/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10567910]

https://www.ft.com/content/40c05b84-f7a7-11e7-a4c9-bbdefa4f210b

>On planet Peterson, the social revolutions of the 20th century have not lifted us above atavistic power games and brought about female emancipation but have led to universal degeneracy and the enfeeblement of men. Where “the traditional household division of labour has been demolished”, the result is “chaos, conflict and indeterminacy”.

>Peterson has a knack for penning sentences that sound like deep wisdom at first glance but vanish into puffs of pseudo-profundity if you give them more than a second’s thought. Consider these: “Our eyes are always pointing at things we are interested in approaching, or investigating, or looking at, or having”; “In Paradise, everyone speaks the truth. That is what makes it Paradise.” It is no defence to say there are truths here clumsily expressed: rule 10 is “Be precise in your speech”.

>This is not the only time Peterson breaks his own rules. He sounds charming when advocating the principle of charity: “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.” In practice, he often dismisses people with opposing views with barely concealed contempt. This is particularly noticeable when he talks about religion. Peterson, a Christian, doesn’t just say atheists are wrong, but that they are wrong to even think they are atheists. Those who think otherwise “don’t understand anything. You didn’t even know that you were blind.”

>No one trying to understand how to live should read this book. Anyone interested in the growing assault on liberal values, however, should study it with fear and trembling.

[Anonymous No.10567915]

>>10567910

>tfw liberal values are under assault

[Anonymous No.10567919]

poor wittle wiberals can't handle their ideas being challenged, I feel sooooooo sorry for them

[Anonymous No.10567926]

Only in Anglo hellworld is Peterson not recognised as a liberal totally infused with liberal values. Only in Anglo hellworld is Peterson seriously considered some kind of shocking reactionary startlingly deviating from our self-conception of progress and social advancement. His rhetorical melodramas and his cult of emotional intoxication are rightly, if passingly, diagnosed - his supposed "assault on liberal values" in reality barely even registers on the Richter scale, barely approaches the level of outsider social critique of even continental left-wingers.

[Sage No.10567927]

>It's another thinly veiled burgerpolitics thread
I hope you guys die in a lake of fire.

[Anonymous No.10567944]

>>10567927
Whenever an American makes any sort of political commentary or analysis I immediately disregard it. Why?

Because the average American "thinker" is the ultimate armchair philosopher. They will proudly give their uneducated opinion on anything. They have no context, no real skin in the game because they haven't had war or conflict even close to their own soil since the 1800s. Their 'culture' is a fabrication made by Hollywood Jews to entice their youth with cowboy and soldier genres to serve their military industrial complex to work and die for Israel. 'Tradition' for them is stuffing themselves to the gullet with high-fat high-sugar foods and securing some shitty office 9-5 office or manual labor job enough to afford healthcare for their heart surgeries and medication.


American 'Alt-Righters' and 'traditionalists' are the worst among these. These half-breed mouth-breathing apes are the loudest advocates for an ethnostate, for the "day of the rope". Their genetic self-confusion is so dire that the word 'cuck' immediately resonates with them in any given discourse. Their understanding of the history of ideas has come from Wikipedia articles and state propaganda. They have no sense of nuance: anything even remotely resembling optimal collective activity is deemed "GOMMUNISM" as their own society institutions continues to become more bureaucratic, overrun by nonwhites, stagnant, and impoverished.

This would be all fine in dandy if these mutants were self contained, but since they outsource all their industry to street shitting cultures like China and India which expel the fetid masses of plastic and waste into our environment, the Amerimonkey's uncontrollable lust for consumption is destroy God's green Earth. We cannot tolerate it any longer.

What is to be done concerning the AQ (American Question)?

[Anonymous No.10567957]

>>10567944
You had me until you went out of your way to call out /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10567960]

>>10567957
56% reporting in

[Anonymous No.10567962]

Go clean your room. Sort yourself out.

[Anonymous No.10567963]

All I can is we've all suffered as a result of Peterson's religious beliefs. He has to constantly try to make everything compatible with Christianity rather than speak the truth as it is.

[Anonymous No.10567964]

do you have the complete article? and what the fuck is the Financial Times doing speaking about internet memes in real life to try to make some sort of convoluted political point?

[Anonymous No.10567966]

>>10567963
the base of his project is mythological and religious so you might as well drop everything that comes out of his mouth if you want to drop that part

[Anonymous No.10567969]

>>10567963
>>10567966
Peterson was an alcoholic in his 20s and turned back to Christianity like every other degenerate does when degeneracy stops being fun

[Anonymous No.10567974]

>>10567969
he is not christian though, so that makes no sense

[Anonymous No.10567976]

>>10567966
Well religious scientists always add disclaimers and shit about God to their work, but if you can filter out the facts, you can still learn something useful.

Jung's work is littered with religious crap but it's still seminal psychology.

[Anonymous No.10568007]

>>10567910
full retarded article without paywall where?

[Anonymous No.10568011]

>>10568007
>being this new
https://archive.fo/SjXdX

just archive any paywall article with some archiver and they can 99% of the time read it

[Anonymous No.10568044]

>>10567910
>>10568011
well, that was weak, the guy barely says anything beyond citing a few of the grandstanding memersonian chapter titles and trying to make fun of them without mentioning anything about the actual content of the book

also the part where he criticizes the appeal to tradition by pointing its lack of "originality" was kind of funny

[Anonymous No.10568046]

>>10567927
I wouldn't worry.

[Anonymous No.10568053]

>Peterson has a knack for penning sentences that sound like deep wisdom at first glance but vanish into puffs of pseudo-profundity if you give them more than a second’s thought. Consider these: “Our eyes are always pointing at things we are interested in approaching, or investigating, or looking at, or having”; “In Paradise, everyone speaks the truth. That is what makes it Paradise.” It is no defence to say there are truths here clumsily expressed: rule 10 is “Be precise in your speech”.

What exactly is wrong with how Peterson wrote these sentences? Even if he could re-phrase something, part of the art of writing is making stylistic choices. If you re-worded Meditations to cliff-notes tier writing, it would lose all of its profundity, it would sound dry, and it wouldn't be anywhere near as influential. Its like the critic forgot about what the genre and target audience of this book is. Its entirely appropriate to write in a more florid style for this genre.

It really sucks how every reviewer and critic of Peterson keeps trying to tie him in with right wing politics and the political sphere. He needs to try and position himself as a non-partisan observer, and not as one with allegiance to the right, as he is increasingly doing.

[Anonymous No.10568062]

>>10567964
It's written by Julian Baggini a real philosopher

[Anonymous No.10568070]

>>10568062
that's fine but the article was very weak, it was just the author giving the impression he gets from memerson that makes him feel icky and very little analysis of anything said in the book

[Anonymous No.10568135]

>>10567944
Good post I hope it's not a pasta

[Anonymous No.10568151]

>>10567910
I know and care very little about Peterson, and haven't read his book, but I'm pretty sure
>Peterson, a Christian
Not true.
>assault on liberal values
Peterson, a liberal.
>Our eyes are always pointing at things we are interested in approaching, or investigating, or looking at, or having
Is literal, no? In which case it's pretty precise. I'm sure I once heard him say this in the context of using eye movements to know what other humans want.

[Anonymous No.10568155]

>>10567960
> no Spanish names like "el goblino" or "la creatura"

Disappointed.

[Anonymous No.10568157]

>Peterson peddles a kind of academic populism in which the philosophies of Heidegger and Kierkegaard are drafted in to support the will of the people and the wisdom of tradition. No one trying to understand how to live should read this book. Anyone interested in the growing assault on liberal values, however, should study it with fear and trembling.

Why are they so scared about this book?

