I’d kill Ben Shapiro if he was my alarm clock.
How any human being can listen to that shrill sub-squeak voice is beyond me.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I’d kill Ben Shapiro if he was my alarm clock.
How any human being can listen to that shrill sub-squeak voice is beyond me.
huh
Is that in relation to the post above, or are you confused?
If it’s the latter: What is epic?
That would be silly of me as it goes without saying
I've seen a bit. For many Bernie supporters including me, the primary fried our brains, but I don't know if he's recovered from that - he's had multiple Trump > Clinton takes. I think his confusion about Tucker Carlson generally shows his general confusion about politics - there is a dangerous precedent of right-wingers being skeptical of markets for undermining traditional values that he's just not aware of.
I prefer Michael Brooks, but tbh I don't listen to any of them much.
The one video I liked were when Sam Seder interviewed a libertarian presidential candidate who had a total meltdown over the concept of land licences or something.
Kyle>Jimmy
dont know who this guy is but aoc was just on his twitch stream
Truth.
Even though he has no legs and is in the pocket of Big Seltzer
This. Absolutely.
Exploitative characters like Peterson/Shapiro etc emerge during times of Divisive Politics and basically offer quasi-intellectualized comfort, affirmation and catch-all fixes to groups of people who are feeling disenfranchised, unsure and concerned about the World they're living in (due to the fact that they are living through a time of Divisive Politics).
They're all snake-oil salesmen - grifters, as you said.
In the case of Peterson, I see a deeply emotionally manipulative character. Who operates more or less shamelessly - often to the point of embarrassing transparency to those who are viewing his content from a more or less logical viewpoint...
The second vid is interesting in that you see how he uses a gratuitous emotional outburst in which he absolves the failings of his audience due to the fact that none of them 'have ever had a positive word said about them in their entire lives' to set-up his inevitable whining about 'leave the Patriarchy alone' etc...
It's all very emo, really.
The irony that many of this man's fans are the same folk who go around labeling people 'snowflakes' for demanding change is staggering.
It's also incredible that Peterson can remain completely emotionally calm when talking about human beings who are dying while running away from war torn countries, or domestic violence, or rape, or terrorism - yet literally begins weeping when talking about the specific, minor woes of the demographic that makes up his fanbase...
Geez, that's cringeworthy. I'm not sure whether they are manipulative crocodile tears, or whether he is genuinely impacted by the plight of people he's treated (more relatable to him than perhaps than truly poverty-strike or oppressed people).
I say laughably obvious crocodile tears - his emotional outbursts only ever serve his business-model, and occur in a way that perfectly aligns him to his primary fanbase (and source of money).
In many cases, he has literally filmed himself crying and then uploaded the video, rather than been moved to tears during a 'natural' conversation.
Even if we imagine for a moment that an intelligent grown-man who displays unusually demonstrative emotional outbursts publicly is only capable of displaying said emotion when it directly affects people he has worked with, it's worth remembering that...
He must've treated women in ruin. Victims of domestic violence etc.
He must've treated people who've been fecked up due to poor treatment as minorities etc.
He must've treated people who aren't essentially just disenfranchised men.
He must've treated people who've been the victims of disenfranchised men...
It's really incredible how he can only weep (and do so publicly) on just one topic, and yet coincidentally, that one topic serves his fame and income, and it benefits him greatly to be thought of as caring and empathetic and genuine (on that one topic).
Real emotional outbursts rarely occur in such specifically fortuitous ways for the person suffering them.
@Rhyme Animal I don't disagree, but you also have to question the mental and emotional stability of a "scientist" who swears by a beef-only diet and who claims that a sip of apple cider sent him spiralling into a month-long depressive quagmire of doom.
Hmm, I find it very difficult to sit through Kyle, the constant voices and repetition of his position etc - it's just too much.
However I do like Jimmy, although he tends to view things in very black white terms, something that is both a strength (money in politics, foreign intervention, health care etc) and a weakness (policing, immigration etc).
Kyle’s impersonations are awful. Especially his Trump one
I still much prefer his show to Jimmy (who’s good too).I hate the terminology of beta and alpha, but a huge part of Petersons appeal is to help beta become more "alpha" isn't it since a huge portion of his fan base are obviously incel? Which is deliciously hilarious because Peterson himself is about the most beta internet personality around.
Dore is about right. He's left wing, but common sense on a lot of stuff. However I'll admit I don't really know his deep down beliefs cause I really rarely ever see him. Kyle however, the guy is kind of insufferable. Not that I disagree with his positions, but he can't react to anything without acting like a total tit, pulling silly faces constantly.
But his tears are manly!
The major problem attributed to Jordan Peterson by people more intellectually savvy than myself is that when he branches out into political, economic and philosophical arguments or debates, he's monumentally stupid. When he talks about psychology, the actual field he's based and educated in, he's fine.
Jordan Peterson refuses to back a normative claim in any of the contentious issues he debates. He only makes a series of descriptive claims which people take to the logical conclusions hes alluding to and when called out on it he goes "No i never said that, I've never said that" so like he will say things along the lines of Women and men dont get along in the office, women arent as happy as they used to be, Men are better in competitive work environments etc, but he wont give any prescriptive ideas about what to do with this information which is the most important thing we discuss in society, discuss value judgements. So when people see what hes talking about and connect the dots he refuses to take responsibility for the position hes obviously alluding to.
Jordan Peterson refuses to back a normative claim in any of the contentious issues he debates. He only makes a series of descriptive claims which people take to the logical conclusions hes alluding to and when called out on it he goes "No i never said that, I've never said that" so like he will say things along the lines of Women and men dont get along in the office, women arent as happy as they used to be, Men are better in competitive work environments etc, but he wont give any prescriptive ideas about what to do with this information which is the most important thing we discuss in society, discuss value judgements. So when people see what hes talking about and connect the dots he refuses to take responsibility for the position hes obviously alluding to.
Have not been following this thread, but are people here actually equating Peterson and Harris?
NO I dont think so, people are just discussing all the different people associated with the IDW on their own merits, not necessarily comparing them.
I don't understand Shapiros point there, anyone care to enlighten me?
True women care for and want more babies, not abortions.
Its the outside of the womb bit that confused me. Anyway, what a colossal prick!
Oh I glazed over that and read it as inside. Typo? Or maybe some new abortion-related messaging, I don't know.
Yeah, it's a very confusing and bizarre thing to write from the world's most bestest debater.
The debate has moved on from Roe vs Wade. Now the religious right are turning their attention to Democrats prowling through maternity wards murdering babies in their cots.
That’s one of the most impressive self owns I’ve ever seen. A female doctor staying up all night with a coughing child before going to work, while her husband snores the night away so he can be fresh for a long day on twitter would be a textbook answer to “what is the opposite of feminism?”
Referencing some new bill in Virginia, I believe.
Think it's related to this story that has ben doing the rounds in conservative media circles in recent days.
Whatever your views about late term abortions in extreme situations, that is still talking about abortions in utero. So it still doesnt make any sense.