In a recent video posted to The Rubin Report YouTube channel, host Dave Rubin and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson announced they would both be leaving Patreon on January 15th. Throughout the thirty-minute video, Rubin and Peterson discussed Patreon’s ability to remove specific types of content creators from the platform in the search for more social …
Here is a gift for all you lefty Peterson haters taking him out of context!
"Alright, I feel obligated to link you some of his buffoonery (which is a shame because I want to like the guy, because he isn't a bad person and actually cares. Just that some of the stuff he says is incredibly dumb and his concern unwarranted. Makes it hard to like him as much as I could).
Jordan has been criticized by lots if YouTubers so I'll link as many as I can think of.
Source: Youtuber, Genetically Modified Skeptic, reviewing one of Jordan's online lectures (his channel name is cringe I know). He thinks that because the double helix patterns has shown up in cultures throughout history, that ancient humans must've subconsciously known about the structure of dna. There is a brief & concise clip of.him responding to a question about these claims, if I find it I will add it to this post.
Source: Jordan's lecture and his interview with Cathy Newman (she wasn't a very honest interviewers but that doesn't make Jordan any less ridiculous). He likes comparing human social hierarchies to that of lobsters but where you can compare you can also contrast. You could compare humans to bees, which have a matriarchy. Point is, Jordan is very selective about this.
Source: The Waking up Podcast with Sam Harris. And for a guy who complains that post modernist like to redefine words (Think, racism = power + privilege, for example, thus "Black people can't be racist cuz they lack power and privilege"), he sure loves redefining words like truth and God. Check out his appearance on Sam Harris's podcast here. He dodges and weaves Sam's arguments here using sophistry, by redefining words, and by being just plain stubborn.
He doesn't understand atheism, and is a religious apologist (for Christianity). He claims atheists born in the West aren't really atheists, unless they're rapists and murders because they, whether they acknowledge it or not, are behaving like Christians. I'll leave it at that and link a shit ton of videos of him being dumb on religion. He is also fond of claiming the Nazi regime and communism regimes are caused by in large part by atheism, as in "this is what happens when you don't have religion, particulalry Christiniaty".
Edit: I think the funniest part of these so called "Vancouver Dialogues" with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris is when Jordan is asked explicitly "whether or not Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead" and he said "it would take him 40 hours to answer that" very simple question.
Also the YouTube Venaloid does a great job criticizing Jordan Peterson.
Lastly, he made an appearance on PragerU. Not bad in and of itself (though that channel can be sketchy). But he does not seem to understand Nietzsche, Marxism, and post modernist as well he leads on. It would seem. But I will link you that, and his conversation with Ben Shapiro (I like Benny, I watch him everyday).
Lol k I am done. This is a lot of content, and not all of it is criticism necessarily; some of it is discussions and debates (many of which where Jordan makes himself look dumb). Just linked it all to you so you can get a betteer understanding of Jordan. Draw your own conclusions, if you watch anything watch him with Susan Blackmore, Matt Dillahuanty, and Sam Harris. Sorry I couldn't provide nice and concise clips. Eh."
Ironic ghat your comment is:
"Learn (how to format properly using markdown)[https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax], you idiot."
You didn't do it properly either.
Are you gonna fix it? I will immortalize your mistake here before you do.
(He has since, quickly after making it deleted his comment)
* [Sharing a Neo-Nazis writing on the "effects of diversity"](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1014867494740389888?s=21)
* [Some evidence of his blatant sexism.](https://i.redd.it/canxnrgie7o01.png)
* [Some evidence of his transphobia, referring to post-op trans people as having "mutilated bodies" and pretending like trans people aren't happier after transitioning, or that doctors just immediately operate on anyone who is questioning their gender identity.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1066835755262271491)
* [Someone asks him on thoughts of them raising children as a gay couple, and he brings up irrelevant claims about single-parent households before saying "the nuclear family is the smallest viable human unit. Father, mother, child."](https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1008817930761580546?s=21)
* [Evidence of his blatant hypocrisy.](https://i.imgur.com/n6aTWXr.jpg)
* ["Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?"](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465?lang=en)
* [Jordan Peterson meeting with Norwegian Nazis](https://imgur.com/a/L2uDGHp)
* [Jordan Peterson denies saying things he's literally said on camera](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVI92JX7ux8)
* [Peterson defending Hitler and the Nazis](https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1067578938405326848)
* [More sexism](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUkfpteVoAAY9LQ.jpg)
* [Even more sexism](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUkkTL-UMAAsoOh.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
* [Denying climate change](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUkp7DjU8AARJxG.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
* [Sexism once again](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUksZdbVMAA7LzS.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
* ["I won't speak out against transphobia because that is a malicious and manipulative term"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUks_eTVwAA-0c0.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
* [What the fuck...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUktsg6VAAASCjD.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
* [More ramblings](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUkuZUAU0AAiny3.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
I'm missing a ton more wisdom from this great mind.
You can find more by googling "worst peterson tweets", or going to [/r/enoughpetersonspam](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam). This is a good [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ3RL3WZaXg) on him, and [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas) too.
The left just got destroyed with facts and logic! Next time you'll think twice before taking Peterson out of context.
>I don't think he's wrong about deplatforming, shits a fucking joke.
He wanted to SUE a woman for giving his book a bad review. He got his lawyers to send her threatening letters. "Muh free speech" He doesn't give a fuck about free speech unless it's against trans/minorities.
He's interested in making money not losing it that's why he picks communities that are easy to manipulate for his subject matter despite having no real expertise in these areas.
He probably saw the type of guy who invests in bitcoin and figured he could branch out from his current audience.
This thread is too full of leftists who heard someone saying something bad about JP. There are legitimate reasons to make fun of some stuff going on in he cryptocurrency space. Jordan Peterson (who, by the way, has some pretty insightful things to say, if you care to listen) is not one of those reasons.
> Jordan Peterson (who, by the way, has some pretty insightful things to say, if you care to listen) is not one of those reasons.
If anyone is interested in Jordan Peterson, read this. His insane views range from "civil rights protesters were loser children because you can't ever try and change society through protest" to "frozen is feminist propaganda because classical stories didn't have an independent female protagonist". They also include "a female journalist who laughed when I said we need to enforce cultural monogamy hates men and that's why incels are killing people", as well as "You can't have a discussion with women because all discussions are backed up by the threat of violence, and you can't hit a women, so don't bother talking with them about complex topics".
He's a paleolithic conservative who thinks we had the best society because past societies were automatically the best societies because ... they were the past societies. He's a caveman.
>who heard someone saying something bad about JP
The solution is obviously holding one's hands over their ears and yelling at top volume to avoid any and all criticism of the current reigning king of gullible losers.
>Jordan Peterson (who, by the way, has some pretty insightful things to say, if you care to listen) is not one of those reasons.
Any particularly insightful comments come to mind, off the top of your head? I'm asking (genuinely) because I'm in this weird spot where I'm in this thread because it's here & active, but I don't know about or care about any of the people involved nearly enough to actually start digging into their content.
So, I'm curious, but also very lazy; if it's complicated enough that "DYOR" is the best possible answer then I'll just take a pass, I don't care that much. If there's something like "He said this thing and it resonated with me", I'd appreciate hearing about it, maybe formulate an opinion when I'm in that kind of mood sometime.