[Anonymous No.10568164]

>>10568053
to be fair, I don't know many "philosophers" and even "psychologists" that don't mainly speak in trusims, direct observations, tautologies, and platitudes to either set up an argument or point or use them to make a point.

people just hate him because while he appears to want to help the world, it seems there's a current of disingeniousness, sophistry, and new age spirituality and self-help guru.

I see him more as a sociological psychologist that has spent too much time on 4chan

go to bed Jordan Petersen

[Anonymous No.10568201]

>>10567910
Wow, how will Peterson ever recover? When I wipe my ass I have to briefly look at the toilet paper. Peterson said my eyes ALWAYS look at what they're interested in, but I'm NOT interested in toilet paper or shit, SO he is a LIAR. We can all go home and start a hormone replacement regimen now.

[Anonymous No.10568205]

>>10568044
>where he criticizes the appeal to tradition by pointing its lack of "originality" was kind of funny
How is it even possible for people to be so devoid of self-awareness? I genuinely find it hard to believe this person exists....

[Anonymous No.10568216]

>>10567910
Wait a minute, Peterson has his own planet?
>using an extremely overly literal interpretation of a turn of phrase while yourself employing even less literal expressions
Can leftists even go 1 sentence without contradicting or undermining themselves?

[Anonymous No.10568217]

>>10568151
>Peterson, a liberal
He literally isn't
>inb4 classical liberal
Not even that. He's just another "American Libertarian" without much of value to offer.

[Anonymous No.10568219]

>All these butthurt petersonfags ITT
Hilarious

[Anonymous No.10568251]

>>10567910
>”Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.” In practice, he often dismisses people with opposing views with barely concealed contempt.
If the person isn’t able to respond to criticism then they don’t know something that you don’t. The whole point of debating is the practice of forcing your opponent to express their knowledge that which you may not know in order to defend their points, so that both sides may emerge with broader perspectives.

[Anonymous No.10568349]

>>10568251
>The whole point of debating is the practice of forcing your opponent to express their knowledge that which you may not know in order to defend their points, so that both sides may emerge with broader perspectives.
if you truly believe this you're dumb as fuck
the point of debate is dominating your opponent, nothing more, nothing less

[Anonymous No.10568401]

>>10568349
this true

[Anonymous No.10568433]

>>10568157
Because they are afraid of people waking up to the fact that the worldview they inherited from their boomer parents is absolute dog shit.

[Anonymous No.10568446]

>>10568349
t. sophist

>>10568433
I think fear and trembling was a nod to the book that soren wrote that touches on a lot of themes that petersen also talks about.

[Anonymous No.10568483]

>>10568217
He calls himself a British Classical Liberal, in what way is he an American Liberal because there is some confusion to the term liberal and how its used in contemporary american politics (i.e. PJW-tier activism)

[Anonymous No.10568488]

>>10568446
>I think fear and trembling was a nod to the book that soren wrote that touches on a lot of themes that petersen also talks about.

I noticed that but its confusing, who here stands for Abraham

[Anonymous No.10568501]

>>10568483
>a British Classical Liberal

That's basically a Libertarain as he said. These were the people who advocated Malthusian disasters and resisted restrictions on child labor

[Anonymous No.10568515]

>paywall

[Anonymous No.10568532]

>>10568501
its "basically" a libertarian but there are important distinctions which require us to have the distinction.

[Anonymous No.10568548]

>>10568483
Classical enlightenment liberal values, what is contemporarily known as classical liberalism, is not a thought school Peterson subscribes to. He's just an "American Libertarian" or Randist if you prefer that term with heavier flavor of nationalism.

[Anonymous No.10568560]

>>10568548
But he's not a randist, that would make him an objectivist. His views are much more steeped in history

[Anonymous No.10568573]

>>10567910
>This is not the only time Peterson breaks his own rules. He sounds charming when advocating the principle of charity: “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.” In practice, he often dismisses people with opposing views with barely concealed contempt. This is particularly noticeable when he talks about religion. Peterson, a Christian, doesn’t just say atheists are wrong, but that they are wrong to even think they are atheists. Those who think otherwise “don’t understand anything. You didn’t even know that you were blind.”

That's great an all, but you are being baited into wanting to have pointless debates that gain nothing. So Petersen is a Christian. If you spend time actually listening to the things he preaches and the quality of the arguments he makes (not on whether God exists, but what we can learn from teachings in the bible that are backed up by scientific study) you will see that a man's faith is irrelevant to what they can learn to live a wholesome life.

He barely ever pushes for his own religion at all. You are diverting the conversation around him entirely into

>B-but he's not an atheist and that is entirely relevant to anything we can learn from him!

Quit wasting people's time.

[Anonymous No.10568616]

>>10567944
woke

[Anonymous No.10568671]

>>10567944
As an American, I agree with most of your post.

However,

>Their 'culture' is a fabrication made by Hollywood Jews to entice their youth with cowboy and soldier genres to serve their military industrial complex to work and die for Israel. 'Tradition' for them is stuffing themselves to the gullet with high-fat high-sugar foods and securing some shitty office 9-5 office or manual labor job enough to afford healthcare for their heart surgeries and medication.
It's very clear YOUR opinion about Americans is impersonal, uneducated, and from overseas. Overseas opinions about Americans from people who have not had any direct contact with Americans are just as worthy of instant dismissal because they are just as useless and inaccurate about reality. America has been a cultural powerhouse for centuries, and continues to be to this day.

[Anonymous No.10568679]

>>10568062
Well, he must be a worthless philosopher if he seriously thinks a meme like Peterson is a threat to liberal values.

[Anonymous No.10568701]

>>10568671
America is a cultural baby. Thats why third rate cliche cowboys like McCarthy are even considered good.

[Anonymous No.10568711]

>>10568701
If you want to experience what it is like to be a nonAmerican imagine an obnoxious 8 year old screaming his opinions at you incessantly through expensive enormous speakers at max volume that drowns out everything including your own thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10568713]

>>10568560
Just because their different way of reaching to same conclusion differs doesn't make end product different. Would you also say real communism has never been tried? JP sure likes to sperg out on this point. Also analyze what Peterson says through an economic lens also, since Peterson very much intentionally invites those criticism

[Anonymous No.10568724]

>>10568701
>America is a cultural baby.
It is. That doesn't mean America hasn't generated most of the world's greatest art for the past century.

[Anonymous No.10568740]

>>10567969
Christianity is the ultimate degeneracy and I am fucking sick of seeing people shill it here

[Anonymous No.10568754]

>>10568740
Degeneracy from what? You're not one of those neo-pagans are you?

[Anonymous No.10568760]

>>10568724
That would explain why its so shit.

[Anonymous No.10568773]

>>10567944
He's Canadian, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.10568798]

>>10568740
Let me guess, you're a pagan primitivist?

[Anonymous No.10568813]

>>10568760
To become such a cultural powerhouse in such short time does come with problems, yes. The most important of which is the ressentiment that grows towards it from the outside.

[Anonymous No.10568836]

>>10568813
Youre confusing culture for capital.

[Anonymous No.10568848]

>>10568740
Go to bed Varg

[Anonymous No.10568866]

>>10567944
This is exactly the type of thing n armchair critic living in America would say.

