Who won?

[Anonymous No.16935730]

[Anonymous No.16935750]

>>16935730
Who is the guy on the left (I genuinely have no clue)

[Anonymous No.16935755]

>>16935750
*whispers* sam harris

[Anonymous No.16935764]

>>16935750
You haven’t seen Zoolander?

[Anonymous No.16935769]

>>16935755
A quick trip to the wiki tells me:
>Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967[3]) is an American author, philosopher, neuroscientist, and podcast host. His work touches on a wide range of topics, including rationality, religion, ethics, free will, neuroscience, meditation, psychedelics, philosophy of mind, politics, terrorism, and artificial intelligence. Harris came to prominence for his criticism of religion, and Islam in particular, and is described as one of the "Four Horsemen of Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.
I dunno bro, seems pretty cringe to me.

[Anonymous No.16935773]

>>16935769
You right

[Anonymous No.16935794]

>>16935730
Congratulations OP, you got what you wanted - your attempt at trolling has me foaming at the mouth. I'm not coping, I'm not cringing, not seething nor even dilating - I am fuming on an entirely nonphysical plane of existence, indescribable with mere language. Enjoy your spoils.

[Anonymous No.16935802]

>>16935730
>disavows IDW faggotry
Is Sam based now?

[Anonymous No.16935825]

>>16935730
idk who won but the West definitely lost

[Anonymous No.16935833]

>>16935730
>JBP says truth is whatever produces the best outcomes and doesn't have to be literally true on the podcast
>Says in his book to tell the truth at all times

what?

[Anonymous No.16935849]

>>16935769
Sam Harris doesn't seem like your typical horseman of fedoras. He actually tries to engage in good faith philosophical debates. Richard Dawkins screems at kids that their degrees he doesn't like are useless and supports eating human flesh, Hitch didn't have a fucking clue about philosophy and Daniel Dennett... I'm not gonna talk about it.

[Anonymous No.16935860]

>>16935849
Hitchens was best boy and the others are gay

[Anonymous No.16935869]

>>16935849
>>16935860
They are literally all retarded, anons. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.16935871]

>>16935825
Based. Americans consider this two to be intellectuals and act as they are wrestlers and clap like they are mentally ill, but the fact is that they are neither. In fact, both are pop-philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16935880]

>>16935869
I mean, I honestly haven't bothered to read Harris. What's up with him?

[Anonymous No.16935896]

>>16935880
He's literally racist and prejudiced against people of faith

[Anonymous No.16935917]

>>16935880
I'm the anon you responded to. The real answer is that he's a total brainlet. Back when I was still a normie I watched his debate with Peterson and he couldn't at all comprehend the idea that people can choose to be immoral or amoral. He's a rationalist through and through and he seems to think that every human being on the planet subscribes to the rationalist prejudice, whereas there are plenty of people who would eagerly destroy themselves and society for the sake of pleasure, emotion, sheer wilfulness etc.

[Anonymous No.16935925]

>>16935730
>intellectual discussions
>winning
Atheist logic.

[Anonymous No.16935963]

>>16935802
>You don’t leave the IDW by being civil, focusing on ideas, forgoing the ability to stick it to others, holding to your true convictions, or getting things right. I'm sorry, but that’s just not how this works at all. I shouldn't have to explain this, but you do it instead by being publicly dismissive of members of your group rather than their ideas, trolling, not paying attention to shifting situations like the election, getting captured by your audience, or getting it wrong and not noticing. If the IDW is a protocol as much as it is a group of humans, Sam continued to behave as a gentleman, while others were far closer to trying to leave the group, by at least testing the above boundaries.
>Eric Weinstein
Looks like the ring leader said he can't leave.

[Anonymous No.16935971]

>>16935833
>Peterson complains about trying to force equality of outcome instead of providing equal opportunity in society
>Says we must enforce monogamy so that incels can have relationships
Peterson is just an Incel Justice Warrior

[Anonymous No.16935981]

>>16935925
Back to plebbit. Clearly one of them had to be correct.

[Anonymous No.16935993]

>>16935764
Kek

[Anonymous No.16935999]

>>16935794
I'm copy and paste this comment in my homework file

[Anonymous No.16936001]

>>16935971
I wonder why people keep posting this given that he made a follow-up clarification only a week after the incident.

