/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16939459]

Refute him

[Anonymous No.16939472]

>>16939459
Refute me

[Anonymous No.16939478]

>>16939459
>*places several klonopin on the table in front of me*

[Anonymous No.16939480]

He obviously doesn't understand what post modernism is, and if he does, he's going about attacking it in an absolutely retarded way.

[Anonymous No.16939512]

>>16939459
>canadian
all that I need to say

[Anonymous No.16939531]

>>16939459
refute what? he is not a philosopher or has a social theory.
just writes self-help psychology.

[Anonymous No.16939543]

What is there to refute? That he doesn't like SJWs? Fine, don't like them, but they don't form a coherent worldview to criticize, and neither does he.

[Anonymous No.16939561]

He is a Koch crony helping to send people down the altright pipeline

[Anonymous No.16939563]

>>16939459
I have no personal interest in defending "Western civilisation" when it's conceived in exclusively Enlightenment terms and I don't really care what will happen if that civilisation breaks down, because that's what it deserves.
There you go. Peterson's refuted nao.

[Anonymous No.16939595]

>>16939459
His whole philosophy boils down to the is/ought conundrum. Take his infamous lobster example: we can discern hierarchies in nature, as in the lobster species, therefore hierarchies within our own species are inevitable and good. The problem is that the latter does not follow from the former. You could find any number of species where survival is dependent on cooperation rather than competition to show that hierarchies are not always productive or necessarily natural, but even that would be a waste of time, because you still wouldn't be able to extrapolate from that that therefore human society ought to be more cooperative than competitive.

He only appeals to people who don't have training in philosophy, since so much of what he writes falls apart the moment you subject it to any kind of scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.16939709]

>>16939459
Who?

[Anonymous No.16939823]

>>16939459

Easy.

[Anonymous No.16939830]

>>16939459
The Lobster-Human hierarchy stuff is retarded.

[Anonymous No.16939881]

>>16939823
/thread

[Anonymous No.16939887]

>>16939459
I am the dragon of chaos and I will never clean my room

[Anonymous No.16939920]

>>16939595
You seem to be confusing terms.
cooperation doesnt necessarily preclude hierarchies, as you seem to imply. Both go often hand in hand. Both in the natural world and in several human contexts. (a wolf pack, the entirety of post-neolithic human civilization)
More importantly, the cooperation/competition antagonism isnt really an antagonism at all. Within a system where several agents act, they can both compete and cooperate between themselves towards the achievement of a common goal.

I'm not very knowledgeable of Peterson, but I do know a bit of Jung, and hierarchy here should be seen as an experiential facet of human life, part of humanities Collective Unconscious. To deny it or refuse it is to deny something inherent to human life itself

[Anonymous No.16939954]

>>16939459
I cleaned my room the other day and I still have a poor relationship with my father and have trouble with women

[Anonymous No.16940182]

pointing out that nature exhibits some mechanic and implying that mechanic is long lost knowledge we have forgotten is t-shirt "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.16940206]

>>16939459
I bet he doesn't realize that his notion of "truth" (later termed "metaphorical truth" in his in-person debate with Harris) is inherently postmodernist

[Anonymous No.16940245]

>>16939459
I have an immaculately clean penis yet I'm still depressed.

[Anonymous No.16940385]

He tries to redefine a well-known word that most people heard somewhere in the universities but forgot the meaning, redefine as "everything bad that happened with society". Sadly, he is efficient at doing that. Same as people don't even need to know what's exactly wrong with communists, they perceive the very word as a negative thing-in-itself, so his knowledge of communism doesn't go much further than reading a pamphlet on communist manifesto. Same goes for postmodernism, I doubt he wasted any time to actually read any of the postmodernist philosophers to understand what's it all about. He has auditory with daddy issues not having a clue what they live for, not auditory striving for actual truth or willing to figure it out themselves.

Aside from that, he gives a very good advice but doesn't seem to follow it himself.

[Anonymous No.16940412]

Refute this

[Anonymous No.16940418]

>>16939459
I have only ever seen this face here as a meme and know nothing about his philosophy, would someone explain to me what notions made him so deserving of /lit/'s favours?

[Anonymous No.16940431]

I can’t

[Anonymous No.16940454]

>>16939459
what view of his would you like refuting?