[Anonymous No.10568889]

i hate peterson but what does this have to do with /lit/. there's an actual /lit/ thread over here >>10568221

[Anonymous No.10568890]

>>10568836
Do you think americans seriously know the difference? Whenever they strike luck with something creating interesting (be it abstract painting, postmodern literature, the modern blockbuster or videogames) they immediately start to mass-produce and throw money at it until it necessarily becomes shit.
Never has a culture been so obsessed with novelty and production as the american post 20th century, they don't realize there's pleasure in contemplating the world, their only drive is to acquire more and more of it without any clear goal. Almost like a hive, only instead of a queen they have muh manifest destiny or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10568891]

>>10568836
You think I'm confusing the two because your understanding of American culture is extremely narrow since you haven't had any direct experience with any of it before. Your belief that there are no traditions held up in America is indicative that you're deeply uneducated about America or just don't understand it because you're trying to make sense of it through a foreign lens from a distance. I recommend you actually do some research into American made products.

[Anonymous No.10568902]

How does a man feel he's gained ANYTHING from female emancipation?

[Anonymous No.10568913]

>Euros criticize Americans for having no history essentially
>Euros derive this condescending position from the 300 years that a handful of guys did great things
>Don't see how gay it is to take credit for something they never came close to doing themselves
>Have such fragile egos that while their own continent is decaying spectacularly they can only talk shit about their younger brother who went on to be more successful
It's okay Europe, you'll always be the better looking brother at least

[Anonymous No.10568927]

>>10568836
and you are simply ignorant of what America is. Simply their philosophy behind their constitution is something to cherish as unique piece of culture.

Then again, we are in /lit/ and you are with 99% certainty a commie so, into the helicopter you go.

[Anonymous No.10568930]

>>10568913
It's ironic that you would say this considering your country is having a chimp out because muh race. What is "race" if not a way for faggots who never did squat to feel part of a continuum of people who did?
Also, since you mentioned it, it's also rich that you'd say that while Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers (and that's from the top of my head) are hailed as heroes for inventing shit they didn't. Even your history is a bought out, spectacular thing.

[Anonymous No.10568937]

>>10568913
>Americans pride themselves on being a new and unique culture in the world
>all of a sudden the conservatives turn fascist and want to eradicate all "non-white" people out of their country
>while promoting European culture and white supremacy
what did Americans mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10568938]

>>10568930
>What is "race" if not a way for faggots who never did squat to feel part of a continuum of people who did?

Imagine actually believing this. Race is a description of a common attitude and mode of being, an underlying life philosophy essentially

[Anonymous No.10568940]

>>10568930
>What is "race"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK-0DbOG3zk

[Anonymous No.10568941]

>>10568930
>chimp out because muh race
not really, America is very big and very white and very spread out. Those things only exist on the internet.

[Anonymous No.10568946]

>>10568930
>Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers (and that's from the top of my head) are hailed as heroes for inventing shit they didn't. Even your history is a bought out, spectacular thing.
They did ininte those things. Youre just a typical overly emotional europoor socialist whos entire world view is centered around spiteful and meaningless hatred of americans. Keep importing muslims, stubbornly pushing forth socialist ideals, and rotting away while cursing the world and reality itself for telling you how stupid and pathetic you are

[Anonymous No.10568948]

>>10568937
the people you are talking about deride European culture and intellectualism and think of it a pseud jargon. They want to return America back to its hard working protestant roots

[Anonymous No.10568964]

>>10568913
>>10568937

>Europeanised Americans and Americanised Europeans think they are very different
>both are eye-rollers who either watch netflix or look down on those who do
>both share the same vocabulary of stock insults and phrases that they deploy here, the forum they all use

[Anonymous No.10568966]

>>10567944
>Because the average American "thinker" is the ultimate armchair philosopher.
yeah, as if still sucking off the same tired pseudo intellectual post war marxist (who only used philsophy in the same way a rockstar uses music, in order to sleep with women) is actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10568969]

>>10568930
>What is Race.
It's when you shit in your hand and make part of London the tuberculosis capital of Western Europe, LOL.

[Anonymous No.10568970]

>>10568946
>"you're overly emotional and angry"
>posts an inane emotional comment without any argument or form
calm down bro you're gonna have a stroke

[Anonymous No.10568974]

>>10568891
I didnt say anything about tradition. Your final sentence calling American culture "products" is precisely correct.

[Anonymous No.10568985]

>>10568970
>no you are!
Im not the one pretending the Wright brothers didnt invent the airplane because Im some brainwashed clueless pleb. Europeans are emotional morons who blame their failures on the american boogeyman

[Anonymous No.10568986]

>>10568974
I figured you were the author of the original post I replied to, who wrote:

>'Tradition' for them is stuffing themselves to the gullet with high-fat high-sugar foods and securing some shitty office 9-5 office or manual labor job enough to afford healthcare for their heart surgeries and medication.

i.e. Americans do not have any traditions beyond this, which is deeply false.

>Your final sentence calling American culture "products" is precisely correct.

Correct about what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.10568990]

>>10568946
You just affirmed "they invented those things" despite logic and evidence pointing to the contrary and started to ramble about muh muslims or whatever, so please clam down

>>10568941
I didn't even talked about "white" race, but "muh race" is the main factor in 9 out of 10 american chimp outs, be them white, asian, black or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10568999]

>>10568990
>despite logic and evidence pointing to the contrary
non exist. If you think modern airplanes are not based on the wright brothers work, or if you think some europoor making a glider is the same thing as what the wright brothers did, then you are just a stupid person anon. I want you to tell me how far the wright brothers plane flew vs what ever other meme glider you think was "da real first airplane!" Also, was the wright brothers plane pushed off a tall ledge or did it take off from the ground?

[Anonymous No.10569004]

>>10568985
but nothing about american imperialism is a boogeyman. there are legitimate complaints there, of a selfish and greedy country that became so big and bloated, that it started to devour the whole world to satisfy its endless greed.

[Anonymous No.10569010]

>>10568999
Not europoor. What the Wright brothers did was mix a catapult and a man lifting kite, it had no means of self propulsion /lifting like an actual PLANE.

[Anonymous No.10569017]

>>10569004
>American imperialism
meme buzzword. I bet you think bin Laden was a poor victim of circumstance as well. I bet youre about to post that stupid newspaper article about him to try and make some smug retarded point

[Anonymous No.10569024]

>>10569004
>complaining about greed
What a good Christian you are. You aren't even among the good Europeans.

[Anonymous No.10569027]

>>10569010
>not answering any of my questions
The Wright flyer was the first powered aircraft anon. Also, the Wright flyer actually WORKED

[Anonymous No.10569033]

>>10569027
Powered by a fucking catapult. If what the Wright brothers did was a plane, then the chinese invented it. Now, how does the fucking plane in the picture doesn't work, considering it's pictured FLYING?

[Anonymous No.10569037]

>>10568671
yes

[Anonymous No.10569048]

>>10569033
>catapult.
literally irrelevent. First powered aircraft. It actually worked, and you are continuining to ignore my questions about how far it flew

also, the picture you posted was a plan from 1906. The Wright Flyer is from 1903. See what I mean about your petty hatred rotting your brain anon?

[Anonymous No.10569066]

>>10567944
Saved

[Anonymous No.10569075]

>>10568913
>the better looking brother at least
lol, we are not better looking

[Anonymous No.10569102]

>>10569024
who are the "good" Europeans?

[Anonymous No.10569127]

>>10569075
I think you missed the point

[Anonymous No.10569164]

>>10569102
The conquerors and artists who lacked the Christian sentiment.

[Anonymous No.10569185]

>>10567944
>yadayadayada
>JEWS

Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.10569187]

>>10567944
See, all of this could be avoided if at some point some other country in the world aspired to anything resembling cultural or intellectual relevancy. Yet the entire world is perfectly content to have its culture defined by the non-entity that is America, the winner by default in absence of a challenger.