Wow, an open-minded person :) Unexpected. So, I've been listening to his college lectures. They are mostly centered around these three things: (1) models and theories of personality, (2) myths and stories, their significance and interpretations, (3) values and social norms - why they're necessary to both the person and those around, etc.
All of these are pretty interesting. The personality models are mostly about the well-known (to the psychologists) stuff, but the way he's binding it into consistent stories that are entertaining is pretty cool. His views on myths and values are somewhat unique, and may be a bit controversial - but I find the lectures insightful because it's very apparent after listening how much of our assumptions and behaviors we're taking for granted are entirely not obvious. So that's the tl;dr version, but I would encourage you to find his YouTube lectures, and watch the first ones of his 2 major series, that should give you a better idea.
Appreciate the succinct response, that piqued my interest. I'll check it out sometime. From responses here and your note that it "may be controversial" I suspect it'll heat me up, so maybe I'll put it off til I'm in the right mind for it...but that sounds fascinating. At least fascinating enough to start a discussion with a coworker or the bestie.
Thanks for the perspective.
Watching the rabid alt left whack jobs of buttcoin get their panties in a twist over JP is an excellent way to start the morning. So many triggered tankies that are unable to cope with opposing viewpoints in their fragile version of reality. Don't worry I'm sure he'll be coming to a town near you soon giving you the opportunity to put mom's panty hose over your head so you can set trash cans on fire and break store windows in protest.
>so you can set trash cans on fire and break store windows in protest.
I feel like this is less bad than running people over and shooting up churches. I'm a bit radical in that way though.
EDIT: also, "alt-left" isn't a thing, quit this bullshit. The "alt-right" losers called themselves that from the beginning.
Maaaan why did it have to be a link. Accidently clicked it instead of the comments and now my searches and adsense are gonna be all messed up adter I finally just got Google to realize I didnt want to go to coindesk.
For real though, it would be interesting to have a real conversation here instead of trolly mocking of people who might side with something you disagree with.
A dude got banned from Patreon for using the wrong language off of Patreon, supposedly due to pressure from CC companies.
Dude went to a different platform that said they would gladly accept him.
Different platform got blacklisted by CC companies almost immediately following this incident for accepting the same person.
Is there not a legit issue there worth considering? These companies are starting to make choices which decide who gets to have a livelihood and who doesn't. Isn't there something Orwellian and potentially problematic with this? The thing he got banned for was outside of the TOS, there was no warning, there was no appeal process. Just gone. He was warning over 10k a month and has a family. He doesn't advocate for violence, just has an opinion on the internet.
I mean, you guys keep joking about how there's no usecase... Is this not a legit example of a valid usecase? Someone is getting silenced from platforms which control the flow of fiat, and people start resorting to using crypto to circumvent that. Shit fringe usecase maybe, but still?...
At the very least, is it not worth saying that there's an issue with the fact that central control of money in this manner can result in this level of censorship? Even if you dislike the person that was censored, is the fact that this is done arbitrarily and outside of the rules not expose a legitimate issue that's worth more than a passing chuckle?
Really? Fascinating that there's people on the internet who think that making bad arguments is an accomplishment as long as enough of their lackeys upvote it. I guess if you're far left enough, reshaping reality through upvotes seems as realistic and practical as bringing about a communist utopia.
If any of you dudes are reading this, after you're done downvoting: Maybe provide logical counter arguments against what he says. Have you ever considered that? Just refute him. If you're trying to slander or silence him, that means you're just fucking wrong and you're afraid of what he has to say and how bad it makes you look. This is how actual adults operate.
> A dude got banned from Patreon for using the wrong language off of Patreon, supposedly due to pressure from CC companies.
Payment processors have been moving against white supremacists since they started amping up the violence post-Charlotte.
It's not like he said "retard" and got deplatformed.
Thank you for you well informed opinion.
He was arguing against a person from the alt-right when he made that comment.
Let me take you hand through this little guy since you seem to be struggling to connect the dots.
* The alt right are generally a group of white nationalists and white supremacists.
* He was making points against the things they were saying. Arguing against them. *Being angry at racists.*
* White supremacists, as the name implies, tend to think they're better than black people, along with most other races.
* They see themselves as opposite of black people, and obviously better than them in myriad ways.
Now given that info, what is the worst insult you can level against a person who sees themselves in this way. Answer: accusing them of being the exact thing that they are convinced they are not.
He said "you're acting like a bunch of white \[nwords\]" directed as an insult against white supremacists. He did not use that word against black people. He used it against white people, who would not hesitate to throw that word around against anyone they see as inferior. The only person he could be racist towards in that instant is white supremacists.
And in response, this makes him a white supremacist, and tied with Charlottesville?
You either are seriously struggling with how context works, or you don't give a shit and you think it's a legitimate tactic to slander whoever you dislike, regardless of the reasons as long as the ends justify the means.
The ironic thing is, Sargon has literally never accepted crypto donations of any sort. But who gives a shit he's within the proxy of someone who says he has the capacity to understand why people might use crypto, so slander all of them.
This is way more unreasonable than I thought this sub could possibly be. You people are an insulated cult as bad as any of the crypto subreddits. Just #HODL those opinion no matter how fucking wrong and disgusting they are.
>You people are an insulated cult
You'll forgive us for laughing at someone in a Jordan Peterson personality cult trying to whine that others engage in groupthink.
>He said "you're acting like a bunch of white \[nwords\]" directed as an insult against white supremacists. He did not use that word against black people.
He as an alt-right guy calls another white supremacist a bunch of expletives and stating beyond the already humanity denying-expletive that
Black persons are inferior
One fellow white supremacist is inferior to him, as a white person, because is more like black persons, who are the most inferior.
It's not just that you're incredibly stupid, but your craven pretending that referring to someone as "acting like blacks" as the gravest of insult implies that the man is *not* racist.
If he didn't hate black people, he would neither use the epithet nor use their lives as an insult that again, *only white* ***supremacists would BELIEVE***.
You are absolutely pathetic.
But again, these are the greaseballs that any mention of Jordan Peterson drive to fits of furious (if transparent) defense. Why am I surprised when they bubble up from the sewer?
>You'll forgive us for laughing at someone in a Jordan Peterson personality cult trying to whine that others engage in groupthink.
Ok? Do I post in subreddits dedicated to him? No I fucking don't. You're on a subreddit dedicated to ridiculing something that you could just as easily ignore. I've seen a couple of videos and find nothing objectionable. Everyone I've replied to hasn't seen shit and are are misrepresenting his positions and claiming utter nonsense, likely from articles smearing him. Link me to him saying the shit you claim he's saying. It's all fucking slander and misrepresentation and when you idiots get called on it you just double down.
>He as an alt-right guy calls another white supremacist a bunch of expletives and stating beyond the already humanity denying-expletive that
You are utterly clueless. You're literally one of those people who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is alt-right. There's dozens of videos of him criticizing the alt-right, calling them repugnant, etc. He was banned off twitter for spamming gay porn to the alt right because he didn't want them to follow him (also something they dislike, and he shoved it in their face). You are 100% talking out of your ass and have never watched a fucking video of his.
He's a classical liberal individualist. The alt-right are far right nationalist collectivists. Completely different political dimensions. The alt-right hate him.
>Black persons are inferior
>One fellow white supremacist is inferior to him, as a white person, because is more like black persons, who are the most inferior.
>It's not just that you're incredibly stupid, but your craven pretending that referring to someone as "acting like blacks" as the gravest of insult implies that the man is *not* racist.