[Anonymous No.16940465]

>>16939480
This, I would even say him and especially his lackeys embody elements of post modernism. Peterson does not understand that a philosophy as ill defined as post modernism does not discriminate on a political means. He complains only about what he perceives as left wing post modernism (sjw all the shit) but forgets that trump and many of his followers are the most obvious examples of postmodernism

[Anonymous No.16940469]

>>16940412

Can you translate it into rational language?
Because the best I can get is
> The Masculine and Feminine are in opposition. The Feminine stand for Chaos while the Mascuilne stands for nothing (and therefore is a simp). In the precosmogonic "egg" (because only that term deserves parentheses, right?) The Masculine simps extra hard for the Feminine who is looking for a stable union after riding the cock caroussel and hitting the wall hard, so she decides to give it up and let the Masculine pound her. This create the world of Ods (???), and apparently Mommy Chaos is super creepy and sets off plenty of alarms. So Mom decides to go back to Tyrone (one must assume, obviously JP had some decency and didn't want to make the Masculine into too much of a cuck by drawing Tyrone's Venn diagram) and that creates the world, but because Mommy Tiamat is shrewd, she made sure to name the Masculine as the on record dad, and now he is financially responsible to raise the World.

[Anonymous No.16940481]

You can't refute a person. You can only refute an idea, argument, or statement.
The only way I could "refute" Peterson is to prove he isn't real (which, to be fair, is true).

[Anonymous No.16940509]

>>16939459
I don't have to clean my room because having a ukranian lady clean it for me only costs 30 euro where I'm from

[Anonymous No.16940523]

>>16940481
None of you are verifiably real except for me.

[Anonymous No.16940529]

>>16940523
This is true. 90% of the people on this site are government bots.

[Anonymous No.16940530]

>refute him
i haven't even read him but i can clock a retard from their face

[Anonymous No.16940533]

>>16940530
based physiognomy-chad

[Anonymous No.16940544]

Is there anyone here that actually likes Peterson instead of pretending to to bait people? If so why?

[Anonymous No.16940545]

>>16940529
me included

[Anonymous No.16940555]

>>16939920
This just shows you don't understand what the is/ought problem is.

Even if it were true that hierarchy was "something inherent to human life itself" you would have an "is." This doesn't mean that human social organization "ought" to be structured in this way. The collective unconscious is also bullshit. Freud is much more interesting than Jung.

[Anonymous No.16940557]

>>16939823
This is the real answer unfortunately

[Anonymous No.16940575]

>>16939595
he never said that hierarchies are good because they exist in lobsters. he said that they have an ancient, biological component because of that, and therefore are not just a product of culture. why the fuck do morons always try to refute him like this? there are countless things about which to criticise peterson, yet you choose to demonstrate that you are a blithering idiot by choosing this invalid one

[Anonymous No.16940577]

>>16940555
There’s also the point that the hierarchies inherent to human nature are low level social stuff and the social conditions of modernity are not in fact natural

[Anonymous No.16940581]

>>16939459
Lobsters are the inferior crustacean and in time all will be crab.

[Anonymous No.16940600]

>>16939459

[Anonymous No.16941008]

>>16939823
single child syndrome

[Anonymous No.16941081]

>>16939459
>It's the Lobster, dude
>Did you clean your room? Your mom is going to be so mad at you.
>M-muh Jung
>Has a nervous breakdown
There is nothing to refute. You live in youtube clownland, you're not even a person anymore, just a copy of a copy of one

[Anonymous No.16941092]

>>16939459
he's obviously a charlatan that distributes perfectly santiized and semi rational advice for the average modern young man.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16941149]

