Peterson on The West

[Anonymous No.19882475]

>So yeah what i am trying to say is free speech is the foundation of western civilization. It is the volksgeist. So when free speech isn’t considered important, the west falls.

[Anonymous No.19882500]

>>19882475
Freedom of speech doesn't exist and never has existed.

[Anonymous No.19882502]

>>19882475
>free speech is the foundation of western civilization
Every day I'm surprised by the shallow analysis of this man. He's the white Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Anonymous No.19882505]

>>19882475
This is the guy who is 100% opposed to antisemitic speech

[Anonymous No.19882507]

No value, quality or moral position survives in the face of violence against it. The West is unwilling to do so in the face of increasing hostility towards everything it once held dear. Unless we are willing to commit violence in defense of what we value, we never really believed in it.

[Anonymous No.19882519]

>yeah im for free speech
>yo wtf you can't just say those things about me

[Anonymous No.19882526]

Why does he ignore the greeks, I always hear from him how christianity is the backbone of the west

[Anonymous No.19882568]

>>19882519
He has never said that.

[Anonymous No.19882574]

>>19882475
Peterson is a fucking loon.

[Anonymous No.19882577]

>>19882475
Even prior to the benzo induced brain damage, he was a pseud and a retard. Now he's irrelevant on top of that yet you nibbas can't seem to stop talking about him

[Anonymous No.19882635]

>>19882568
What is he complaining about in OP then

[Anonymous No.19882642]

>>19882475
I hate liberals so much it's unreal

[Anonymous No.19882649]

>>19882475
The fucking inflated ego on this guy. This is something anybody could say.

[Anonymous No.19882666]

>>19882500
This

[Anonymous No.19882668]

assuming the establishment didnt despise him as much as those who claim that they do, then he honestly wouldnt be not all too unpopular in places where you think he wouldnt be

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.19882682]

1. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS: «WESTERN CIVILIZATION»; THE TERM DOES NOT REFER TO ANYTHING CONCRETE, NOR REAL; WHAT IS ACTUALLY MEANT BY THAT TERM IS THE PROTESTANTSPHERE; «PROTESTANTISM», AND FREEDOM OF ANY SPECIES, ARE AS MUTUALLY CONGRUENT AS MAYONNAISE, AND PEANUT BUTTER.

2. «FREEDOM OF SPEECH» IS A MISNOMER; THE CORRECT TERM WOULD BE: «LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION»: IT IS NOT A PROBLEM OF WHETHER ONE CAN SPEAK, BUT, RATHER, OF WHETHER ONE IS ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION, OR THE TRUTH, AND OF WHOM IS ALLOWED.

3. TO WHICH LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IS THE SOPHIST REFERRING?

[Anonymous No.19882689]

>>19882642
Fascists get out.

[Anonymous No.19882711]

daily reminder this was the first mention of him on /lit/

[Anonymous No.19882752]

>>19882689
>everyone who doesn't like liberalism is a fascist

[Anonymous No.19882758]

>>19882668
what the fuck are you saying

[Anonymous No.19882836]

>>19882475
>claims to love individualism
>promotes collectivist values

Man I really can't with Peterson

[Anonymous No.19882853]

>>19882711
>he wears a cape

[Anonymous No.19882857]

>>19882635
He never said you can't say bad things about him.

[Anonymous No.19882872]

>>19882836
Collectivism for everyone except whites. His job is to catch disillusioned young white men before they drift out of the liberal paradigm. He is a gatekeeper

[Anonymous No.19882880]

>>19882752
A fascist or a tankie, yes.

[Anonymous No.19882885]

>>19882711
>She's his dad

[Anonymous No.19882907]

>>19882880
How about a reactionary?

[Anonymous No.19882932]

>>19882880

[Anonymous No.19882937]

>>19882475
>the west crumbled in the when Galileo was forced to say that the heliocentric model was wrong or the McCarthy era of red scare
Omg he’s right guys, total big brain take

[Anonymous No.19882943]

>>19882682
You’re a retard. Western civilization is a geographical area, wherein European peoples have a common Greco-Roman and Judaic (Christian) heritage. Many of the countries are also closely related in terms of race too.