[Anonymous No.10569191]

>>10569164
conquering and killing people might've been seen as "good" in the past but it's absolutely not nowadays. Because it would lead to a nuclear war. The old "might makes right" mindset is pretty fucking retarded and we need to move away from that

[Anonymous No.10569235]

>>10567910
Do what the priest says, not what the priest does.

[Anonymous No.10569260]

>>10569048
Man-lifting kites were powered by wind, your argument is irrelevant.
>>10569187
Europe needed that american steel money for rebuilding, the rest of America is too poor or too unequipped (or Canada) to do anything against the US, a lot of times precisely thanks to US (or English) intervention.

[Anonymous No.10569261]

>>10569191
It wasn't seen as very good in the past. The majority of humanity, regardless of what continent you're on, is weak and relies on Judeo-Christian values in order to prevent itself from annihilating itself from deep awareness of its own weakness.

[Anonymous No.10569280]

>>10569187
>the non-entity that is America
>entire world has its culture defined by America
>but it's a non-entity
Sound logic, my resentful friend.

[Anonymous No.10569316]

>"agreeableness does not predict high incomes; women are more agreeable than men; this is one of many similar factors that explains the pay gap."
Isn't it great when you can just write NOBODY SHOULD READ THIS BOOK instead of having to come up with a counterargument.

[Anonymous No.10569325]

>>10568062
>philosopher
That explains the absolute lack of any empirical refutation of Peterson's many objective claims.

Philosophers are so fucking worthless.

[Anonymous No.10569422]

>>10568446
>t. sophist
no, t. realistic would be better
look at internet debates and youtube videos where one "DESTROYS" "HUMILIATES" "MURDERS" "EVISCERATES" "LOVINGLY EUTHANIZES" another
is there any search for truth in these debates? any effort to understand another's point of view? no, only people who cannot even settle on a mutual understanding of the BASIC POINTS of their conversations, constantly trying to bind one another in semantic riddles, retarded logical puzzles that have no fucking connection to the real world and general bullshit whose only point is showing to others that you are dominant, that you're the top dog, the man man, the alpha, call it what you will

and the reason why is that people have opinions and stances that are simply too different in their basic qualities (questions like what is freedom etc) that debates are pretty much impossible.

[Anonymous No.10569437]

>>10569422
Debates are a formal competition with judges and scoring. They are a game/sport/whatever you want to call it.

Arguments are disagreements between parties in competition to see their point accepted.

Discussions are open information-sharing and information-testing conversations.

You debate in school, you argue on the internet, and you discuss with academics.

The end.

[Anonymous No.10569441]

>>10568927
>Simply their philosophy behind their constitution is something to cherish as unique piece of culture.
the philosophy of niggers being only 3/5ths human is a wonderful one I agree

[Anonymous No.10569448]

>>10569441
I'm more talking about approaching the formation of government from the pessimistic viewpoint of how every government has failed and will fail and the precautions one needs to take for the failure of government.

Well, just read the Federalist Papers.

[Anonymous No.10569451]

"I've been in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader."

[Anonymous No.10569453]

>>10569448
>>I'm more talking about approaching the formation of government from the pessimistic viewpoint of how every government has failed and will fail and the precautions one needs to take for the failure of government.
Yeah, literally nobody had thought of that prior to the fucking yanks.

[Anonymous No.10569457]

>>10569280
Fair point, if something is popular that's certainly a strong indicator that it is also good.

[Anonymous No.10569459]

>>10569453
and the yanks had a quite the solution for it.
And if you are pulling out the 'no idea is unique' then you can start shitting on Greeks and Europeans too, for what they are expect people who stole Egyptian and Babylonian ideas

[Anonymous No.10569461]

>>10569448
it's such a great constitution that they needed to add only thirty fucking three amendments to it guaranteeing basic human rights to huge swathes of the population

[Anonymous No.10569466]

>>10569461
Still far less than what European court of human rights needed to write and declare for their declarations.

And it is the only constitution in the entire world that guarantees freedom of speech. No country in Europe has that. That is very unique currently.

[Anonymous No.10569467]

>>10569459
>and the yanks had a quite the solution for it.
Not really.

Early American government was as oligarchical and despotic as the rest. No votes for women, no votes for the vast, vast majority of men, and a small clique of merchants running the show for nearly a century. But they could, and did, still conscript you to fight for your freedom.

[Anonymous No.10569468]

>>10569437
>Debates are a formal competition with judges and scoring. They are a game/sport/whatever you want to call it.
and as a game they don't mean anything when it comes to the search for truth or whatever you wanna call it, because the point of a debate is to win within rules, which are probably utter shit

[Anonymous No.10569473]

>>10567944
Tiiight

[Anonymous No.10569480]

>>10569461
Niggers aren't human anon.

[Anonymous No.10569488]

>>10567910
>female emancipation
>20th century
Nigga u stupid.

[Anonymous No.10569494]

>>10569468
I agree.

I'm not the original person you replied to.

You are both wrong.

The point of debating is not to "dominate" and "prove you're an alpha" it's to have fun in genial competition according to rules. I don't remember my school's debating team slaying huge puss.

Likewise, he was wrong because the point of debating is not to share knowledge. In fact, you need very little knowledge to debate effectively. A handful of basic arguments repeated clearly and concisely again and again in slightly different forms is far more effective than a recitation of the latest thing published.

It's 4:47AM. Stop reading my posts.

[Anonymous No.10569499]

>>10569466
Patently false. The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 guarantees freedom of expression to every citizen. You know who didn't? The american-backed military junta who governed the country from the 60s to the 80s, the reason why the constitution of 1988 had to be written in the first place, since the United States are OK with supporting governments that deny their citizens basic human rights.

[Anonymous No.10569503]

>>10569488
what's the problem with that?

[Anonymous No.10569506]

>>10569499
Brazil has hate speech laws. No freedom of speech. Next.

[Anonymous No.10569511]

>>10569506
Oh look, the Americans have arrived.

Grill yourself, burger.

[Anonymous No.10569514]

>>10569457
Good for some people. Sometimes it is definitely an indication of that, but there's exceptions. Your post doesn't relate to the one you replied to, though.

[Anonymous No.10569516]

>>10569511
Not an argument.
>American
Not American. I'm from Europe.

[Anonymous No.10569521]

>>10569506
>a country that tries to fight disinformation and violent propaganda is against freedom

[Anonymous No.10569528]

>>10567910
so now that the dust has settled, why is a british philosopher so afraid of an elderly canadian man telling kids to brush their teeth? and why can he provide no arguments beyond "muh feelings"?

[Anonymous No.10569529]

>>10569516
>not an argument
Oh yes, like saying "Next." is an argument.

You've yet to establish that Brazil does not have constitutionally guaranteed free speech. In fact, I'm pretty sure China and Russia also have a constitutional guarantee. Australia's constitution guarantees free political communication with an aim to, through mechanisms by law established, correct errors in Her Majesty's government.

>"BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE SPEECH IS FREE IN PRACTICE"
BUT THAT WASN'T PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

Fucking hell. You're an idiot.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10569538]

>>10569529
They do not have freedom of speech. They have limited speech. I do not know what part of your Semite brain fails at this simple distinction.

[Anonymous No.10569546]

>>10569529
you don't get it, to burgers and burgeroids everything except unlimited freedom of expression isn't freedom of speech
like if you can't take your grandfather's guard uniform he wore in treblinka out of the closet and wear it without getting arrested it's tyranny

[Anonymous No.10569554]

>>10569538
>They do not have freedom of speech. They have limited speech.
Yes, but you didn't specify that you were talking about speech in effect. In fact, you specified quite clearly that you were talking about constitutional guarantees:

>"And it is the only constitution in the entire world that guarantees freedom of speech."
Wrong. Objectively wrong. Many constitutions, including the constitution of communist China, guarantee freedom of speech. They are merely ignored, or "re-interpreted", so that the guarantees are no longer effective. And the US constitution is no less vulnerable to this than the Chinese one.