>>16939459
Alright, let's address seriously what seems to be the consensus on what's wrong with Peterson's thesis, sans any considerations of his personal life: His pseudophilosophical narrative is self-refuting, being based in nothing but mere conjecture. This idea seems to stem from the consensus surrounding Peterson's thesis, which for the sake of argument I take to be found in its most lucid expression in Maps of Meaning, that seems to be that its core claims are either philosophical or psychological. This categorization leads to the following critiques:
>If labeled as philosophical: Peterson has no prior experience with the field, is said by many to misinterpret or misuse the names of major philosophers and traditions, and especially so when at certain times it becomes clear he hasn't the slightest knowledge of the 'enemy' he's critiquing.
>If labeled as psychological: This interpretation grants the thesis some credibility based in Peterson's former experience as a practicing clinician and his PhD. This credibility is sort of lost when Peterson draws on the psyschoanalysts, a field widely considered defunct within academia. This holds especially true when you consider that many neo-Jungians have come forward and denounced Peterson's alleged butchering of Jung.
I disagree with the implicit notion that just because his ideas can't be neatly labelled, they lack intellectual worth. The closest you'll get is depth psychology, but even then the label is insufficient when you take into consideration the thesis' sociocultural implications. Any person willing to take Peterson seriously must realize that the content of the thesis by nature cannot be categorized as either of these, and must be taken as-is. Only then can a proper investigation and/or critique of his ideas be attempted, and any potential 'final blow' be dealt.
tl;dr Peterson's memery is a grand transdisciplinary hypothesis and you have to treat it as such both if you wanna understand the guy or establish a real critique of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.16941442]

>>16939823
/thread
Pathetic really

[Anonymous No.16941448]

>>16939459
>too stupid to get into law school

[Anonymous No.16941521]

>>16939459
retroactively refuted by deleuze (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.16941558]

>>16940469
There's actually text accompanying that chart. 'Maps of Meaning' is actually fucking amazing, I highly recommend it despite what the local pseuds say.

[Anonymous No.16941565]

>>16939459
He's a 60 year old benzodiazepine addict, his daughter is a huge slut, and he's got the balls to tell people how they should get their shit together and how they should view the world.
Plus he's Canadian.

[Anonymous No.16941718]

>>16940245
/thread/

[Anonymous No.16941754]

He once said there was a link between ancient Chinese depictions of snakes fucking and the helix structure of our DNA.

The core content of this idea came from him reading "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" in which an anthropologist who couldn't hold his hallucinogens makes the assertion that Amazonian shamans can access "knowledge" coded in our DNA through taking Ayahuasca.

The most troubling thing about Peterson for me is that not only is he a peddler of psuedoscience, but an active consumer of it that layers it into his nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16941769]

My rabbi cut my penis so it doesn't need washing

[Anonymous No.16941790]

>you’re only allowed to change the world if you’re perfect
>despite that many of your imperfections may not be the result of you, but of the way the world works

[Anonymous No.16941795]

>>16941790
more like
>you shouldn't attempt to change the world if you aren't even attempting to change yourself

[Anonymous No.16941801]

I pay a niggress to clean my room

[Anonymous No.16941805]

>>16941795
A meaningless platitude. The perfect content for a self help book.

[Anonymous No.16941806]

>you must accept the religious status quo and ingrain your children in it entirely
>despite that two of my main influences, Jesus and Nietzsche, actively rebelled against the religious status quo, and didn’t have children

[Anonymous No.16941813]

>>16941795
>if you aren't even attempting to change yourself
Which won’t do anything if the problems you’re facing are systematic ones outside of your control

[Anonymous No.16941852]

His talk about women being dangerous chaos dragons is pretty funny considering he's been bossed around and put in a fucking coma by his daughter using russian quack medicine

[Anonymous No.16941867]

>>16941852
I kinda enjoy watching his daughter do her evil work. She fucked a Russian satanist commie, married him, briefly left him for a PUA when he got too boring, then came back to him when that got old. Literally couldn't be more of a roastie if she tried.

[Anonymous No.16941869]

>>16939459
Is his whole "women are chaos dragons" shtick just a rebranding of the idea that men = stoic and women = emotional?

I've never seen anyone else mention whatever the fuck a chaos dragon is and pinning his words down to anything concrete seems impossible.

[Anonymous No.16941883]

>>16941867
yeah it's definitely something he deserves for being such a hypocrite

[Anonymous No.16941901]

>>16939459
>*hits pipe*

[Anonymous No.16941913]

I feel like if he wasn't such a myth nerd and pseudo-scientist he would probably get along great with Ben Shapiro

[Anonymous No.16942022]

>>16941813
yes but that's implicit in
>are you even trying

[Anonymous No.16942029]

>>16941805
is it meaningless because it's actually meaningless or is it meaningless because you can't fathom trying?