It couldn't be malicious, could it?

[Anonymous No.16936045]

>>16935925
Can you as an expert in the field, present us with theory of an "atheist logic" ? I assume this is the first logic that cares about its content and not the form, as (you) presented us with 2 names instead of any "atheist logical" law/principle that builds connection between those two. Really interested on hearing clarification on this new step for modern logic.

[Anonymous No.16936048]

>>16936001
I didn't even mention "the state" being involved and your trained dog response still found its way out
You are a good little puppy aren't you?

[Anonymous No.16936062]

>>16935981
Correct and winning aren't the same thing, retard.
If someone is exposed to new information and is able to better and reform their ideas, they benefit.
Only an atheist would think of intellectual discussions as a competition.

>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.16936071]

>>16936048
It seems you've fallen for your own trick, you will notice that I too did not mention the state.

[Anonymous No.16936080]

>>16935963
The Weinsteins are such cringelords holy shit

[Anonymous No.16936107]

>>16936071
That was the whole point of his clarification, there is no content to your comment now that you've been forced to backtrack
This would be a good time for you to pretend you were trolling, pseud

[Anonymous No.16936155]

>making low effort threads about pseud e-celebs rather than books
Is there a more certain indication that somebody doesn’t actually read and only comes to /lit/ to larp whilst they stew in their own failures?

[Anonymous No.16936318]

>>16936062
There is no point in finding middle ground and trying to reason with a bugman who unironically shits on 'sky daddy' on Twitter.

[Anonymous No.16936332]

>>16936155

[Anonymous No.16936372]

>>16935730
Who cares?

[Anonymous No.16936374]

>>16936332
Nice photo of the average fans of midwits like Peterson and Harris you have there

[Anonymous No.16936563]

>>16936374
Yes, they do look like this.

[Anonymous No.16936655]

>>16935971
what does monogamy in relationships have to do with people who can't get relationships in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16936676]

>>16935764
Thank you

[Anonymous No.16936687]

>unironically believing there's a winning side in philosophy
When will you guys leave?

[Anonymous No.16936698]

>>16935764
KEK

[Anonymous No.16936700]

>>16936687
the winning side is the one who is correct and somebody has to be correct otherwise it's all just bs

[Anonymous No.16936841]

>>16936655
the claim is that the chad fucking 5 girls is satisfying those 5 girls too much, so they dont seek and settle for the incel with the recessed chin who likes playing paradox games

[Anonymous No.16936903]

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

maybe I watch it on the weekend but listening 8 hours to atheists might kill me
already off to a good start, look how boring and incomplete that symbol looks

[Anonymous No.16936909]

>>16936841
sounds stupid considering that the chad will not provide for all of them and most of them wouldn't be willing to share chad anyway thus they will eventually search for a loser down the road

[Anonymous No.16936922]

>>16935971
Peterson also thinks a polygamous society could never work and never work in the past/or where it was attempted resulted in violence
how does that make sense when the Christian world is an idealistic imagined one where monogamy is practiced

[Anonymous No.16936929]

>>16935730
Peterson did.

That said, Peterson then got killed in the Zizek debate.

[Anonymous No.16936954]

>>16935971
>so that incels can have relationships
if we are talking about the hardcore incels who wish death upon women, that's not something society can fix for them
Peterson is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.16936988]

>>16936954
IIRC he made the enforced monogamy remarks in reference to the incel who killed 10 people with a van, so yes

[Anonymous No.16937051]

>>16936909
Women can have jobs and if not the state provides. Women are fine with sharing Chad, or multiple Chads. They might not even be in relationships, just having sex with a handfull of Chads.

[Anonymous No.16937069]

It looks like they would have the least interesting conversation that any two windbags could have.

[Anonymous No.16937200]

>>16936700
>it's all just bs
sound about right. philosophy is not about being right

[Anonymous No.16937288]

>chad and incels, incels and chads
it's never ending shitshow with you freaks

[Anonymous No.16937434]

>>16935730
They and the people lost

[Anonymous No.16937827]

>>16935917
This. He's pretty smart for a dude who doesn't read or try to question his fundamental world view. He keeps up with research, listens to podcasts and audiobooks, and debates with people who have miniscule differences of opinion from his own, and he thinks this puts him on the level of "intellectual."
He's a step above Joe Rogan, just as Hitchens was a step above him. They're all what a dumb person thinks a smart person is.

