>Frozen is propaganda
I'd get into his bizarre and often contradictory ideas about Christianity, totalitarianism and the female mind, but with the way this board is nowadays all I'd get would be a fedora or SJW meme, so I won't bother.

>>10749760
>Frozen is propaganda
I am still legitimately mad about this because if anything Frozen is the Hero Journey for the redhead princess and this supposed 'Jungian' couldn't fucking see it

Why does /lit/ need to have a collective representative? Seriously, from a psychological perspective, it's fascinating. It's like /lit/ is a tribe, and we have an 'alpha male' pack leader. It's not unanimous, but the figurehead has a large majority vote, with a small, possibly 10%, who are strongly opposed, and the board collectively latches on to the person.

This leader figure doesn't even have to be alive. We had DFW for a while as our mascot messiah, and then replaced him with Max Stirner. Two dead guys in a row. It's amazing how the collective views of the board can transform so wildly too. /lit/ was full blown communist when Zizek was the pack leader.

Is it a direct result of anonymity? Do non-anonymous communities that have gathered in numbers larger than 100 have a 'celebrity' leader too, someone to idolize or represent them?

If only Peterson were a little less famous he might come here and post occasionally. I remember when /fit/ replaced Zyzz with a famous Youtuber, Scooby, and he came to /fit/ as a result of the heavy Youtube comments and regularly posted with a tripcode. Perhaps if Peterson's fame dwindles soon, or when /lit/ elects the next board God, presuming he's alive and has a little less fame than Peterson, he could interact with the board.

>>10749786
dude, there's just one sperg/marketer who spams relentlessly, it's not like there's any throttling in starting ops, and even if there was the guy could just get a vpn with multiple end points

>>10749786
>It's like /lit/ is a tribe, and we have an 'alpha male' pack leader.

>>10749786
It is almost as if board culture is not stagnant. But really the creation of /his/ has lead to a lobotomy of /lit/'s culture desu so much so there is a discontinuity between moot's /lit/ and hiro's /lit/

>>10749843
i wish they would make a philosophy board to get rid of all the philosophy fags, i'm only interested in literature and literary theory, not trying to figure if reality is real or how can i be sure i exist or if all bachelors are unmarried

>>10749846

>>10749846
>what is /sci/

/sci/ is basically where philosophy fags hang out when they're at their groove. Philosophy shitposters on the other hand hang out here given that they know that this board is filled with leftists fucks that don't have any idea how to talk about philosophy.

>>10748955
>>10749009
>How is this more true for lobsters than any other animal? They don't even have a central nervous system
It isn't, but that's not the point is? Lobsters are used as an example as the simplicity of their nervous system allows humans to effectively monitor and experiment on them. And the results of that experimentation is what Peterson refers to.

It's not complicated anon.

>>10749024
>unfalsifiable
>literally demonstrable, observed, and measured facts

>>10748828
I've suspected for a long time the anti-Peterson posting was coming from frustrated brainlets. Posts like this confirm it.

>>10749872
Do you also consider economics a science? In terms of demonstration they're virtually identical except that psychology will randomly insert neuroscience where it deems fitting (and it generally isn't)

>>10749609
Yeah man, there’s truly no way out

>>10749314
Peterson doesn’t argue that social hierarchies should be adhered to because they exist, I’ve never heard him make an ethical justification for them at all. He points out that hierarchy and the Matthew Principle explain many differences in outcome in society that are commonly chalked up to oppression, and points out that everything is more efficient and stable when it is allowed to exist, which is not breaking the is/ought barrier. He’s working from a pretty widely held philosophy that efficiency and stability are preferable

Your argument is basically like saying “umm claiming drills are better for screws than nails is deriving an ought from an is...”
It’s fine to assume that most hold efficiency as a general good

>>10750083
>everything is more efficient and stable when extant hierarchies are allowed to exist
>many differences in society that are commonly chalked up to oppression are explained by "nature"/biology

This is where you're going to get pushback if you start asserting these as fact. These debates are far from settled, and when Peterson presents them like they're a closed case he's being disingenuous. There are also good arguments to be made against pursuing stability (and even efficiency) as values unto themselves, and I never see Peterson try to engage with this point of view. He and his followers seem to take it as a given.

>>10749441
but he misinterpreted Derrida!!!

>>10750114
More like he thinks Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc. form a single amorphous post-structural? French super villain, which causes people to not take him very seriously

>>10749146
>"yeah but im an anarchist so i don't believe in lobsters"
This thread has gone too far

>>10748123
>>10748143
noice

>>10748123

>>10749438
>Trannys are literally Hitler but left wing
Cool story bro

I feel like every Peterson follower who complains endlessly about muh postmodernism muh political correctness muh identity politics should just take a look at the Richard Rorty (a postmodernist philosopher) who already opposed all of that back in 1997.