[Anonymous No.19882944]

>>19882689
No.

[Anonymous No.19882949]

>>19882943
>race
Doesn’t exist
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1438.epdf?referrer_access_token=1u453IadnAJtzRnSpsAkudRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PevsLAjUxPF6S_h9AMfqllAg0AiEsJsLQTEfkI6TkPd26jwdSNfCDpHFbJIalaUI61JlyiY55NkgS9XqNvo-F6HLyKYH0Mf_IJW9DvQ0ST3OSaL6lTsEwTI7BjDSpqvmIgpFnw5tBeGCFhejcmo5X0w5l1TZk-wF7IVmU8ElwmZ59c7WIsznbTmobTvij6dzF0XA0RCBH_yzlmofO82uiZ&tracking_referrer=www.theatlantic.com

[Anonymous No.19882996]

>>19882475
test

[Anonymous No.19883001]

>>19882943
> have a common Greco-Roman
I agree, most Northern European countries aren’t western

[Anonymous No.19883005]

>>19882475
>Peterson

[Anonymous No.19883010]

>>19882475
Free speech is the foundation of Protestant humanism, ie the beginning of the fall of "Western civilization." The greatest moments in the history of the West have been its most dogmatic by liberal standards.

[Anonymous No.19883012]

>>19882943
Judeo and Christian are contradictory positions. The West has a Christian tradition held by Europeans, and a much smaller Judeo tradition held by the Ashkenazi diaspora.

[Anonymous No.19883013]

>>19882949
>nature.com

[Anonymous No.19883020]

>>19882949
cope and seethe
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/debunking-race-denialism/

[Anonymous No.19883033]

>>19883020
>he thinks the schizo blog is debunking anything
Kek

[Anonymous No.19883072]

>>19882526
He doesn't read

[Anonymous No.19883073]

This makes me want to kidnap him and put him in some saw trap that kills him if he doesn't explain what the fuck he means by this

[Anonymous No.19883080]

>>19882475
Okay...so uhh can I well you know ughhhh say the word uhh you know....nnn...

[Anonymous No.19883085]

>free speech is the foundation of western civilization
The fuck? Is this a Strauss take?

[Anonymous No.19883095]

>>19883072
I think he reads

[Anonymous No.19883104]

>>19883085
Peterson has the same underlying impulses and motivations as Strauss, he's just less well read and more populist. That's something I noticed ever since he became popular.

[Anonymous No.19883123]

>>19882880
have you ever heard of conservatism?

[Anonymous No.19883131]

>>19882907
>>19883123
Those are classical liberals

[Anonymous No.19883134]

>>19882507
Holy shit. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.19883163]

>>19883134
He's only retarded in the sense that willingness to commit violence is itself a moral position.
Otherwise he is spot-on.

[Anonymous No.19883164]

>>19883131
Conservatism is Classical Liberalism??? I suppose words just don't mean anything anymore.

[Anonymous No.19883203]

>>19883164
What do you think they are trying to conserve

[Anonymous No.19883234]

>>19882475
How much of a fag do you have to be to quote yourself

[Anonymous No.19883257]

>>19882943
>Greco-Roman and Judaic (Christian) heritage.
So like the middle east?

[Anonymous No.19883278]

>>19883203
Your mom you fucking retard now go suck on a crayon

[Anonymous No.19883282]

>>19882689
It is possible to discuss and engage with fascists specifically and only because they hate liberals, which is the one thing they get right.

[Anonymous No.19883303]

>>19882943
You're so fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.19883308]

>>19883164
God you people are fucking idiots. Can we have more threads about Fukuyama or Deneen? At least a few people in them know what Liberalism is.