They can be entertaining tho.

[Anonymous No.16937877]

>>16935880

[Anonymous No.16937918]

>>16937877
JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ

[Anonymous No.16937955]

>>16937918

[Anonymous No.16937970]

>>16937918
Hi r*ddit

[Anonymous No.16937979]

>>16935730
sage
shut up shut up shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.16939076]

>>16935730
JBP won with his sick diagrams that are coherent

[Anonymous No.16939110]

Has Zizek (or Peterson) ever talked about the debate afterwards?

Has Zizek admitted to playing nice with Peterson so not to further alienate his auduence away from the left?

[Anonymous No.16939793]

>>16939110
That debate is three hours long, is it worth sitting through?

[Anonymous No.16940636]

>>16939793
Change the speed to 1.25 and save up to half an hour, then do something as you listen

[Anonymous No.16940673]

>>16937827
>They can be entertaining tho.
This.

[Anonymous No.16940720]

>>16935764
exhaled loudly

[Anonymous No.16940753]

>>16935730
When I think about it, it is insane how popular and well-known Jordan Peterson is. Anyone who cares the slightest about politics seems to know him, yet his beliefs are just standard traditional stuff

[Anonymous No.16940777]

>>16936107
You care too much faggot just STFU and go simp IRL

[Anonymous No.16940779]

>>16936155
Yes

[Anonymous No.16940785]

>>16935971
I highly doubt that he said to 'enforce' monogamy, but pseudo have to make shit up to stuff in the holes in their arguments/coathanger perforations from mommy's failure

[Anonymous No.16940796]

>>16940753
he wouldnt have been nearly as popular if it werent for the antagonistic reaction to him early on. they made him, in a way

[Anonymous No.16941332]

>>16935971
He was walking about culturally enforced monogamy (i.e. what we more or less have right now in the west) and that we shouldn’t be encouraging polygamy. On Joe Rogan he mentioned that this was most beneficial for children, since children grow up best with two parents. I don’t see how this is controversial.

But ofc Peterson haters will leave all of this info out in some bungled attempt to make him look bad.

[Anonymous No.16941343]

No one won. They’re both con artists who just tell people what they want to hear. Harris fans will think Harris won, while Peterson fans will think Peterson won.

[Anonymous No.16941344]

>>16936001
all of people read the NYT article that alleged that

[Anonymous No.16941359]

>>16935849
>>16935869
>>16935896
>The no-no people made fun of my sky daddy
The caricatures are true on both sides

[Anonymous No.16941383]

>>16935730
Theyre both retards, but peterson is a bit less of a retard

[Anonymous No.16941463]

God

[Anonymous No.16941492]

I honestly couldn't believe checking in on sam to see what he was up to right in the thick of the election and trump not leaving office and he was STILL posting vids with titles like, "the problem with leftists" and shit. Fucking read the room dude.

[Anonymous No.16941855]

>>16939793
No. Zizek uses a number of logical fallacies and Peterson doesn't deal with them well.

[Anonymous No.16942430]

>>16935917
>there are plenty of people who would eagerly destroy themselves and society for the sake of pleasure, emotion, sheer wilfulness etc
Wow, this is literally me.

[Anonymous No.16942476]

>>16935849
>Dawkins screems at kids that their degrees he doesn't like are useless and supports eating human flesh
Based

[Anonymous No.16942484]

>>16935896
Harris loves jews though

[Anonymous No.16943838]

>>16939110
Yes, Zizek talks about how Peterson is the real post-modern figure.

[Anonymous No.16943885]

>>16941855
kek

Your Lobster Daddy was owned

[Anonymous No.16944269]

>>16935730
The people who didn't watch it.

[Anonymous No.16944605]

>>16935730
No one did, but I'd say the YouTube atheist/agnostic/theist community has shifted significantly further from Sam's and significantly closer to Peterson's position (just look at atheists Rationality Rules, Sargon of Akkad, etc, now all of a sudden agree with Peterson's arguments where they roasted them a few years ago).

For instance, this video blew up at the time though it's been deleted since:
https://archive.org/details/issamharrislosinghisaudiencetojordanpeterson "Is Sam Harris losing his audience to Jordan Peterson?"

[Anonymous No.16944615]

>>16935730
me