In short, you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.10569555]

>>10569546
It simply isn't. I'm not from America. I'm from Finland. And here, there is limited speech. You can get serious jail time from the simple fact of offending or libeling someone.
Some might prefer this.
I don't.

[Anonymous No.10569561]

>>10569555
>>10569546
This is not a broader discussion about what qualifies as free speech.

Anon claimed that ONLY the US constitution, in the ENTIRE WORLD, guarantees free speech.

And he is FUCKING WRONG.

[Anonymous No.10569566]

>>10569561
>>10569561
>Anon claimed that ONLY the US constitution, in the ENTIRE WORLD, guarantees free speech.
True I did.
>And he is FUCKING WRONG.
No I am not.

[Anonymous No.10569568]

>>10569325
>Philosophers are so fucking worthless.
I don't think you'd be able to say that had you ever read and understood a work of philosophy. The point is not to refute Peterson cus he's a walking meme as far as any meaningful philosophy is concerned, and, if anything, he's been refuting himself just fine. The point is to make people aware of his tricks, which the author pointed out and that's fucking visible regardless of who the hell he is. Have you even read Peterson's rules? This is guru self-help coaching veiled as philosophy, disgusting to the extreme. Go listen to his debate with Benatar to see how little it takes to dismantle Peterson's pseud rhetoric. I will confess that I found him somewhat interesting when he first surfaced with his battle against those uni queers and free speech arguments. It wasn't anything special, but triggered some parties and it's always good when whatever establishment gets triggered, but he's been successfully becoming a caricature that, again, doesn't need to be refuted, but ridiculed. He took all the >Milo subscribers, threw them some armchair philosophy bits and convinced them it's worth their Patreon """"support"""" Worst of all, he polluted this board with threads like this, so fuck him..

[Anonymous No.10569576]

>>10569568
>which the author pointed out and that's fucking visible regardless of who the hell he is
the author pointed out his feelings and how he is scared of the boomer worldview being fucking garbage, he didn't address any of the content of the book beyond a few chapter titles which should tell you something about how in depth he went

[Anonymous No.10569577]

>>10569566
>No I am not.
Not... *sniggers*
Ahem.

Not an -
*sniggers more loudly*

Not anahahaha
haha
heh

Um.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10569584]

>>10569577
Well, you are free to link me a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech.

Not a limited speech. But absolute freedom of speech akin to U.S. model. I've tried to look myself but I can't find one.

[Anonymous No.10569587]

>>10569568
>Peterson makes objective claims backed up by empirical data
>philosopher pretends he can refute such claims without likewise responding with data, or engaging with Peterson's data
And you claim that we need to be aware of /Peterson's/ tricks?

[Anonymous No.10569593]

>>10569576
>the author pointed out his feelings and how he is scared of the boomer worldview being fucking garbage
See the Petersonfag in all his glory. Takes one sentence out of an entire article and presents it as the whole. Truly, the mind of tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10569599]

>>10569584
Article 35

Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm

Please livestream your suicide right now.

[Anonymous No.10569603]

I'm wondering why everyone thinks peterson is a christian, he certainly is not the kind of modern protestants I grew up with, and he is nowhere near being a catholic.

When I watched his biblical lectures he seems to be walking a very thin line between the fictional interpretation of biblical stories and the metaphysical, while mostly just talking about common archetypes and what we might learn from them.

His ideas might not be completely original (they are almost entirely taken from Jung's writing), he at least can speak about them in a way that makes sense to most people which I believe is his real strength.

[Anonymous No.10569609]

>>10569593
memerson may be shit, doesn't make the shitty article any better, just point to 1 single decent argument in the article that doesn't rely on the author's feelings

[Anonymous No.10569610]

>>10569599
I'm sorry, but looks like it doesn't guarantee it.

[Anonymous No.10569614]

>>10569610
>criminal law
>constitution
Try again you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10569622]

>>10569614
Constitution can't guarantee freedom of speech as Criminal Law can limit it quite care free. I don't know what's so hard about this or where the needle is sticking.

[Anonymous No.10569632]

>>10569622
>Constitution can't guarantee freedom of speech as Criminal Law can limit it quite care free.
By that logic the US constitution doesn't guarantee freedom of speech because at literally any time the US government might become tyrannical and pass laws abrogating the guarantee in effect without striking it from the constitution (much like the Chinese have done).

You said the US constitution was the only constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech. You are literally wrong, in that it is not the only constitution that guarantees freedom of speech on the page in words, and you are figuratively wrong in that the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the US is no more reliable in effect than the constitutional guarantee of free speech in China - it is the US courts, the US polity, and the honourable people of the US government who guarantee free speech by refusing to permit abrogations, which the Chinese fail to do.

You have zero tenable arguments and I don't understand why you persist with this nonsense. You are straight up fucking wrong.

"I think the US is the only country with real freedom of speech."
Okay, whatever.

"The US constitution is the only constitution that guarantees freedom of speech."
WRONG.

[Anonymous No.10569670]

peterson never would have written any of the tripe he has if he wasn't so insecure about his fucked up teeth, emasculating voice, etc.

[Anonymous No.10569672]

>>10569632
>You have zero tenable arguments and I don't understand why you persist with this nonsense. You are straight up fucking wrong.
Your argument rests at a hypothetical when the examples I posted about limited speech rest at law or case law? There's even Supreme Court case where they explicitly say there is no hate speech. And it is ME that doesn't have arguments? Are you kidding me?????

>it is the US courts, the US polity, and the honourable people of the US government who guarantee free speech by refusing to permit abrogations, which the Chinese fail to do.
Oh, and why is that? Because the constitution sets a bunch of rights to the people and it's a very strong constitution because the rights it sets to people such as 2A are very good at protecting the constitution.

I don't understand how any of your hypothetical denies a point where U.S. Constitution is the only constitution being able to guarantee freedom of speech. But you were unable to bring up another Constitution that guarantees this right to its people

We may cut the cake with knife and agree to disagree then.

[Anonymous No.10569674]

>>10569587
>objective claims backed up by empirical data
This is true only if you're a brainlet philosophy neophyte

[Anonymous No.10569709]

>>10569672
You said the US constitution is the only constitution that guarantees free speech.

If we take this literally you are wrong because the Chinese constitution guarantees free speech.

If we take this figuratively, i.e. that the US constitution is uniquely constructed such that it alone actually provides an effectual guarantee of free speech that cannot be undermined, you are still wrong because the US constitution is just a fucking piece of paper with no influence of its own. It does nothing except instruct the courts and the government, who are what actually guarantee your free speech. Guess what - China also has courts and government, and yours are as pervertable as theirs.

>Your argument rests at a hypothetical
Ah yes, because nigger slaves in the cotton fields sure did enjoy their freedom of speech and right to bear arms, right? What a fucking joke. The US constitution HAS ALREADY FAILED. There is no conceivable way anyone with two brain cells to rub together could argue that it is infallible.

>But you were unable to bring up another Constitution that guarantees this right to its people
This is a malicious fucking lie and you are a cunt for propagating it. That you can shamelessly just fucking lie, when the evidence is one click away from everyone in this thread, blows my fucking mind. It's stupid and evil and you are stupid and malicious.

I gave you a sourced quote from the Chinese constitution that guarantees exactly that.

You are a fucking liar.