[Anonymous No.19883327]

>>19882475
"Let us phrase the point thus: if one were to speak of the freedom of speech, or the liberty of speech, is there a difference we might discern between these expressions?
One difference leaps immediately to the fore: freedom of speech appears to guarantee the absence of external impediments to speech, whereas liberty of speech appears to imply as well a certain power of speech. The blathering drug-addled mendicant who rambles on in broken English about aliens, the end of the world, the spirits inhabiting politician X and the hidden agenda of policy Y, certainly has freedom of speech; does he have liberty of speech? But surely not. Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Bowden, for instance, have liberty of speech—that is, they possess an “inner freedom” which permits them, not only to say whatever comes to mind, but to say it well; they possess the faculty of speaking with eloquence, facility, and persuasiveness, on any subject they would fain.
This gives us a fine point of departure for our investigation. Freedom seems connected with external things; to possess freedom is to be unrestricted by external obstacles. <...>
Liberty, meanwhile, is somehow connected with inner or outer powers, potencies, capacities, especially as these meet with freedom. One popular dictionary definition gives for liberty “the power to do as one pleases.” This seems to me an admirable definition, as it grants to the word “liberty” a meaning diverse from that ascribed to “freedom”—and since, as we have seen, liberty is but rarely used in the place of “freedom” any longer, precisely such differences as these are the quarry we seek."

"The word “liberty” comes down to us from Ancient Rome, to which it owes also the better part of its substance: it comes down to us from the libertas which the Romans from the first held so dear. The libertas of the Romans was, like our present day concept of freedom a predominately political designation; it indicated the state of being free from the arbitrary rule of tyrants, creditors, or any other lord. One could not be liber and at the same time be subjected to the will of another man. Hence the importance of the law in Roman society; for to enjoy libertas meant to subject oneself freely to no rule but that of the law.
There is a certain kinship between this idea and our contemporary concept of “equality before the law.” But unlike our notion of freedom, the ideal of libertas did not attach itself to all subjects of Rome; indeed, it did not attach itself even to all Romans. Libertas as a concept accompanied the idea of citizenship, civitas, and was indivisible from it; only the full citizen enjoyed libertas; only full citizens could count themselves “equal before the law,” and then only compared to one another, only inter pares. For citizenship was highly restrictive in all phases of Roman history, save its decline."

[Anonymous No.19883337]

>>19882475
>>19883327
"The political dimension of liberty in Rome was determined by this sense of virtue, rather than being determining of it, as it is in our day: the law, far from being indifferent to inherent worth, existed to foster it. But this entails what is to us an altogether most curious aspect of the Roman idea of libertas: libertas was not at all the freedom to do as one lists; libertas was rather inherently tied up with comportment and attitudes which were rigidly limiting of human action, and which resisted all license and licentiousness. Our modern idea of freedom, as we have said, implies the unobstructed ability to do as one pleases, limited only by the law; the Roman idea of libertas was far from being so libertine. A man, for instance, who neglected work or military duty; who used his money thriftlessly or with profligacy; who outraged his parents or the public decorum, or usurped common standards of dignity; who had neglected the gods or the sacred customs; who contemned politics and withdrew from public life—such a man, though he had broken no law, could not be thought to possess virtus, and therefore neither libertas. This leads us to the apparent paradox that the ancient ideal of liberty was in fact in its way coercive, restrictive, and precisely “illiberal.”"