[Anonymous No.16942046]

>>16939459
His failure to clean his room or raise his daughter well refutes himself
>inb4 nietzsche quote about how “philosophers” should have their ideas criticised not their lives
I’d usually agree to some extent but one of Peterson’s central beliefs is the opposite of that, so taking him seriously is self defeating.

[Anonymous No.16942054]

>>16941558
can you get the full picture by listening to his lectures? If so then which would be the best?

[Anonymous No.16942112]

>>16942029
It's meaningless because:
1) It draws a meaningless distinction between "you" and "the world" despite you being a constituent of what's being referred to as "the world". You're not a distinct entity, you're a participant.
2) As mentioned by others, many people are in a position where their inability to change is a direct result of the system they want reformed.
3) In true JP fashion it's ultimately just a rewording of the Biblical "he who is without sin, cast the first stone". An easily digestible quip for smooth brains reworded for even smoother brains.
4) Haven't even mentioned the hypocrisy of an addicted addiction specialist including this in their grift.

[Anonymous No.16942135]

>>16942054
Honestly I don't think so, because some of the shit is way too detailed, but if I were to recommend a lecture series, it would be his older pre-fame 'Maps of Meaning' if it's still up.

[Anonymous No.16942188]

>>16941913

[SAGE No.16942212]

>>16939823
I dont get it, what's wrong?

[Anonymous No.16942220]

>>16939459
He's an unremarkable psychology professor who was thrust into the limelight by opposing a PC pronoun law and subsequently became a father figure to a generation of boys who lack positive male role models. I don't believe he's ever said anything radical, he's not a far-right fascist like some on the left wish for him to be. I used to think he was harmless, just giving out common sense advice to boys who need it, but lately I've started to feel that he's taking himself much too seriously and maybe even exploiting his followers for easy money. Maybe it's out of a genuine desire to help people, but he's becoming more and more of a charlatan as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.16942224]

>>16940555
>>16940577
Why are hierarchies bad?

[Anonymous No.16942314]

>>16940555
did Peterson ever made a moral judgement about hierarchies?
Did he ever said that hierarchies are "good"?

[Anonymous No.16942319]

>>16942314
yes

[Anonymous No.16942326]

>>16942314
He did and is absolutely correct about it too. Everything that works has a hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.16942334]

>>16942112
>many people are in a position where their inability to change is a direct result of the system they want reformed

this is pretty meaningless too. and completely unfounded

[Anonymous No.16942338]

>>16942224
Neither of them claimed that.

>>16942314
Memerson claims that "the West" has a "heirarchy of competence," that he clearly seeks to preserve against the outside threat of postmodern neo-Marxism.

[Anonymous No.16942373]

>>16942319
ok then he definitely ought (eh) to give a good argument as to why that is.

Maybe he should go and read McIntyre, and more importantly Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16942420]

>>16942373
>Aristotle
Oh boy

[Anonymous No.16942547]

Peterson is a neoliberal shill, who cracked under the pressure

[Anonymous No.16942619]

>>16939459

[Anonymous No.16942628]

>>16939459
Refuted.

[Anonymous No.16942637]

>>16942628
/thread

[Anonymous No.16942674]

>>16942628
How did zizek refute him, exactly? Do you prefer his flavor of psychoanalytic nonsense to Peterson's?

[Anonymous No.16942702]

>>16942674
His opening speech destroyed every foundation of Peterslam: the "postmodern neo-Marxism" nonsense, Peterson's confused attachment to liberalism and God, his misunterstanding of PC, and the Lobster Question.

[Anonymous No.16942790]

>>16940418
People like him for anti sjw stuff.

[Anonymous No.16942840]

>>16942628

Let’s sum up the debate:
>Peterson: communism is retarded because listen to this retarded passage who would follow this shit
>Zizek: AKSHULLAY IM A HEGELIAN
>crowd full of proggies: *goes wild*

[SAGE No.16942886]

>>16942840
>AKSHULLAY IM A HEGELIAN
A materialist or an Idealist?
If he were an Idealist thar would almost make him a fascist

[Anonymous No.16942922]

>>16942220
>but lately I've started to feel that he's taking himself much too seriously and maybe even exploiting his followers for easy money. Maybe it's out of a genuine desire to help people, but he's becoming more and more of a charlatan as time goes on.
What exactly does he do that is exploitative or dishonest? I haven't followed him for a long time

[Anonymous No.16942999]

>>16942674
Without going too in depth.