>We may cut the cake with knife and agree to disagree then.
I've got a better idea. You can go and fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10569715]

>>10569185
Shekelberg please

[Anonymous No.10569732]

>>10569670
yes, and kant was 4'2", still kant is good and memerson is shit, not sure what's your point

[Anonymous No.10569739]

>>10569674
there's nothing philosophical in the article beyond the author's fee-fees, which would be ok if this were the guardian, but expected something better of ft

[Anonymous No.10569742]

>>10569709
>You said the US constitution is the only constitution that guarantees free speech.
I said as much and I stand by it.
>If we take this literally you are wrong because the Chinese constitution guarantees free speech. I gave you a sourced quote from the Chinese constitution that guarantees exactly that.
And once again, your entire rampage rant rests on a hypothetical 'IF', even according to your own post.. the Chinese Constitution cannot guarantee freedom of speech as Criminal Law can be equal to TCC as their hate speech laws show us. TCC is not strong enough to guarantee this right to its citizenry, as it must concede in this aspect to Criminal Law Hate Speech part. The Chinese Constitution, therefore, is not supreme law of the land.

>is just a fucking piece of paper with no influence of its own
Well that is just silly and needless reduction that gets us nowhere.

I still do not understand where the thing tickles you this much. May I hope you calm down as high blood pressure in the long run is a stealth killer of people

[Anonymous No.10569769]

>>10569670
lol wtf stop projecting

[Anonymous No.10569781]

>>10569742
>your entire rampage rant rests on a hypothetical 'IF'
Correct.

Because you refuse to tell me if you were speaking literally or figuratively I must account for both potential arguments.

>the Chinese Constitution cannot guarantee freedom of speech as Criminal Law can be equal to TCC as their hate speech laws show us. TCC is not strong enough to guarantee this right to its citizenry, as it must concede in this aspect to Criminal Law Hate Speech part. The Chinese Constitution, therefore, is not supreme law of the land.
Wrong.

Criminal legislation is not superior to the constitution. Rather, the courts have determined that this legislation is not in breach of the constitution.

And that's the EXACT SAME PROCESS that happens in America. The EXACT SAME THING could happen in America to the EXACT SAME EFFECT even despite the American constitution - or rather, because of it, because without a constitutional right to free speech constitutional courts would have no jurisdiction to make rulings like this. Thus showing that the American constitution is no more able to guarantee free speech than the Chinese one.

I could, for example, right now, say that there is no free speech in the US because I'm not allowed to make death threats. There are laws against making death threats in the US (credible ones, anyway). That's not free speech. My right to free speech is curtailed. The US constitution has failed me.

>"oh no but i don't think death threats are free speech so that makes it okay"
Can you not see how fucking hypocritical this is?

You are a fucking idiot. Your argument can be demolished from so many angles - it's literally wrong, to start with, it betrays a total lack of understanding of legislation and the judiciary, and it basically boils down to "the US supreme court's rulings align with my beliefs so therefore they're right, and that's all the evidence I need."

I hope you fucking die.

[Anonymous No.10569789]

>>10569670
holy shit i never noticed how grotesque this man's teeth are! is this the results of the great "canadian healthcare" democrats are always praising?

[Anonymous No.10569819]

>>10569789
canadians are some sort of lesser anglos, what did you expect?

[Anonymous No.10569884]

>>10569781
>Criminal legislation is not superior to the constitution
>Rather, the courts have determined that this legislation is not in breach of the constitution
So, the Constitution fails to guarantee freedom of speech if the Criminal Law is equal, stronger or not against it.

>And that's the EXACT SAME PROCESS that happens in America.
Where has 1A been subjected to hate speech laws in America?
Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech does not even exist.

>I could, for example, right now, say that there is no free speech in the US because I'm not allowed to make death threats
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences and you now conflate a credible threat to freedom to freedom of speech. You are free to say it, just stand the consequences.

In EU for comparison one is punished because what you say is offending to the person or group and this is much more abstract and negative than U.S. You have, negatively thought, a right to be offended as a minority and it is one's level of offense taken that sets the course for the case. Politicians have been judged guilty of hate speech due to this.

I don't understand where you have shown me that U.S. does not have freedom of speech vs. limited speech of non-countries. It boils down to the Constitution (supreme law of the land), Supreme Court and case law affirming it very clearly what your right as U.S. Citizen is with regard to speech and being strong enough to guarantee it. You fail to distinct at freedom of speech, freedom of consequences and preventive laws obstructing you from saying what you want at the fear of punishment.

A better angle to 'demolish me' would've been trying to push the recent case about incitement to suicide: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/06/16/shes-accused-of-pushing-him-to-suicide-now-a-judge-has-decided-her-fate/?utm_term=.8a44e6c01d8b

Maybe you go read it's verdict and come back and we can talk about what happened there with regards to 1A and civil law. And calm down down down, way down, you sound way upset - read this: https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/high_blood_pressure_-_a_silent_killer

Are you from which country? U.S.?

[Anonymous No.10569889]

>>10569884
constitutional law is so fucking boring, at least post some dank corporate or intellectual property shit

[Anonymous No.10569896]

>>10569889
I absolutely adore the U.S. constitution, I get a stiff just when I think about it.
t. read my country's constitutional law in law school for 6 years only to become a shopkeeper

[Anonymous No.10569908]

>>10569896
yeah well its not really worth it to go to law school less than top 5 if u plan on a career as a lawyer

[Anonymous No.10569922]

>>10569908
It was the top number 1 in my country (Finland).
Life comes at you fast. Didn't care about it after I had finished it. Guess I had too little autism to make a real career out of it.

[Anonymous No.10569954]

>>10569884
>So, the Constitution fails to guarantee freedom of speech if the Criminal Law is equal, stronger or not against it.
Wrong, you fucking retard. The role of a constitutional court is to interpret the constitution. No interpretation a constitutional court makes can be wrong. If the Supreme Court decided that hate speech was not free speech tomorrow then that would immediately become the law of the land in the US. I am fucking embarrassed for you if you studied this shit for SIX FUCKING YEARS and cannot grasp the concept that constitutional courts are empowered to make rulings on the meaning of the constitution.

>"but that hasn't happened"
Correct, but NOT BECAUSE THE US CONSTITUTION STOPPED IT.

THE US CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY ALLOWS FOR IT WHEN IT CREATES THE BODY OF THE SUPREME COURT.

>Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences and you now conflate a credible threat to freedom to freedom of speech.
Are you fucking braindead? It is illegal to make death threats. This is a clear and real abrogation of the provision that the US congress make no law abridging my freedom of speech. See - the US constitution is already failing to protect freedom of speech.

"i don't think death threats are protected speech tho"
So now we see that "freedom of speech" is really just whatever the fuck you happen to agree with. You "like" the US system because it aligns with your political opinions, not out of some deep respect. You're a shallow little fuck.

>I don't understand where you have shown me that U.S. does not have freedom of speech vs. limited speech of non-countries.
THAT WAS NOT YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU FUCKING RETARD.

YOU SAID THAT THE US CONSTITUTION WAS THE ONLY CONSTITUTION THAT GUARANTEES FREE SPEECH.

THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.

I don't give a fuck about what the EU does, it couldn't be more irrelevant.

You are not reading what I am fucking writing.

If your argument is that the US constitution is the only constitution that explicitly provides a guarantee of free speech it's fucking wrong. If your argument is that the US constitution is particularly effective at being a tangible guard against restriction of free speech you are, again, fucking wrong, because the constitution provides none of that - the Supreme Court and the US political system do. The constitution is literally just a piece of paper and could be ignored.

How the fuck can you study this for SIX FUCKING YEARS and not understand something this fucking basic?

What fucking shithole eastern European garbage land did you crawl out of?