"consider the ballerina. She displays the most remarkable liberty of movement, the most beautiful and exhilarating freedom from gravity and all human clumsiness; but she did not gain this liberty, nor does she exercise it, through an embrace of anarchy nor through a complacent satisfaction with the mere lack of physical weights or chains. We all of us possess that freedom, and it reveals itself as a terribly cheap and tawdry sort of freedom when compared to that which the ballerina enjoys. She gained her liberty by imposing on herself a rigid and extraordinarily restrictive regime, which mandates in great detail the elements of her diet, her waking, her sleep, and imposes on her the necessity of study, practice, physical training, and regulates all her life, within and without, in a startling manifold of particulars. She gained this liberty, that is to say, by yoking herself beneath a harsh and most tyrannical law. Watch her as she flies almost birdlike across the stage, and leaps and capers as the gazelle: even now, in this moment, she is beholden to that law; even now, in this moment of most perfect liberty, she is most “slave.”
Now, “freedom” in our modern sense might be a kind of bland precondition for such preparation and such self-mastery as she has attained; certainly, she could never have even so much as begun were she bound in some dungeon cell. But in and of itself “freedom” is perfectly indifferent to such graces, and too keen an adoration of it can even be detrimental to the conquest of a greater liberty, which can only be attained by an almost habitual servitude before one’s own inner law."

[Anonymous No.19883397]

>>19883123
>have you ever heard of conservatism?
https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1455398352271466496
"Hard to argue with the observation that stumbling around directionlessly is most of what conservatism amounts to."
"Practically speaking, Left is a direction while Right is brownian motion."

[Anonymous No.19883419]

>>19882475
This is a totally myopic view. Free speech doesn’t have a very long history in the West. It is an invention of the American Revolution. Try going back in time to a pub in Austria and insulting the Emperor; you would get arrested. Try going back to medieval times and preach against the doctrine of the Trinity; see how long you last. Even today you can’t deny the Holocaust in places like Germany, and speech is highly censored on social media. I myself have experience with censorship: I’m from England, once the police came to my house and wanted to search through my internet history when I was a young teenager because I drew a picture of Hitler at school. This guy is taking an idea that exists only in America and has no history in the West outside of the American Revolution and calling it the “foundation of Western civilisation”. Wtf?

[Anonymous No.19883420]

>>19882505
He's one of those weaselly pseuds who'll go out of his way to over explain how he agrees with your right to speech regardless even though he knows that's neither feasible nor applicable to ANY western civilization. If anything western civilization was the first to codify the exact opposite which is how we got to the point we're at right now.
He's such a fucking grifter but honestly I can't see any but the biggest of mongoloids still listening to that guy so whatever lol

[Anonymous No.19883434]

>>19883327
May i inquire your person regarding the provenience of the quotation you have shown us?

[Anonymous No.19883437]

>>19883434
John Bruce Leonard, "The New Prometheans" (2019)

[Anonymous No.19883474]

>>19882475
try talking shit about caligula in the roman civilisation see what happens cunt.

[Anonymous No.19883506]

>>19882682
whos this retard

[Anonymous No.19883521]

i am no longer allowed to call celebrities whores without people reacting clearly this must be the fall of western civilization

[Anonymous No.19883566]

>>19883437
I appreciate your response and thank you for your aid

[Anonymous No.19883595]

>>19882475
I tried watching the Joe Rogan interview and it started with him trying to say that global warming was fake using the most convoluted explanation imaginable.

The guy has turned into a strawman of himself.

[Anonymous No.19883607]

>>19883595
Personally I think the climate agenda is being used for technocratic control and if it were really as bad as they said the elite would take swift immediate action to secure their survival but Memersons argument against it was so stupid that it makes me think he’s being paid by Big Oil.

[Anonymous No.19883630]

>>19883607
No one's being paid anything in most of these cases. The climate change panic was just pretext to ease into today's geopolitical situation where Saudis are moving away from oil, Russia is an unreliable source of energy for all of EU, China's growth slowing down immensely. It's to shut the masses out of these discussions and transform a fundamentally political issue into a social one.
Big oil doesn't need to pay anyone off anymore because big oil itself has moved its funds elsewhere. Aramco is dropping billions in bags for the plebs to hold while they diversify into fin/tech, LNG and green alternatives, which will be monopolized by governments for decades just like oil was until it's not profitable anymore.
That's my modest take anyway.

[Anonymous No.19883642]

>>19883630
To clarify, that isn't to say climate change isn't real, just the issue was overly politicized to the point of overshadowing more pertinent issues, and tons of funds were moved around under the pretense of servicing the greater good of (privately owned) green markets.