>If he didn't hate black people, he would neither use the epithet nor use their lives as an insult that again, *only white* ***supremacists would BELIEVE***.
>You are absolutely pathetic.
He is using their language to ridicule them. He's using that which is most offensive to them, to mock them. He's never used that language outside of dealings with the alt-right. If he believed what you claim he believes he would use that language whenever he felt like, and certainly to describe blacks, which he has not. You are completely disingenuous. This isn't hard math to do bro.
Here's Sargon's opinion after his first encounter with the alt-right, note the comments filled with "cuck" and how all videos where he discusses the alt-right have massive downvotes: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdE-bWQK65w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdE-bWQK65w)
Here's him defending JBP: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdm6Ijby0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdm6Ijby0E)
I don't understand how you can slander people who's opinions you haven't even heard first hand. You are judging people without even hearing them or attempting to understand them. This is surprisingly aligned with the attitude of the alt-right's prejudice towards race. Absolutely baffling how one could even contemplate if they're a good person with this attitude.
I have no clue of the details of this shit but the guy got banned from Patreon? You think getting banned from Patreon is a use case for crypto? Are you kidding me?
Outside of what rules?
Apparently this guys group is incels and shit? The scum of the internet that he's trying to milk for money? First of all, I would ban him too. Secondly, can't he start his own website? Wtf does he need Patreon for? Books, podcasts, videos, all the other social media platforms? Wtf are you talking about?
So... JBP didn't get banned. He left voluntarily after someone else got banned for extremely poor reasons. A lot of other people left Patreon also, who have no ties to any of these people or politics at all because they felt the action was arbitrary and unjustified and they feel unsafe on the platform.
No, his group isn't incels, it's young men in general. And his advice results in men getting jobs, wives, better family relations, and happiness. This is bad? Say there's some incels in there, if they stop being incels because of this dude, you think it's bad? Instead of ceasing to be incels, they should just be ostracized instead, or euthanized? Come on dude, it can't be that hard to use your fucking head.
\> First of all, I would ban him too.
Yeah, you clearly don't understand any part of this, and you're apparently an authoritarian that makes arbitrary choices based on even the slightest whiff of slander that someone else claims about a person. 10/10 model human exemplar. You're basically identical to the people who caused this whole shitstorm.
\> Secondly, can't he start his own website?
That's... Exactly... What... He's doing... He's making an alternate to Patreon.
It's like you literally don't know anything but tangential gossip about *any* of this but you're extremely ready to form an opinion and take actions including banning this person you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
[https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/02/13/13-wojak\_00.w710.h473.2x.jpg](https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/02/13/13-wojak_00.w710.h473.2x.jpg) Holy fuck dude.
Not an internet guru, a clinical psychologist and a university professor.
Here's some letters people recently sent him: [https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/letters/](https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/letters/)
>*First of all, I’m not even sure if this is your legitimate email address, or that you’ll even read my message. But I just wanted to say to you that listening to your speeches helped me a lot. I’m a 23-year-old male student in Turkey. I’ve read all your books and watched all your videos. I’ve had serious mental traumas inflicted upon me by those I called my closest. I have no real friends left, and no one to care for me. I’ve been falsely accused of rape, and was cheated on by the love of my life. I’ve been severely depressed for a year and a half. I’m using five antidepressants, tried suicide, and was in fact declared dead at one point for one minute.*
>*I’m living my life just for the sake of living, and nothing else. I just wanted to say thank you. You really helped me a lot. I wish I could meet you in person, but I know that’ll never happen…. You don’t deserve the attacks or backlash from the media that you get. Please keep doing what you do. You are helping too many people that need it the most.*
Seems like young men would disagree with you, but let's keep going.
>*During the Q&A section of one your lectures on the psychological significance of the Bible you challenged an audience member to explain why young men were so interested in the material you were presenting. While I am confident that I probably do not have the answer, I do have an idea I think worth sharing with you.*
>*At least for me, the lecture series feels analogous to the scenes in fantasy stories and myths where the young hero learns that magic is real, and exists within him. To illustrate this point, I will draw some parallels between my experience listening to the lectures, and part of Star Wars’* *A New Hope**—specifically the scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi gives Luke his father’s lightsaber.*
>*Obi-Wan, an old wise warrior/hero, reveals to Luke (a self-pitying young man with ambition but no direction), the nature of the universe and his role in it. In your lecture, you—an older man (no offense)— tells your crowd (largely youthful, somewhat vagabondish men) the nature of their cultural heritage and their place in that heritage. Obi-Wan tells Luke that his father Anakin was a noble warrior and hero who fought in the grandest and most tragic of wars. You tell the individuals in the crowd that they are the inheritors of a similar grand tradition of heroism and adventure; that they can, as those before them did, ‘wrestle with God;” and that they are part of the fight to make the world right (to bring about the kingdom of God).*
>*Obi-Wan tells Luke about The Force, which is the power of life that flows through and connects all living things, and hints that Luke himself can learn to use it himself. You tell the crowd about Logos, the Word of God through which he created the world, and that this is the power of the divine that any individual so motivated can call upon and wield. You suggest to the crowd that they can shape the world to be better by speaking the truth, thereby expressing the divine power that lies within them.*
>*If you will indulge me a few more lines I would like to tell you a story you have heard a hundred times already. I was eating too much junk food, watching too much online porn, and wasting all my time. Now, however—with the roadmap given to me by yourself, Jocko Willink, and Joe Rogan (The Three J’s—aka The Holy Trinity of Male Actualization) I am on the path to grad school for anatomy and neruobiology, holding down a full time job, dating a girl I am going to marry, doing judo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and fixing and elevating my relationship with my family.*
The sheer arrogance of pretend you represent men and what they want and need is amusing. It's like a child thinking they're important and the center of the universe.
> The Holy Trinity of Male Actualization)
omg. you people need to get the fuck off the computer and stop the personality worshipping.
>pretend you represent men and what they want and need is amusing.
I have never in my life ever been accused or "representing what men want and need". I mean, who the fuck would even say a sentence like that? You are messed up dude. Your into the weird mensrights stuff and of course cryptocurrency, the two dumbest things on the internet. You are the standard video game, crypto, loser.
>I have never in my life ever been accused or "representing what men want and need". I mean, who the fuck would even say a sentence like that?
>Dude young men don't need an internet self help guru.
Both of these quotes are you.
>I have never in my life ever been accused
Noone has ever *said that* to me before. Your reading comprehension sucks.
I dont think telling people to stay away from internet self help guys is "representing what men want and need". In fact, thats a pretty creepy fucking sentence to be honest. And since you arent a young man, Im not sure why you even so into this? I thought you said these guys are for young men? Why are you so worked up?
"I've never before been accused of doing what I just self-evidently did."
I'm done here. You're a very lonely man what just wants someone to keep replying to him. I'm into you dude, find someone else to latch on to.
Noone ever felt the need to remark on it before. Telling people to stay away from pyramid schemes and self-help leeches isn't exactly odd advice. And noone could ever say it as weirdly as you phrased it. Yikes.
Wow alright. Let me farm some more downvotes here.
* Never seem him beg or even ask for donations ever, it's simply available as an option if people appreciate his work or his hundreds of **free** university lectures covering complex topics. Typically you need money to receive university lectures, but hey, giving them out for free and offering the option for people to donate if they would have paid for this content makes him a bad guy, got it.