[Anonymous No.10569977]

>>10569954
A credible death threat directly limits your actual freedom. Why do you keep conflating it with the right to say stupid shit without punishment is ridiculous.

>YOU SAID THAT THE US CONSTITUTION WAS THE ONLY CONSTITUTION THAT GUARANTEES FREE SPEECH.
I said as much and I stand by it. United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech as opposed to limited speech of EU countries.

>I don't give a fuck about what the EU does, it couldn't be more irrelevant
It is relevant in the sense that it can tell us what limited speech is as opposed to freedom of speech (as you cannot do this in U.S. due to there being actual freedom of speech)

>The role of a constitutional court is to interpret the constitution
Wrong. It is also to to interpret any federal statutes. How can you rage about me being an idiot and get such a simple thing wrong yourself?

>If your argument is that the US constitution is the only constitution that explicitly provides a guarantee of free speech it's fucking wrong
Yes.
>fucking wrong, because the constitution provides none of that - the Supreme Court and the US political system do. The constitution is literally just a piece of paper and could be ignored.
No, because you cannot have USSC interpreting a constitution that does not exist, how could you do that? And weak constitution would be easy to abuse, just refer to your own examples about China.

And anon, you must've lost years already with your high blood pressure getting irrationally upset like this daily.

[Anonymous No.10570011]

>>10569977
>A credible death threat directly limits your actual freedom
Irrelevant. It is a law that prevents me from speaking freely. It is, in the most literal possible sense, an abrogation of my freedom of speech. You can make any argument you want justifying the restriction, but a restriction it is. Thus, the US constitution is already failing to protect absolute free speech.

The point of this dumb thought exercise is to point out that you perceive the US constitution as effectively defending free speech solely because you agree politically with the Supreme Court's decisions. That's it. Hardly much of a basis for this "argument."

>United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech as opposed to limited speech of EU countries.
No, wrong, that's not what you originally said. You said that the US constitution was the only constitution that guaranteed free speech.

>Wrong. It is also to to interpret any federal statutes.
HA HA WRONG, IT'S ALSO TO BE THE LAST COURT OF APPEAL. HAHAHAHA WOW AM I SMUG ENOUGH YET. AND IN SOME COUNTRIES IT'S ALSO THE COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS. LMAO HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING WRONG FOR NOT LISTING LITERALLY EVERY FUNCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.

Shut the fuck up retard, the relevant function of the constitutional court here is its role in interpreting the constitution.

>No, because you cannot have USSC interpreting a constitution that does not exist
True, but the existence of a constitution offers no guarantee it will be interpreted "correctly" - see China. Constitutions alone do jack shit. There is no such thing as an effective constitution. Only effective government. In fact the whole concept of constitutional rights is fucking bullshit anyway, because it moves that power away from the elected legislature and towards appointed judges - constitutional rights are anti-democratic. But that's a different discussion.

>weak constitution would be easy to abuse, just refer to your own examples about China.
The Chinese constitution is not weak - the institutions that should support it are. The US could be similarly undermined without even needing to touch the constitution to abrogate freedom of speech. I could run a totalitarian, Orwellian nightmare in the US off the same constitution they have today, without changing a single word. How? Because the constitution isn't going to fucking stop me. It's a piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.10570018]

>>10570011
>Because the constitution isn't going to fucking stop me. It's a piece of paper.
Well, I'd like to you try and undermine the 2A in Congress if Constitution does not stop and does not matter.

Well, I'm off to reading some actual litterature, remember to read article about high blood pressure.

[Anonymous No.10570027]

>>10569789
it's the result of an excess of bile

[Anonymous No.10570030]

>>10570018
>Well, I'd like to you try and undermine the 2A in Congress if Constitution does not stop and does not matter.
Is an animated cartoon constitution with hands and legs going to get up on the floor and give a rousing tow-row-row for America?

No?

Then I think it's probably going to be people, not paper, that stops me.

[Anonymous No.10570050]

>>10568724
>world's greatest art for the past century.

American 'art'

[Anonymous No.10570215]

>>10569977
If death threats are a direct limitation of someone's actual freedom how come hate speech isn't, considering the conclusion to a lot of hate speech is the removal / elimination of undesired individuals?

[Anonymous No.10570221]

>>10570215
credible death threat*

someone yelling in social media that it is in the dna of yemenese people they lie, cheat and steal isn't a credible death threat (politician got convicted here for that lol)

[Anonymous No.10570230]

>>10570221
How is a nazi sympathizer assembly not a credible threat to the jewish population, for once?

[Anonymous No.10570236]

>>10570230
the ovens are shut down, just go to auschwitz, closed down, no energy..

[Anonymous No.10570243]

>>10567944
>he said, speaking the American language

[Anonymous No.10570260]

>>10567910
>paywall

[Anonymous No.10570275]

>>10570236
Are you retarded? Have you never heard of fucking hate crimes?

[Anonymous No.10570285]

>>10570030
>Is an animated cartoon constitution with hands and legs going to get up on the floor and give a rousing tow-row-row for America?
kek

[Anonymous No.10570442]

>>10570260
>>10568011

[Anonymous No.10570507]

>>10567944
Saved, gonna repost this in some /pol/ threads for some juicy (you)s and thread derailing. Thanks goyim.

[Anonymous No.10570533]

>>10570507

[Anonymous No.10570537]

>>10570533
Delete this

[Anonymous No.10570553]

>>10570050
That's not American art though.

[Anonymous No.10570803]

>>10568724
>That doesn't mean America hasn't generated most of the world's greatest art for the past century.
It was literally a CIA psyop http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

[Anonymous No.10571131]

>>10570803
Fuck modern art. American art is in the broad realm of fiction media, not in museums.

[Anonymous No.10571197]

>>10569781
>I hope you fucking die.

That'll be the day.

[Anonymous No.10571214]

>>10570553
wut

[Anonymous No.10571221]

>>10571214
See >>10570803 >>10571131

[Anonymous No.10571347]

>>10568483
>British Classical Liberal
This is equivocal obfuscation. He doesn't want to say what he really is. We use new terms exactly because a hundred years of politics shifts the alignments. Classical liberal is only ever used to blunt the impact of ideology. You don't see any self identified whigs these days, and if you did you'd immediately know it was loaded in some form.

[Anonymous No.10571354]

>>10571347
>British Classical Liberal
So he's basically a fascist neonazi.

[Anonymous No.10571358]

>>10571354
Upboated

[Anonymous No.10571373]

what's stopping me from hanging myself from the rafters right now? absolutely nothing

[Anonymous No.10571379]

>>10569603
He thinks the Bible is ingrained in Westerners because of evolution

[Anonymous No.10571389]

>>10567944
HOW WILL AMERIFATS RECOVER

[Anonymous No.10571393]

>>10571379
It is.

>>10571389
They can't.

[Anonymous No.10571399]

>>10571393
the number of your ancestors who've read the bible page to page is like a dozen at most

[Anonymous No.10571404]

>>10571399
Different guy but that's a retarded argument

[Anonymous No.10571422]

>>10571393
>It is.

Based on what evidence? From what I've seen any time Christianity entered a new territory it spread primarily through conversion.
I have seen no evidence to suggest Christians had a tendency to reproduce more than Pagans

Unless you're just using the term evolution as a naive synonym for Hegelian dialectics in which case I recommend you update your vocabulary and read more

[Anonymous No.10571441]

>>10568201
What are your motivations for looking at shit on paper? Are you sure it isn't just some random useless impulse?

[Anonymous No.10571575]

>>10568201
>but I'm NOT interested in toilet paper
I highly doubt that, unless you are caked in shit right now.