[Anonymous No.19883655]

>>19883630
>>19883642
What’s the purpose (for them) of shifting to green energy?

[Anonymous No.19883657]

>>19882666
checked satanic trips

[Anonymous No.19883668]

>>19883655
There's no nebulous them. It's just money derisking from politically charged energy plays and into more manageable scale energy deals. The petrodollar is no longer sustainable, the supply chain failure facilitated a much faster transition to more autarkic policy. Every single major power is teetering on full collapse and having globalized exposure on something as vital as energy is the difference between a "run of the mill" recession and mass starvation.
Green energy previously wasn't too ostensibly feasible or sustainable but we're past the point of speculation now.

[Anonymous No.19883673]

>>19882836
>>19882872
Why do different groups of people who hate Peterson hate him for two completely opposite reasons? On one hand, someone hates him because he is a collectivist, but on the other hand, another hates him because he is individualist (for white people).
As to whether free speech is a collective value, protecting the rights of all people is not collectivism, this is a bizarre attempt to paint him as some sort of collectivist.

[Anonymous No.19883675]

>>19883668
Where can I read about this stuff? Half of what you’re saying is going over my head lol.

[Anonymous No.19883684]

>>19883673
The collectivist/individualist dichotomy is meaningless anyway. The only true individualists are trannies and the like who believe we should do whatever we please and ignore all social boundaries.

[Anonymous No.19883693]

>>19883005
I know Petersson is a liberal, but I thought he was at least conservative enough to deny linear progress. This is pure globohomo retardation

[Anonymous No.19883704]

>>19883675
I'm a fucking retard to be fair lol
I'm just in a position where I look at headlines for a living and I infer the rest. If my bleak/simplistic outlook is anywhere close to truth then you probably won't even need to read about it. But for now I guess just follow what's going on vis a vis Russia/US, US/Qatar, EU/Qatar. China I haven't been following since Evergrande but anything you read about them in general you should assume is at least ten times worse than they're leaking to the media. Saudi and all the other oil countries have been openly diversifying away from oil for a while too. COVID really just accelerated geopolitical relations by like 5-10 years. Also watch the fed pop the bubble around March.

[Anonymous No.19883713]

>>19883693
Peterson is a Steven-Pinker style liberal who always talks about how great modern society is and that communists should stop criticizing it because it’s better than anything else we’ve had in history.

[Anonymous No.19883730]

>>19883713
At the same time, he says we're living in "postmodern times" which for him is like the most chaotic and meaningless times ever (and yes it's a retarded strawman he does of postmodernism but it's still his position) and that in older times we were closer to the ancient wisdom that is manifested in Jungian archetypes (that are the cause of Good and Order contrary to postmodernism). And he constantly points toward WW2, which was pretty recent, as the most disastrous historical event ever, which means we haven't developed as much as we like to think.

But you're right, he he does say we live in the best times ever. Probably because he loves psychology so much which is a modern pseudoscience and the only reason he is who he is. No one would care about him and his gtift if he didn't first gather accolades in psychology. Too bad that's the only subject he reads, otherwise his political takes might actually be informed

[Anonymous No.19883731]

>>19883730
grift*

[Anonymous No.19883733]

>>19883673
I find ironic to defend individualism and western values at the same time. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro don't actually realize the only reason "western values" are deteriorating is due to American individualism. Individualism implies you're going to create your own values and discard certain aspects of your culture.

[Anonymous No.19883739]

Why do these retards always fail to realise that communism is also a western ideology?
it was invented by a German residing in Western Europe. capitalism is just as western as critique of capitalism

[Anonymous No.19883744]

>>19882475
He is so naive with his cuckold liberalism that it’s moving. The only ones who ever had freedom are the rich and powerful. It is today as it always was and will be. In American and Canadian history pockets of freedom were created incidentally as these were frontier lands and the power elite didn’t have full control over the territory. But as soon as they had it was over. As technology progresses there will be less and less freedom for the people.