* His daughter has a crippling autoimmune disease that basically dissolved her joints, she's needed to have her hip and knee replaced as a teenager. And apparently, her depression is considerably worse than that because of this autoimmune disease, as she's stated that if she could get rid of one, it would be the depression.
* She found a solution after years of experimenting with her diet, all beef, it's the only thing that reliably works for her.
* JPB has the same symptoms, but not as severe. Diet works for him too.
So what I gather here is that crippling autoimmune diseases are hilarious and people who need to radically change their diets just so they don't want to fucking kill themselves from the pain and depression are retarded and worthy of ridicule.
Oh, and giving away education for free makes you a piece of shit if you ask for nothing, but give people the option to show their appreciation with a tip.
Keep being a good person dude. Glad you've got an army of people ***who are clearly way better than incels*** to back you up on your hot takes.
It could be, but if it being solved? Is in in the process of being solved? Does anyone even care?
Meanwhile, someone who's been making a living through Patreon's system has what option exactly? To cease existing?
Credit card companies are deplatforming crowdfunding sites because of the people on them, or pressuring platforms like Patreon to kick certain people off. No matter what platform those people would go to, payment providers could still deplatform them. As in, you can't use your CC to donate money to them anywhere.
They have no control of crypto, hence no capacity to deplatform that form of payment.
I don't understand where the issue is. CC companies block shit for political reasons. CC companies have no control of bitcoin. CC companies can't block this form of payment.
He's building his own competitor to Patreon, and there's ample people in his circle of influence that people would gladly switch over and others would join to use the platform. All those people would advertise the platform.
Exactly. The problem is they know real adults and real people won't agree with them and it would look horrible in the light of day. So they want to circumvent society with blockchain. Of course.
Thank god blockchain does not work,honestly. These fucking moron losers are the worst
Thanks for your real adult options bro. Nice to see you in the comments again making unsubstantiated claims.
So one of them has close to a million fake adult YT subs, and the other has 2 million fake adult YT subs. The one with 2 million is also a best selling author of fake adult books with his latest selling 2 million copies.
Can you classify how one would identify real adults? I'm having a hard time outside of "people I agree with".
Can you explain to me why it is that you and several other people in this sub are defending the rights of the alt-right to not be offended? The alt-right actually use this as a tactic against centrists to shut down arguments against them. They mass flag youtube videos to get them shut down frequently. Even if you're on the left, surely people arguing against the far right is a good thing, no?
You're either defending them, or you're of the position that using the n-word in any context is racist. Even when using it as a weapon to insult people who think themselves better than blacks by pointing out their behavior is considerably more repugnant than anything they would accuse blacks of doing.
It's just, fuck context? What about blacks using that word? [What about blacks using that word exactly in it's original context?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXo89RhSCrw&t=28s) You're doing to have to build a bridge for me here to get to your understand of this.
It's fine if you dislike those people and don't support them, but even if I don't support someone, doesn't mean I'm doing to celebrate them getting deplatformed in a way that falls outside of the service's TOS and against the verbal statements of their CEO. That's what happened here, and even many non-political creators left patreon because of this.
This is not a legit usecase. First of all, hate speech and milking the losers of the internet world is awful. Secondly, if you want to allow this shit, lobby Congress and get a law passed that social media companies aren't allowed to ban people for this stuff! That's how you do it! Not blockchain. Blockchain doesn't fucking work, first of all. Secondly, the answer to everything isn't blockchain. It's rules. Make some. That's how you do it. Cmon guys.
Good god. I've spent hours now trying responses and it's the same shit.
This has nothing to do with hatespeech. The dude was ridiculing the alt right. Are you protecting white supremacists from hatespeech? Sweet fucking Jesus people.
Nobody but white people were involved in the conversation. The bad words were directed at ethno-nationalists. WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS.
He got kicked off the platform for being anti-alt right. WHAT THE FUCK.
You seem to think I'm part of some squad. I'm sure if you're part of some group that makes sense to you, but some people make decisions based on whatever evidence is presented to them, not what people around them think is acceptable.
If you sympathize with the alt right and think it was mean of him to call them names, then that's your choice. I personally think they're big boys and weren't all that bothering considering the discussions they have.
Sorry if it seems like I'm aligned with people you dislike because someone got banned from a service without actually breaking their TOS, without warning and without appeal. If I got fired from a job and lost all my income overnight for ideological reasons without breaking any rules existent rules, I would be pretty upset too.
I mean, I don't disagree with most of your last message. Normies tune out easily and nuance is lost on them, once you have the wrong opinion of someone people are reluctant to absorb new and contradicting information. And the optics of what he did and in fact really bad because you need context, and people who dislike him intentionally strip that context to slander him.
It doesn't change his character, his intentions, or whether he's in fact a racist / alt-right. If your argument is that he's alt-right because the optics are bad and you willingly reject all nuance, then I don't really know what to say to that.
The reality of the event is he used a bad word when insulting white supremacists, and got banned off Patreon for that event. You're justifying this as he was the racist and did a bad thing. Those 2 things are completely contradictory. You're basically saying if you are exceedingly vile towards the alt-right, you deserve to be banned off Patreon. It's not that hard to understand why that seems like you're defending the alt-right given the proper context of the events.
I mean if your choice is to intentionally ignore context and say only that one word is relevant, then alright, we're never going to agree.
>I just find it pretty telling that **when it was people they didn't like getting 'deplatformed' they were pointing and jeering**, but now that it's one of their own in the crosshairs suddenly there's all this handwringing about public utilities or whatever.
Hm...such as? Off the top of my head I'm not able to think of any high-profile examples of this crowd being hypocritical about this kind of thing.
>Hm...such as? Off the top of my head I'm not able to think of any high-profile examples of this crowd being hypocritical about this kind of thing.
Are you kidding?
No, I was being completely serious. When I think of "deplatformed" I think Alex Jones getting kicked off of YouTube. Off the top of my head I could not come up with examples of liberals being removed from Patreon, PayPal, YouTube, Twitch, etc. for rhetoric or espousing <viewpoint>.
It's difficult to consider things like calling for James Gunn's (or e.g. Al Franken's) resignations as if they weren't retaliatory, which the Guardian article also suggests. The "outrage" from reactionaries was faked, it's not a secret. I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word when it's "digging up dirt to own the libs".
Does that make sense?
I agree. Most of detractors aren't from fringe groups or oppressive societies supported by our western companies. They seem to be coming from a position that the majority are ok so who cares about the collateral damage to fringe groups, even though those fringe groups aren't causing a problem
What the shit are you people talking about in here? Stop doing this personality worship bullshit. I don't know who Jordan Peterson is but if he is not your plumber or dentist stop fucking listening to him. What in the fuck are you doing.
Man you're really like fucking mister magoo wandering into this shit aren't you? Absolutely no brains, you just want someone to pay attention to you.
Literally admitting you have no clue about any pat of this conversation, but a dozen replies in this thread, all upvoted. Literally, admitted ignorance, everyone upvotes. So cool. GJ.
He's grifting no one because his donations are voluntary. I'm not young. He's not a self-help guru. Why are you even here if you literally have no idea what you're commenting on? How lonely are you man? Do you not have anyone IRL to talk to?
Look how many comments this thread got and look how sweaty you are getting defending this guy. And your a crypto-weirdo and video gamer. I can put it all together you know. Your the awful internet crowd and hes one of your gurus. Not too hard to figure out hes a awful when he appeals to all you guys. Got it yet?
of course. why do these neckbeards need to be talking about this shit? I dont even understand the point. Are they political activists or something? THey just sit on their computers and game and underachieve all their lives. Why are they so worried about this shit?