[Anonymous No.10571584]

>financial times
>liberal

classically maybe

[Anonymous No.10571739]

>>10567963
I have the opposite problem... he's not Christian enough, he's a pragmatist

[Anonymous No.10572508]

>>10571584
being socially liberal currently aligns with the interests of capital

[Anonymous No.10572645]

>>10570243
>we americans invented english!!!

[Anonymous No.10573198]

>>10568724
But games are dominated by Japan, film by European arthouse shit, book readers are retreating to classics, and even fucking musicals are moving away from burgerland. The fucking Bat Out Of Hell musical, as burger-centric as it gets, isn’t even playing in the US yet.

The American experiment is a failure. When your nationalism finally takes off, you’ll be the big losers.

[Anonymous No.10573203]

>>10573198
>pic
KEK

[Anonymous No.10573209]

>>10569448
LOCKE
WASN’T
A
FUCKING
YANK
U.S. rangeban when?

[Anonymous No.10573242]

>On planet Peterson, the social revolutions of the 20th century have not lifted us above atavistic power games and brought about female emancipation but have led to universal degeneracy and the enfeeblement of men. Where “the traditional household division of labour has been demolished”, the result is “chaos, conflict and indeterminacy”.
>Planet Peterson

I thought we called it Planet Earth -?

>atavistic power games
>implying power games aren't far more vulgar and egregious now than in ancient or medieval times

[Anonymous No.10573250]

>>10573242
Wait I forgot the worst one

>Anyone interested in the growing assault on liberal values, however, should study it with fear and trembling.
>liberal values
>liberal values
>liberal values
>liberal values
>liberal values

Oxymoron?

[Anonymous No.10573461]

>>10567962
He's really aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.10573465]

>>10571379
>>10571422

Not the Bible per se, but the ideas it conveys, you brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10573573]

>>10573250
The enlightenment was built on the back of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.10573585]

>>10567969
>Peterson was an alcoholic in his 20s
wow he's just like me!

[Anonymous No.10573588]

>>10567910
>Anyone interested in the growing assault on liberal values, however, should study it with fear and trembling.
lol this projection.

[Anonymous No.10573617]

>>10569422
>look at internet debates and youtube videos where one "DESTROYS" "HUMILIATES" "MURDERS" "EVISCERATES" "LOVINGLY EUTHANIZES" another
>is there any search for truth in these debates? any effort to understand another's point of view?

You have to remember that any retard can make these videos with absurd titles. Does Peterson think he "EVISCERATED" that Channel 4 reporter? Doubtful. You can't help how the proles will spin things.

It's a shame to see public figures appropriated as champions for one or another cause. It ends up hurting the public figure most because they get lumped in with the crowd that chose him. Hence Peterson getting labeled as Alt-right or right-wing when clearly he is not. Like this >>10567926 anon says, only in this confused social space could Peterson be considered right wing or reactionary.

[Anonymous No.10573621]

>>10569603
He's a postmodern christian. He doesn't actually believe in any of it.

[Anonymous No.10573669]

>>10573198
>games are dominated by Japan
Wrong. American games are still better (Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Master of Magic, Supreme Commander, Age of Empires, The Secret of Monkey Island, The Last Express, DOOM, Halo, Ultima, etc. - newer games hardly surpass these yet) although Japan is right beside us.

>film by European arthouse shit
Good joke. I'd rather rewatch Jacob's Ladder, Saving Private Ryan, Fargo, Fight Club, Star Wars IV-VI, Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3, Blade Runner, Alien, The Thing, The Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, Excalibur, Highlander, Braveheart, 300, Gladiator, Starship Troopers, Unbreakable, Psycho, Evil Dead, Ocean's 11 / Eleven, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Man of Steel, Logan, Out of the Furnace, Lost Highway, Elysium, Edge of Tomorrow, etc. before watching that crap.

>book readers are retreating to classics
This is fair, since Europe has a much older and much stronger literary tradition all around. There are still American books that are popular, but I won't say they're better. Comics, on the other hand, America overall dominates - check out the Batman: Black and White anthology series for example.

>musicals
Yawn.

So much for the "American experiment" being a failure.

[Anonymous No.10573722]

>>10567910

Before I give this some of my time, can you give me a paragraph that's not just quote-mining? Quote-mining is bad because it's selectively picking out the weakest parts of your opponent's arguments. It's like trying to fight someone by waiting for them to get injured by someone else, and then striking.

[Anonymous No.10573734]

>>10569568
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k
top kek
Peterson is pathetic

[Anonymous No.10573757]

>>10569316
I really don't understand SJWs problem with his perspective on this issue. He's trying to explain to women why they don't make as much as men. He's trying to help them understand how they further their own careers and make more money. He's breaking down the factors that explain the pay gap and giving feminists the information they need to close it. He's not saying anything sexist. He's not even denying that a pay gap exists. Why is the alternative that "women make less money because they are women" somehow better?

[Anonymous No.10573790]

>>10567910
>https://www.ft.com/content/40c05b84-f7a7-11e7-a4c9-bbdefa4f210b

Written by Julian Baggini. A philosopher specializing in the philosophy of personal identity.

It's amazing, how he narrows the words "liberal values" to mean only that which he preaches.

If you ever wondered if Peterson was relelvant, watched how papers like the fucking FT scamper to attack him. I never even glanced at the Peterson meme until I've seen this.

If he is irrelevant, why all the copy inches?

[Anonymous No.10573820]

>>10573790
>popularity is relevance
>Bieber is a master artist

[Anonymous No.10573835]

If lobsters have such dominance hierarchy why can't they get out of the pot?
Is Peterson really saying, 'Stand up or get out of the pot!'?

[Anonymous No.10573876]

>>10573757
nigger has it ever occured to you that maybe it's not as simple as lowering your "agreeablenes" stat in your character settings

[Anonymous No.10573928]

Peterson inspired me to rise in the dominance hierarchies, so now I always haggle the price when buying things, and fiercly argue with my mum about increasing allowance. I'm extremely disagreeable. And I hone my skills and get better at my hobbies, so I can dominate the plebs in several dominance hierarchies, and impose my will upon the world.

[Anonymous No.10573934]

>>10573928
Truly, the Nietzschean Übermensch has arrived.

[Anonymous No.10573955]

>>10573928
That's not how Peterson says you climb dominance hierarchies. You have to embody the hero archetype.

[Anonymous No.10573974]

>>10573790
memerson aside, really surprised that a philosopher wrote that shit article

[Anonymous No.10574003]

>>10573928
Not enough self-authoring.

[Anonymous No.10574013]

>>10567910
Judging by What his rivals say about him this Peterson seems swell. Thank You for the recomendation!

[Anonymous No.10574036]

First of all
>>10568070
fuk u demiurge
Second:>>10567926
No shit Sherlock, the political world has been "liberals infighting with liberals" for the last 100 years. "Conservatism" as intended today is qualitatively different from Throne and Altar conservatism (aka: ACTUAL conservatism).
I find these infights over the details of what should be state controlled and What shouldn't hilarious. The answer is trascending this false dualism.

[Anonymous No.10574196]

>>10567926
Anon, point to some Richter scale-worthy continental critiques.

[Anonymous No.10574361]

>>10569164
The Christian Sentiment IS Europe, it IS the West.
It made everything possible.
Everyone saying otherwise is out of contact with historical reality.

[Anonymous No.10574373]

>>10573669
>Alpha Centauri
Shit man the feels, that game was a blowjob for the brain.

[Anonymous No.10574644]

>>10574361
>It made everything possible.
Once it came on the scene, of course. There was a time when Christianity didn't exist, you know.

Making things possible =/= being those things. The Western sentiment isn't confined to Christianity. It's much more than that. There's a great deal of immorality in it as well.