Zizek asked him to name one "neo-marxist postmodernist." Peterson could not. Zizek said there was not a single "serious" Marxist behind the political correctness movement. That it was a liberal phenomenon, to which Peterson had no counterargument. Zizek made Peterson agree with most of his points. Peterson was in no way prepared. He only had talking points against the communist manifesto, a text that is utterly insufficient in criticizing or supporting Marxism. He displayed that he had no understanding of phenomenon he had made his persona out of critiqueing, and came to agree with Zizek that Marxism had nothing to do with what Peterson was against. It was an easy win, and Zizek was charitable with the guy. I feel like Zizek gets written off as incoherent. It's just people being filtered by philosophy. Engage with his work a bit, and you'll see that JP had no business debating the man. It severely hurt his entire schtick.

[Anonymous No.16943004]

>>16939459
jews

[Anonymous No.16943017]

>>16939459
BTFO'd by a sniffer retard

[SAGE No.16943049]

>>16942999
How can someone be a literal fucking professor and start critiquing Marxism from the communist manifesto, a pamphlet written for borderline illiterate workers?

[Anonymous No.16943071]

>>16942999

Did you even watch it?
Zizek asked Peterson who are these Marxists? Give me some names. Peterson responded with a statistic rather than naming people, which is not only more sound because naming individuals is only anecdotal evidence, but also because by naming people he would instantly make them famous and give them a platform and why would he?

>Zizek made Peterson agree with most of his points

Zizek admitted that they mostly believe the same things. Which, considering that he is this supposed champion of Marxism is kind of retarded. Zizek was as milquetoast and non-confrontational as he could during this debate. Which isn't necessarily bad as a debating strategy but it certainly does nothing to BTFO the capitalist boogeyman.

Peterson is a hack but Zizek sure as fuck did not 'win' that debate.

[Anonymous No.16943087]

>>16943049

>How dare you critique a political movement on basis of its most widely distributed and influential piece of literature.

The communist manifesto is what caused the atrocities of communist countries exactly because it was the piece that borderline illiterate workers could understand. What could be more relevant to a critique of Marxism than that?

[SAGE No.16943124]

>>16943087
No country based their fucking program out of what they read in the communist manifesto. In fact socialism wasn't even meant for the peasent nations where it was attempted, and places like the Soviet Union started off with a capitalist economic policy.

[Anonymous No.16943168]

>>16939459
>pasta-moderoni is bad so make good posti-moderico stuff you dumb spaghettis
He literally changed my life

[Anonymous No.16943196]

>>16943071
>Peterson responded with a statistic rather than naming people
A false statistic of "social scientists" who identify as Marxists(25%). Not professors. Not Academia!

Lmao they agree alot because Peterson doesnt know what Marxism is. He parroted talking points about the Manifesto. If you want to critique Marx then you should critique Das Kapital. The communist manifesto was a manuscript requested by communists and tailored to suit a very specific set of values. Das Capital is where you'll find Marxism.

Making your opponent agree with you is very much an indicator of "winning" a debate. Yeah, he took it easy on JP. Most would've ripped him for completely misunderstanding what he was attacking, Zizek let him refute himself.

[Anonymous No.16943206]

>>16943049
In my opinion? Because he's a sham and knew that TCM was the ONLY literature written by Marx that he could critique in a shallow and simple enough way to make his fanboys squeal. They wouldn't understand a critique of Capital because Capital is more than basic slogans and general ideas.

[Anonymous No.16943255]

>>16943196
>debating others
>not debating yourself

[Anonymous No.16943849]

>>16943071
The absolute cope of this post.

[Anonymous No.16943879]

>>16942999
>communist academic asks someone to name a communist academic in front if a crowd of lefty university students
Lol

[Z No.16943883]

>>16942212
She’s dressed like a whore and the baby daddy is nowhere to be seen

[Anonymous No.16943926]

>You aren't allowed to criticize the world because you aren't perfect
>We're gonna restore marriage in your lifetime. Women should be forced to marry you by imposed economic and social conditions. Thank you for buying the book
He held these positions simultaneously. Guy sold books

[Anonymous No.16943927]

almost all his arguments are appeals to nature

some of his ideas are useful to people in need obviously but not applicable to all and definitely not a reflection of reality. meaning, or that feeling of meaning he sets as a goal, isnt inherent in life. sometimes having this expectation that it is can be unhelpful and even unhealthy. reality doesnt have that motivational music in the background. reality doesnt have any music in the background at all. we make the music. of course music or meaning is sometimes helpful as a self help method, but its far from truth.