Its not like normal political stuff, like oh voting should be mandatory to strengthen the republic or national parks should be bigger or work should have mandatory 4 weeks of vacation. No. Of course it aint that. Its some fucking weird race/sex/nationality thing. always. why? for the most part in their lives they dont go jack shit about anything. why are they even talking about that crap? they dont do anything about anything. so wtf
hmm, well, if this is why you'd need crypto then fine, get it done. i think nobody would object.
you'd just have to think if people would actually use this, cause is this a universal problem? is everybody getting banned from patreon without a reason?
or is this a rare event that just sucks balls. i mean its a private company and if you want to be a member then you have make compromises, like in life general... and you can always sue the business if injustice was done or create a better business yourself if you see fit.
but usecase and adoption/demand are two different things. yet for crypto investors possible usecase=adoption, or actually for them is just the price movement- if price goes up then it means everybody is using it even though no working product is out there yet..
Yeah, it's very fringe, I just find it ironic that people in this sub would say there's absolutely no usecase, and when a usecase revels itself to them, they mock it instead of contemplating that this goes against the narrative, even if it's miles away from being adoption.
You know the "this is good for bitcoin meme" Well this sub seems to look at everything and state "this is bad for bitcoin" with 0 neurons being engaged.
To be clear, I've been banned from /r/bitcoin for going against the narrative there.
Companies aren't backing his rambling. People are backing his ramblings, willingly. No one is scamming anyone or promising anything in exchange for these donations. There's no pyramid scheme to rally against. Dude talks, people like it enough to give him money without him really asking for it.
Middlemen payment processors, on the other hand, are making moral judgements that people shouldn't have the capacity to willingly give their own money to support people they see as objectionable.
So, why do you think a middleman should be able to control who's opinion you should be able to support financially? Why can I not make that choice on my own?
If I, a payment processor, dont want to be the middleman between the KKK and its members or a Nazi party or its members, or a communist party and its members, then I, a payment processor, should be able to decline that role. The same is true for any opinion that I, a payment processor, find disagreement with.
As you know, or should know, finance and financial activity is the same as speech (per SCOTUS) and I, a payment processor, have every right to withold my speech in the form of finance if it means I wont support opinions I disagree with.
Unless you want owners of payment processors to be compelled to certain speech, effectively having their free speech restricted. Do you want to compell the speech of companies in the free market? I thought that was the whole thing JP was critisising about the gender pronoun discrimination regulation in canada, to not have to have your speech be compelled?
So how do you want it, should speech of private market actors be allowed to be compelled or not?
Edit: Also, fuck off.
This is oddly built upon the premise that as a middle man money processor, you are somehow advocating for speech by processing a payment between 2 parties. I disagree with that claim. If I take cash out of an ATM and buy drugs, is the bank advocating for it? Is the government advocating for it by printing the money I used?
Second, it's not the payment processor's money. It's the donor's money. They're just the delivery service. What's actually happening is by stopping the money they're silencing the speech of the donor that's saying they support someone you might find objectionable. By that logic, they're censorious and oppressive of the speech of others (the donors), as it isn't their money to begin with.
That's like me being the pizza boy, and the pizza place is fine with making a pizza, and the guy buying is fine with paying for it, but when you show up there you say "oh shit, you're black? I don't deliver pizzas to your kind, you all say the Nword all the time in those songs on the radio, I'm not OK with that" and refusing both transactions because of my preferences.
On top of that, the dude's an individualist centrist. Your examples of every extremist ideology you could pull out of a hat of are ridiculous.
>He mocked Nazis so it's fine if VISA doesn't want him to receive money from people who are willing to pay him for mocking Nazis.
That is your argument.
>That is your argument.
Nah my argument is that freedom of association is an integral part of freedom of expression (and SCOTUS agree with me, hence "money is speech") and advocating for any independent party being forced to association with another party is a restriction of them both.
Visa have every right to deny their association with people they find unworthy of their association and luckily for the nazis they are perfectly free to travel to each other and and physically transfer money for each other. No one has any right to have others make their lives easier for them, physically transfering money yourself might be bothersome but its perfectly possible and its not Visas responsibility to make the lives of nazis easier.
Anyway you didnt answer me, why do you find it alright to compell expression from some market actors but not others? How do you justify your arbitrary stance on compelled expression? Other than that JP oppose one and support the other that is.
Edit: Maybe I should add, freedom of expression has been ruled (and been assumed since time immemorial) to be an integral part of free speech. Its why you can, for example, burn a flag without state repercussions. Although a private actor, say a payment processor, may want to disassociate with anyone that does, which is up to them.
This is a dumb argument. In your example the baker could refuse to bake a cake that has a pro gay political message but what they can't do is refuse a basic service they offer such as making a wedding cake based on somebody being gay. In the same way Jordon Peterson can't be denied service for being straight.
Cake bakers--->violating civil rights, you can't forget the history of sit ins, segregation, etc.
Sargon on the other hand was breaking the very very reasonable patreon TOS.
It's insulting and ignorant that you compare the two.
No. Complete lie. Their TOS specifically talk about things happening **ON PLATFORM**. This incident did not happen on Patreon. It is completely outside of their TOS. It didn't even happen on Sargon's channel, which is the place that links to his Patreon.
There is also an interview with the CEO of Patreon claiming the exact thing that happened to Sargon, literally getting banned for saying the wrong thing off platform, would not happen.
If he got banned for breaking TOS, none of this would have happened, no one would have given a shit. The whole reason people are leaving Patreons is because they decided to ban him for reasons they made up on the fly that contradict their TOS and statements made publicly by their CEO.
Whatever you say.
I'm glad he's banned.
If he has less reach to people like you who think you are "intellectual" the better.
Some of us actually are educated and see right through his baseless bullshit.
> Some of us actually are educated and see right through his baseless bullshit.
You're so educated you're unable to form an argument.
> If he has less reach to people like you who think you are "intellectual" the better.
You're so educated that you read my comments and your takeaway from my comment was something I never said and never implied.
Additionally, what you slow learners seem to realize is that when you ban people, it makes them stronger. Your side is so out of touch with reality, you ignore age old lessons like the Streisand Effect. Well JP is a best selling author and is vastly popular and successful, so good luck on your censorship campaign, moron, it really seems to be helping!
> Additionally, what you slow learners seem to realize is that when you ban people, it makes them stronger.
Yeah. And arresting pedos makes them stronger. Which is why the very concept of laws are for libcuck idiots. I mean, why should we censor peoples actions just because they offend us??
"Muh free market!!! Unless it is someone I like"
"universities are liberal havens and brainwashing centres... Except for that one guy I like"
"research and intellect, racism is biological like lobsters... Even if no one in academia other than one guy believes the bullshit"
"this is my hero and I will defend him online, even though he defends white supremacists"
I can't wait for him to fade into obscurity like Alan Jones due to being blacklisted by rational society. These fuckers are so nuts no one wants to associate with them. Fucking lol.
Have a great day Mr alt right nazi.
Well........at least you tried. Seeing as how you claim to be educated, I expected more than a series of straw man arguments. But the alt left thinks their lib arts degree in 15th century Norwegian dance is an education, so the word is used fairly loosely in your circles and it's understandable you're still pants on head retarded after said education.