[Anonymous No.19883749]

>>19883744
This is exactly what he's saying.

[Anonymous No.19883753]

>>19883733
Theirs is the ultimate grift of doublespeak. When they say individualism they're really playing to collectivists, when they claim to be libertarian or "classic" liberals they mean conservatives etc. Their audience is people that LARP as super religious online but haven't even read the bible or finished it. It's a strange breed of cynicism, but credit where credit is due, they did find a way to commercialize it, ironically, and make careers out of placating their viewers into doing exactly what they were doing before, but feeling somehow even more self righteous about it.

[Anonymous No.19883755]

>>19883749
True of communist societies as well.

[Anonymous No.19883763]

>>19882949
>&tracking_referrer=www.theatlantic.com
kek

[Anonymous No.19883953]

>>19883739
For me it's Georgism. Rent is the problem and should be banned and reformed into an equity purchase system.

[Anonymous No.19883988]

>>19883739
>German

[Anonymous No.19883989]

>>19883739
>by a German

[Anonymous No.19883995]

>>19883739
>(((German)))

[Anonymous No.19884012]

>>19883988
>>19883989
>>19883995
Judaism is the true foundation of Western civilization.

[Anonymous No.19884015]

>>19884012
If it only it had something original, and not inverted stolen ideas from other cultures that were better, less parasitic and more productive.

Nothing the Jew writes is original, that's the real redpill. He takes steals from others then takes credit for it.

[Anonymous No.19884018]

19884012
0/10 lazy bait
You’ve got to make it less obvious. Better luck next time

[Anonymous No.19884036]

>>19883988
>>19883989
>>19883995
/pol/ morons. Marx was racially Jewish but you can't divorce his thought from the western intellectual tradition. He built upon others who came before him. Communism existed before Marx. Besides, he wasn't Jewish in anything other than race. His family had converted to Christianity before his birth, and Marx himself was a huge anti-semite. Yes, Marx's work is definitely a part of the Western tradition, and you're a moron to say otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19884043]

19884036
You will never be Western Moishe. Always an alien parasite.

[Anonymous No.19884047]

^
Retarded midwit take. Marxism has its roots firmly planted in Abrahanism, and for all the so-called atheism of Marx with his famous quotes like "opium for the people", the desert cultist mentality was fimrly rooted in his psyche.

[Anonymous No.19884049]

>>19884036
>but you can't divorce his thought from the western intellectual tradition
You can and you must.

[Anonymous No.19884050]

The "West" = whg + eef + steppe

or:

greek philosophy as a foundation

roman law as a foundation

influence from the era of the wandering peoples (germanic/slavic migrations)

[Anonymous No.19884067]

>But but the tapeworm is as much part of the body as the host itself!
No. No matter how long the parasite lives in the body, it is never part of the body. When the parasite is removed the body becomes whole and healthy. When it enters the body becomes sick.

[Anonymous No.19884085]

>>19884049
It's over, Sorel. I have the model of historical synthesis.

[Anonymous No.19884145]

>>19882475
"Our civilization would crumble in in instant if we banned freedom of speech" - literally no actual figure of Western civilization except maybe the boomerified version of the founding fathers and enlightenment thinkers
>>19882500
Also this

[Anonymous No.19884154]

I have the freedom of speech to say that lobsterboys deserve to be gulaged

[Anonymous No.19884158]

>>19883739
"German"

[Anonymous No.19884170]

>>19883739
Yeah, fellow German. I concede communism at least originally was though, due to "utopian" communism and other non-Marx thinkers.

[Anonymous No.19884176]

>>19883733
This. Shapiro is the personification of dual loyalties and has always been the enemy. Peterson, while having previously done much for the young and the lost men, is now little more than a media boomer. He is the very thing that he sought to destroy.

The sooner native Europeans amd their decendants collectivise and assert force, the better it will be for following generations.