Just watch this interview, the whole thing is worth it but is especially relevant at about 16 minutes in

https://youtu.be/L1qEsGcQeqw

And you can certainly disagree with Dr. Jordan Peterson, of course, of course... but be warned: you do so at your own peril. Absolutely.

>>10749786
>>10749805
Disillusioned and unfulfilled young men are more likely to fall into personality cults like Peterson's, simple as that. At least that's the way I look at it. And no, I'm not saying all or even the vast majority of Peterson fags are blind followers or autists or everything. His appeal is even more broad than I realized honestly. I had a Muslim roommate (pretty devout too, at least by American Muslim standards) who watched his videos regularly and it surprises me but I guess it goes to show his appeal doesn't have much to do with God or Christianity. His followers are a pretty diverse cross section (except gender-wise) of unhappy men who don't feel like they have a place in modern Western society and are looking for meaning, so I really don't think it's easy to make blanket claims about them.

I have tremendous respect for Peterson because he's been able to appeal to this group better than anyone I've seen, and in such a divisive political environment too.

>>10749689
I don't know if I'd call Trump's """actual """""""work"""""""""" professional.

>>10749786
What are you, retarded? Talking about public figures, obsessing over them, even, yes, adopting them as sort of mascots, is part of the discussion format... but I do not think it's anywhere near as dramatic as you say. I do not think that at any time you could say that /lit/ has a "collective representative". If anything, these figures get exploited, knowingly, for the whims of anonymous collective jabs and points of interest. Peterson is an OBSESSIVE figure of interest but not a "mascot" and certainly not one who has a "large majority vote" with only approx 10% "opposition".

>>10750050
>Do you also consider economics a science? In terms of demonstration they're virtually identical

>>10750227

Is the US government functioning noticeably worse than it was a year ago? Has our economy tanked? Would your life be any different if Hillary were President right now? Answer to all those 3 is NO. Politics is mostly theater now, Trump will continue to keep his base and do what he does best (personality politics) while the bureaucracy and deregulated free market do the rest.

>>10748123
>>10748143
So when is the Peterson v Zizek showdown?
I wonder if he'll bring up the point he lost an argument to a Zizekbot

>>10750186
Amen man, Rorty is the fucking man.

>[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

>At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …

>One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. … All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

He wrote that. In 1998, in his book Achieving our Country. He saw it coming long before anyone else did.

>>10750186
>"as long as there isn't interracial marriage we're going to have a race problem in the country"
>"the thing I dislike about cultural politics is it makes it difficult for [interracial marriage]"
>"the suburban whites need to understand they have to be taxed to help the slums and ghettos"
Jesus.

>>10750269
t. psychology major

>>10750297
>those horrible lower class white people... they voted for Trump! Literally a modern holocaust

>>10750302
>he thinks it's psychology to map physical changes in an organism that clearly correlate with behavior
retard alert

>>10750287
>Is the US government functioning noticeably worse than it was a year ago?
How could your answer be anything but yes? The US has lost a lot of its credibility and international standing because of it. The economy has very little to do with Trump. As for people's personal lives, it's rare that any single policy will have a noticeable impact. That doesn't mean that policies that affect long-term outcomes or indirectly create conditions for success or failure are unimportant.

>>10750309
>he doesn't think Trump with usher in a Fourth Reich
oy vey

>>10750309
that bit's about liberalism being doomed to fail because its unappealing to the majority, don't see what in it got you so upset

>>10750309
If you had seen or read literally anything else about Rorty and politics you would know that he was worried that the problems of lower class whites weren't being taken seriously. He's not trying to vilify the people who are present-day Trumpists.

>>10748972
Underrated post.

>>10750315
>The US has lost a lot of its credibility and international standing because of it.

And everybody goes about their lives like any other day. Like most political news you hear about, America's loss in "approval" from other countries means virtually nothing. These countries still rely on us economically and their elites know that the U.S. is still a strong and reliable ally. If there's a major global crisis in the world anywhere, do you think world leaders are going to look to May in the UK, or Macron in France, or Xi in China?

Also, it's funny that was your response to whether the U.S. government is functioning noticeably worse. Instead of thinking of any way in which the federal government has worsened and you refer to international standing, which is 90% a product of media representation. And come on, you don't have to be a Trumptard to know the media tends to have a narrative.

>>10750330
And do you think he's saying their response is a good one?

>>10750301
>this anon is making shit up no-one would ever say that
>22:30

>>10750351
He wouldn't have wanted it to come to that, but he's not blaming them for making that choice.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/4192489