Baking a cake for a gay couple (or a black couple, or an Asian couple, or an interracial couple, *etc.*) strikes me as an entirely different scenario than not processing credit card payments for a charlatan/fraud/scammer/*etc.*
I’m sure you’ll dispute my suggestion that Peterson is a fraud, but my degree is in math-physics, and I’ve listened to him make plainly false statements about quantum mechanics as if he had any idea what he was talking about (he did not), leading me to conclude he is simply the Canadian Deepak Chopra.
It’s not inconsistent to believe bakers shouldn’t be allowed to deny gay customers *and* that selling snake oil shouldn’t be legal. Peterson, like Chopra & others, walks a fine line in selling bullshit to suckers. Not *quite* as egregious as a cure-all, but the 21st century evolution of that same problem.
Often the perp can’t be identified. The budget for investigations is limited. Easier just to decide to stop doing business with the business or individual. For example porn sites have a very high number of claims.
As always, nobody is obliged to provide Daddy with a platform to post his ramblings on or a way to fund it, but he's free to provide one himself. That's all this 'free speech' thing means. As long as JP can post his crap, without the fear of having his fingernails slowly removed by neo-marxist thugs, everything is right in the world.
He doesn't have a model of the world that makes room for self-actualized women or queer folk. He has contempt for human suffering when it's not physically healthy hetero white men. He just wants to party like it's 1950 or something.
He literally helps women self actualize as part of his job (he is a councillor and life coach) and he's making his patreon type business with a queer man. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
>He literally helps women self actualize as part of his job (he is a councillor and life coach)
Gosh, he sure does wake up very early in the morning to get the other misogyny done before he does all this faux-work to help women.
>Here's the tweets [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B3IxsISgBdEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jordan\_petersons\_misogyny\_a\_collection\_of\_tweets/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=jp&client=firefox-b](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B3IxsISgBdEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jordan_petersons_misogyny_a_collection_of_tweets/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=jp&client=firefox-b)
Men: if you treat women as disposable sex objects they will enslave you to the state.
8:38 AM - 17 Dec 2016
JBP or markov chain?
I mean, Idk wtf that is supposed to mean, but I do not see how this is a misogynistic comment.
This would be an excellent example for "this person says stuff that makes no sense sometimes", but not for "this person is misogynist".
Also I clicked some random tweets and the person who collected those tweets criticized Peterson for saying negative things about Saudi Arabia (???).
It's very clearly saying that unless men wish to be enslaved to the state, they shouldn't treat women as disposable sex objects. I'm not a lobster whisperer so I'm really unsure what sort of reasoning produced such a conclusion, but at the same time I have hard time seeing how it is misogynistic. Feel free to enlighten me.
Women (> men) are sexist/lookist/ableist/ageist/racist in their choice of sexual partner. Should that be illegal? Maybe it already is.
7:31 AM - 4 Nov 2016
That's a scientific fact. Women are more likely to pick their partner due to their financial success. Numerous studies confirm that. What you're angry about is he's telling the truth and that goes against what you BELIEVE to be true.
He seems to be good at using fluffy statements for male victimology and trolling.
Meanwhile, it's my understanding that mainstream non-goofy feminist philosophers work in a sincere manner towards developing stuff that addresses human suffering of both women and men.
The Peter Thiel/Palmer Luckey group (who in turn associated with the Russian troll farms) he teamed up with to make him a thing in the first place and then sustain him probably have A more sophisticated version of Google alerts turned on.
Same way Snapshillbot (and others like it) will grab certain things you say even before you can delete it right after you post it.
Setting up an alert like this is *ridiculously* easy, see for example [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ifttt/comments/4mx530/alerted_when_specific_subreddit_posts_have_a/).
As for why people would care, increasingly our public sentiment is shaped by online forums. One of the concrete things uncovered in the russia investigation is the [Internet Research Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency), which does precisely this for the Russian government. There's no reason to think that individual people/corporations wouldn't form organizations to do this as well.
I'm not saying they don't, but to think we have more to fear from Russia doing this than anyone else is laughable. I'm more worried about our own government than anyone else at this point. The Russia nonsense being spewed by the major corporations that run the major news networks is a diversion at best and horrible propaganda at worst. Its the cold war all over again.
I'm more worried about the modern version of MKUltra which is probably tied into this very propaganda in internet forum control. Private companies don't scare me, but Google and most major internet companies have direct ties to the CIA at their foundation.
liked the guy when I first ran into him. But now I find his tonal pitch plus using way too many words to sound smart grating as hell. As well as some serious question marks on his personal character & intentions. Still a far cry from extremist. But I find Alex Jones outright insane & thought it was crazy that youtube banned him too.
> I find Alex Jones outright insane & thought it was crazy that youtube banned him too.
Yeah, it's crazy that a private company wouldn't want to help a total nutjob incite violence against innocent people.
Just imagined any spiel starting with "Now, I'm not telling you to go commit hate crimes, but" and it actually made me laugh out loud.
Whether or not this is/was his approach, it's pretty good advice in general to treat a "but" as a way to invalidate the first clause in a sentence most of the time.
His style is more like: "we must beat these people to a pulp, politically!" He rants but he remembers that qualifier in the end. But yeah, he operates a lot like how you imagined. I have been an occasional lister since 2006, Jones is a better shock jock than Stern. I just ignore the politics and take it as entertainment.
why do people who spend most of their time underachieving and playing in pretend worlds like video games worry so much about conspiracy's? they dont do jack shit about shit they do know about and thats right in their face. why are they worried about this crazy off the wall shit thousands of miles away? most of them dont even seem to handle their own business and struggle to take care of themselves. they seem like the last group equipped to deal with conspiracy type things.
I think it’s different to say you hate a group than it is to share the addresses of specific people who you are convinced (and have convinced your audience) have scammed the American public via the deaths of your own fake children. Let’s not forget the Sandy Hook conspiracy and Alex Jones very poor managing of that topic is the reason he was banned.
Maher just shot himself in the face too many times by mimicking Harris and Dawkins’ too much. Those guys very much misjudged how to criticize religion in a way that wouldn’t feed racists.
Maher’s anti vax was pretty fucked too.
And yet here you are, not banned, not censured and free to spout your bullshit.
Must be tough trying to push the "there's no free speech here" agenda when you are in fact free to push it.
It's just you incel scum forget that we are are just as free to shit on your vile self.
That's real big of you dudes. You only slander and lie about people you dislike. Here, have my upvote. In fact, I think I'll also downvote myself in agreement, I would hate not to be able to fit in here.
\> Must be tough trying to push the "there's no free speech here" agenda
I said you kids though it was gay, not that it didn't exist or that you personally denied it. But hey it's easier to lie about what I said than actually address it honestly. Let's pretend all the anti JBP threads aren't filled with people literally saying they don't deserve the right to speak and claiming him and anyone associated are white supremacists.
What, letting you speak your mind is big of us? Never knew...
Aside from that, you see gay is only an insult to fucked up morons like yourself. I guess that's repressed homosexuality is shining through? Maybe?
But yes, people with free speech can say whatever the shit they want. Just like you are doing right now. Again nobody's banning you, nobody is making you shut up. You're still here on reddit spouting your vile shit.
As for Petersen? Who gives a fuck about him really? He is just milking easy incel money and now that that money is starting to dry up he is aiming for coiner money as well.
Have a good life shiteating arsewipe (free speech innit bruv).
>I guess that's repressed homosexuality is shining through? Maybe?