[Anonymous No.19884232]

>>19882475
Not /lit/, fuck off

[Anonymous No.19884242]

>>19882943
Western civilization is a total empty signifier because you retards can't even decide what the 'West' is, who's 'white' or not etc.

[Anonymous No.19884249]

>>19883693
Conservatives don't deny linear progress though.

[Anonymous No.19884257]

>>19882500
/thread
All these fucking retards talking about "the values of Western civilization" when they're mouthbreathing morons is getting tiring.

[Anonymous No.19884263]

>>19883164
>Conservatism is Classical Liberalism?
Correct

[Anonymous No.19884273]

>>19882949
Debunked sorry lad

[Anonymous No.19884279]

>>19884242
It's obvious. Europe including Slavic Europe and European ex-settler colonies(America, Canada etc.)where descendants of Europeans make up the majority. Then other areas are under varying levels of influence like Latin America where a lot of areas are Europeanized and have European populations but a lot of areas still have heavy native populations and even Christianity there is more syncretism.

[Anonymous No.19884282]

>>19882507
your pic is just "we must be intolerant of the intolerant"

[Anonymous No.19884289]

>>19884279
This. Usually people who reject this or pretend not to understand are concern trolling / non-whites

[Anonymous No.19884347]

>>19882711
Normie filtered

[Anonymous No.19884350]

>Detraction, the

[Anonymous No.19884356]

>>19882711
I had him as a prof and none of that is true. First, he taught out of Sid Smith--there's no "Room 101" and even if there were he teaches in one of the 2 large central auditoriums on the 2nd floor. Second, classes end on the hour and start at 10min after the hour. Third, the doors were usually open when he was teaching. Fourth, I never saw him spaz at anyone for coming in early but the very heavy 10-12ft door opens in front of the podium so I'd actually expect a prof to get angry if someone were to come in (especially considering there are 2 back doors that open to a stairwell where you can discreetly come into the classroom). Fifth, he usually taught in a dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up (I never saw him in a cape or hat)--his only quirk was that he chugged a couple of Coke Zeros during his lectures. Sixth, he barely used the podium while teaching and even if he did I don't know how he could have made a mess (i.e. there's a garbage bin beside it and all he had by way to put in it was a can or 2 of Coke Zeros).

He's leaned into an accidental career as a media personality and being snarky over a YouTuber, treating it as if he's supposed to be a modern-day Socrates, is the definition of pseudery.

[Anonymous No.19884360]

>>19882853
Unfathomly based

[Anonymous No.19884373]

>>19882475
What are we gonna do without men?

[Anonymous No.19884375]

>>19882880
You need to take the 4th Political Theory pill ASAP

[Anonymous No.19884426]

>>19882475
Because, as we all know, Western Civilization has never existed without free speech.

[Anonymous No.19884442]

>>19883739
Indeed, a true "Aryan"

[Anonymous No.19884453]

>>19884442
=> Nietzsche, Dawn, #205

[Anonymous No.19884475]

>>19884279
>>19884289
I understand your definition, however
>It's obvious
it's not. I repeat: you dickheads can't consent to a coherent meaning. Some other poltard will have an entirely different definition. Empty signifier.

[Anonymous No.19884518]

>>19884145
Yes you are correct, but is free speech and expansion of free speech not a noble aim to aspire towards? So it has never existed in any truly pure manifestation throughout history, does that mean free speech has no value? I think it is the highest good worth aiming for and I don't give a shit whether it existed prior or not, I care about what actions I can take to manifest a future with increasingly more free speech. If you are opposed to this, why the fuck are you on this website in particular?

[Anonymous No.19884569]

The tranny is right. West is just an arbitrary direction on a map. Its abstraction allows for Jews and other hostile aliens to be grouped together with it. It’s similar to the magic dirt fetishism that cuckservatards have with regard to the nation-state. Even a full-blown negro can be classed as “British” just because he happened to be born on a patch of land. It should be white civilization. Direction is abstract; race is concrete.