[Anonymous No.16944008]

>>16943926
I didn't know people were dumb enough to misinterpret Peterson

[Anonymous No.16944811]

>>16942112
>It draws a meaningless distinction between "you" and "the world"
why do you paint such a distinction meaningless? the advice is given to people who've *already* dichotomized between themselves and 'the world', and are blaming the latter for their miserable condition, despite there being things they could be doing.
>many people are in a position where their inability to change is a direct result of the system they want reformed
who cares? this advice isn't for those people, anyway
>it's ultimately just a rewording of the Biblical "he who is .without sin, cast the first stone"
that's sort of the whole JP shtick. like it or not, this isn't a refutation so much as just repeating a fact.
>muh hypocricy
not an argument. unless you wanna admit that Peterson's "he who is without sin-" thing is implicitly useful lol

[Anonymous No.16944836]

>>16944811
>that's sort of the whole JP shtick. like it or not, this isn't a refutation so much as just repeating a fact.
I'm fine with you being an idiot so long as this is understood.

[Anonymous No.16944929]

>>16944836
well how could i not; it's his main appeal
he's secularizing the bible, causing immense seethe with tradtards and libshits alike
the only thing i have difficulty understanding is how somebody could hear that and not think the guy's insanely based.

[Anonymous No.16944943]

>>16939480
>>16940465
>The real postmodernism was never tried.

[Anonymous No.16944948]

>>16944943
>The real postmodernism was the friends we made along the way

[Anonymous No.16945336]

>>16939459
His worldview is incoherent, he opposes postmodernism but his justification for things like 'truth' is so thin and subjective its hard to see how his classic liberal ideology protects itself from collapsing into the postmodernism he says he opposes.

[Anonymous No.16945370]

>>16939459
just look at his daughter, 'nuff said

[Anonymous No.16945386]

>>16939459
Archetypes make for horrible self-help advice, but they’re great for the grift since they cast as wide a net as possible. That’s why he’s raked in so much dough. His actual advice for getting your life together is vague to the point of being comforting but useless. Oh, and he doesn’t know what post-modernism is or understand Marxism in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.16945391]

refute what, since when did he actually say anything

[Anonymous No.16945395]

>>16945391
jej

[Anonymous No.16945730]

>>16939459
retroactively refuted by keith woods

[Anonymous No.16945759]

>>16941008
But he has a son too?

[Anonymous No.16946530]

>>16945730
retroactively? Didn't the video come out less than a week ago?

[Anonymous No.16946536]

>>16939459
refute what?
he's put forth multiple premises

[Anonymous No.16946540]

>>16942188
Is Shapiro really that much shorter than him?

[Anonymous No.16946908]

>>16943879
He asked him to name a Neo-Marxist postmodernists of the sort Peterson blames for everything. He could not do so, because they do not exist.

[Anonymous No.16946925]

>>16942314
>>16942319
>>16942326
no, he didn't. he claims that hierarchies have deep biological roots and are not just the product of western culture. somehow people have difficulty understanding this very simple idea and strawman him as saying we should organise our society like lobsters or some shit

[Anonymous No.16946934]

>>16946925
Fangirling

[Anonymous No.16946942]

>>16943849
shut the fuck up loser

[Anonymous No.16946952]

u can refute any ideas with this

[Anonymous No.16947009]

>>16942220
>unremarkable
>Significantly contributed to the modern and official standard of examining the personality of people

[Z No.16947076]

>>16943926
>Women should be forced to marry you by imposed economic and social conditions. Thank you for buying the book
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.16947078]

>>16939478
low blow

[Anonymous No.16947972]

>>16942619
MADNESS
CHAOS IN THE BRAIN

[Anonymous No.16947981]

>>16946952
The entire psuedoscience of psychoanalysis completely BTFO'd in one image.