Mmmm, so I am the one that is really gay. Zing, got me.
So saying gay bad, calling someone gay more verbosely, good. I understand. Totally different. Glad you got all those insults off your chest, super virtuous because the word "gay" is *much worse* than anything that you said in return.
I love how you're just as logically consistent as everyone else on this sub.
I just thought it was rather humerus that you virtue signaled how wrong it is that I used the word gay... And then you basically called me gay. It's as though you actually have no morals and you're a sociopath that imitates this behavior to try and fit in with the group with no real beliefs underpinning anything. "haha don't you know using the word gay is wrong, you dumb homosexual!"
Man, words on the internet they really sting a lot. I don't know how I'll ever get over it.
You know, I could really feel through the text that you genuinely thought your insults would have some impact. Gotta keep that dream alive. Don't want to tell little Timmy that Santa's not real.
It means you have nothing to say but you'll celebrate someone else saying something you agree with. It's ok, words are hard. But the skirt is sexy, so the cheerleader role makes you look a lot better than any time you've tried to form coherent thoughts on your own. Doesn't work out so well.
I don’t see why he would have any sympathy for them. Pity, maybe. But sympathy? These are retards who literally blew their life savings on Chuck E. Cheese tokens because of “muh technology” or whatever.
grift, he wants their money.
and this is why I've started gambling in crypot despite holding the same opinion on crypto as this sub since 2009, I've learned never to bet against the sheer amount of greed and stupidity hellword has to offer.
To be fair Sam Harris, JP & some guy like Joe Rogan all left Patreon in protest to their heavy cull. I'm really not a fan of censorship using banking or platforms. I really don't see anything extreme about JP, Sam Harris or Joe Rogan. Censor hard enough & more people leave unless you have a monopoly ... & that applies to the banking system as much as anything else.
The problem is these guys might appear harmless but some of the things they say can have genuine consequences if they are feeding into ignorance. They have every right to say what they say but sometimes they need to really study if what they are saying is factual and has no potentially harmful downsides. Calculating consequences can be very difficult.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for example are not right wingers or racist. They are genuinely smart humanists. But their not fully informed critiques of a religion have been hijacked by the racist rightwing and weaponized against the poorest and most vulnerable. Unintended consequences.
But that’s a long complex discussion not suited for a frickin sub.
People are hilariously misinformed in this thread. Eric and Brett Weinstein are both Bernie Sanders-wing dems and . Sam Harris explicitly voted for Hilary. Joe Rogan is more liberal than conservative. Despite all the denomination Jordan Peterson consistently emphasises the importance of the role of the left in criticising hierarchies and holding them to account. Only Ben Shapiro is a partisan republican, albeit a never-Trumper.
>Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for example are not right wingers or racist. They are genuinely smart humanists. But their not fully informed critiques of a religion have been hijacked by the racist rightwing and weaponized against the poorest and most vulnerable.
I think that's maybe being a bit overly generous to Dawkins. But as for Sam Harris, he's just an out-and-out reactionary and there's no "hijacking" going on.
EDIT: Not sure how I ended up responding to Satoshi here but quoting Patrick
I just stopped paying attention to them around 10-15 years ago. As a young man I liked to criticize religion and stuff. But there’s no point to it when those religions were born in violent times under empires. Better to criticize modern political cults and scams that have no excuse to be unscientific, violent or scam.
If these people are so successful in their professions why do they need donations?
On a related note the common thing we notice about creeptards is they claim they are all getting rich but you see their twitter profiles are begging for tips.
>If these people are so successful in their professions why do they need donations?
Because it's free, maybe? The reactionary dollar spends just the same as any other, and it flows freely if you're willing to play a 1-dimensional cartoon character on camera.
I have some friends on Patreon that are sailing around the world. I don't really find charging for individual content the same as begging any more than selling books. I'm a big fan of a bigger % going to content creators. I'm no more a fan of people using the N word than saying old white men should die. But I do find it bizzare that platforms can both retain the right to selectively impose rules (often not even handedly at all) while not having any responsibility for copyrighted content, crimes broadcast etc. Imo it should be one or the other.
There absolutely are extremists. But a lot of these guys are just slightly odd or irritating for certain demographics. And openly condemn the extremism they are accused of being part of. Joe Rogan dwarfs most mainstream news, JP has a pretty jawdropping # of views on YT. I think it's a bad idea to lump moderates in with extremists then deplatform them as it's pushing people to further extremes.. Obviously just my opinion, I've been wrong plenty of times.
He accused alt-righters of acting like white n-words, off patreon, and on some livestream that wasn't even on his channel. Patreon TOS specify bannable offences that happen on-platform only. The nerve of him for telling ethno-nationalists that they're behaving in the way that they ascribe as undesirable, making them hypocrites.
Whoa homophobic slurs. Was that when he was spamming alt-righters with gay porn on twitter so they'd stop following him? He got banned off twitter for that too. Thank god someone's defending the alt-right I guess. What a garbage human that guy is.
BTW, JBP launders advice for men to get their shit together and be useful to society instead of being angry at the world and doing nothing in their parents' basement. Just awful. Good riddance.
Calling white nationalists white n-words is racist to white nationalists is it? Or is insulting white nationalists using their own language a "galaxy brain" way of covertly agreeing with white nationalists and actually insulting black people?
Is the word automatically racist against black people regardless of context? Ok, should Chris Rock be banned from all the things too? [https://youtu.be/MXo89RhSCrw?t=28](https://youtu.be/MXo89RhSCrw?t=28)
Please do explain why insulting white nationalists using the most insulting terminology possible to them is a bannable offense. I really want to hear you defend the rights of white nationalists to not be offended.
Why is that guy even talking about any of this? Why are you listening to it? What are you guys accomplishing? I don't get it . Are you employed as a civil rights lawyer or something? What are you guys even doing?
Why is someone trying to convince white supremacists that they're wrong? Yeah I don't know, discourse is kind of passe really. Should just ban everyone you disagree with from the internet and be done with it.
Why do I listen to someone making rational arguments? I don't know, I guess listening to people have opinions and discuss ideas is pretty gay. Unless it's opinions explicitly against cryptocurrency, then listening to opinions is cool.
Hey he's only famous for lying about a law relating to hate crimes and uses his platform to advocate for Christian traditionalism that is inherently damaging to anyone that's not a straight white dude while also just straight up being weirdly misogynistic but I guess he told the boys to clean up their room so whatevs.
Yeah you're going to have to be more specific about where he lied. I thought he got famous for publicly resisting compelled speech, which is a law where one could face legal consequences for refusing to use the correct pronouns for trans people. Who defines what the correct pronouns are? Well, apparently the person you didn't address correctly, after you addressed them incorrectly. Whatever could go wrong with that legislation?
I'm going to have to ask for a source for the whole straight white dude comment, sounds like a load of SJW nonsense. Weirdly misogynistic, also SJW level slander, who am I talking to again? What subreddit is this? He states observable realities about the differences between men and women, as a **licensed clinical psychologist** and a **professor of psychology**. These realities mostly consist of, men and women don't have the same brains and don't want the same things. *Weirdly misogynistic!*
I don't subscribe to his views on religion and how he seems to seek relevant metaphors in benign pieces of media like Disney films, or works his way backwards from scripture to try and find positive meanings, but those flaws don't invalidate the rest of the things he says that are relevant to psychology.
>but I guess he told the boys to clean up their room so whatevs
Yeah, the actual quote is "Get your own house in order before you judge others." Good advice for reasonable adults, opaque meme that backfires ironically for Reddit SJWs.
Every time I encounter an individual such as you, I'm baffled how you got to where you are. Why are you slandering this person, on what grounds, what do you hope to achieve? Have you simply read a bunch of slanderous headlines and you're parroting the same shit? Do you think you sound smart or virtuous by doing this? How can a person shit talk someone else while seemingly never having actually watched any of his content?
*Pstt, hey I heard* /u/Spodangle *is Nazi.* EY WTF BITCH YOU'RE A NAZI? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE NAZI! EY THIS DUDE'S A NAZI FIND OUT WHERE HE LIVES AND TELL HIS FUCKING BOSS TO FIRE HIS NAZI ASS! YO EVERYONE KNOWS YOU'RE A NAZI WE DON'T ALLOW NAZIS ON OUR PLATFORM, BAN THIS NAZI FUCK.
I had a lenthy conversation with another chap in this thread somewhere. Yes I've read it. If you have anything to add, maybe reply under there as I don't want to rehash the whole thing.
He's written one self-help book last year as far as I'm aware and he's made most of his living as a clinical psychologist and a university professor. Seems a little disingenuous to pretend he's Tony Robbins.
No, I need people to make logical arguments instead of baseless slander. Slowly coming to the realization that Reddit isn't about who can make the most sense, but who can get the most upvotes in their respective bubbles.
I find it hilariously that you say this:
>I need people to make logical arguments instead of baseless slander.
While also conveniently replying to /u/XenosisReaper and literally no one else's comment that disproved the majority of the premise of your post.
Have you no sense of shame or irony? Just delete your comments at this point. This is sad.
Bro. I replied to like 15 messaged in my inbox. It took me fucking hours. Sorry that I started at the fucking top. Wow got me! Not that I've refreshed and gotten a series of new replies, let me start again, **SORRY IF I DON'T DO IT IN THE ORDER YOU FIND MOST PLEASING!**
> which is a law where one could face legal consequences for refusing to use the correct pronouns for trans people.
not according to the canadian bar association or anyone else with any remote understanding of canadian law. have you read the actual bill? it's pretty short and specific about the changes made and none of them compel you to use preferred pronouns. also he's a climate denier and a billion other dumb things
peterson is an idiot and his fanboys are worse
The changes imposed classify gender identity / expression as a protected group.
While does not directly specify misgendering itself as a hatecrime, it leaves the window open for a judge to determine is that is what occurred, or to increase a person's sentence if the misgendered person perceived to be discriminated against while some other offense happened.
The core problem is that unlike things like skin color, race, sexual orientation, etc that are on that list, gender identity is malleable. I can claim I'm a different gender identity tomorrow and start using different pronouns. There are people who identify in this manner, where some days they're feminine, some days masculine and some days neutral. Calling them the wrong thing can be interpreted as discrimination, and discrimination based on gender identity is legally protected and can be called a hate crime with legal consequences according to the whims of the judge.
The fuzzy nature and the imprecision of all of this is the problem. If someone wanted to fuck you over for bullshit reasons, the leaves a window to do so. Laws should be concrete and unambiguous, and this leaves a chasm of legal ambiguity.
And no [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY) Not a climate change denier. Maybe you watched the first 30 sec and tuned out. Wouldn't be shocking considering the caliber of misinformation being thrown around this thread. But calling him an idiot is easier than actually knowing what he believes I guess.
Ironically, he said that if he had a student that wanted to be called a specific pronoun, he would do that for them. His intention isn't to be rude to trans people, he just finds the laws extremely lose and abusable.
He hasn't been arrested because he's never personally misgendered anyone.
Has ANYBODY been arrested for this law? Because all the legal experts say that Jordan Peterson was being very misleading and that the government wouldn't actually arrest people for misgendering people. Is there any examples of anybody being arrested for misgendering somebody to prove Peterson right?
> Calling them the wrong thing can be interpreted as discrimination, and discrimination based on gender identity is legally protected and can be called a hate crime with legal consequences according to the whims of the judge.
Nope. Protected classes and hate crime legislation is pretty specific actually. For example if someone was wanting to rent an apartment from you and was trans or non-binary or something else and you refused for that reason, then you'd be opened up to liability. Calling someone the wrong pronouns isn't discrimination and isn't something that would go through the courts. You'd be slightly closer if you were talking about hate speech laws, but even then hate is a really high bar
>In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims
This was from a recent judicial ruling on the topic (note especially the last sentence).
As for climate change, I find it hard to interpret stuff like [this](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1040396211818307585)
and [this](https://i.imgur.com/jwHJtKs.jpg) as anything except minimizing climate change. Also [this tweet](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1024870660022124544&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fenoughpetersonspam%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3Dclimate%26restrict_sr%3Don%26sort%3Drelevance%26t%3Dall).
I mean, I read it, and it seemed vague enough to me the be interpretable in that manner. I'm glad it hasn't been interpreted in that way, and with the recent case you quoted, I hope it sets a precedent for future cases, but that's not always guaranteed. Judges are there to interpret laws. If they decide they want to interpret it differently then they can as long as the wording allows for it. From what's written, it certainly seems vague enough. Who are you to claim misgendering isn't a form of discrimination? Who are you to say if someone saying it is intentional or not?
You aware of the UK case of Mark Meechan? Where as a goof on his girlfriend he taught his pug to lift his paw when he said "sieg heil"? And the dog would get excited when he said "gas the jews" on video. The government convinced him of gross offense to the public for that. A comedy video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0) **<- watch this if nothing else.**
>Communications Act 2003.
>Section 127(1)(a), prescribes that “a person is guilty of an offence (a) if he sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” (i.e. otherwise than by means of a programme service).
Is this reasonable application of law? Someone just decided that it's offensive, and the wording is vague enough that he got charged and convinced of this. Something someone is offended by, communicated via the internet.
Like, I had faith that the system wouldn't break that badly that this could ever occur, but if it can happen in the UK, I don't have confidence that me calling someone dude when they want to be called a ma'am won't get me into legal trouble. Canada is getting further and further into progressive left territory and I don't have the same level of faith that you do.
On the topic one climate change, was any of what he said incorrect? It's possible for hurricanes not to be worse and for global worming to still be a big issue. Is your issue dissent and curiosity? If you investigate you're a heathen? That sounds a whole lot like a religion to me man. If any of what he linked was incorrect please let me know, because I want to have accurate information.
The reason video seemed a little iffy, but not like outright lies. Please provide evidence otherwise if that dude was just wrong.
> Who are you to claim misgendering isn't a form of discrimination? Who are you to say if someone saying it is intentional or not?
Discrimination against a protected class is very specific. The only changes this bill makes to discrimination laws is that it "makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federally regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement. This prohibition would only apply to matters within federal jurisdiction."
The more vague stuff is about hate speech, which is different from discrimination. Judicial precedent is very important in common law systems like Canada's, and there's a long history of judicial precedent that puts a high bar on what qualifies as hate speech. What's been especially well established is that merely offending a protected group (which is all misgendering someone is, from a legal perspective) isn't hate speech. An individual judge could break that precedent I guess, but it would be immediately overturned on appeal due to the precedent. Hate speech laws have existed here for decades and misgendering someone isn't legally different than calling someone a f*ggot or a racial slur or something, which isn't hate speech. This stuff is well established.
Your example about the UK is irrelevant because it relates to completely different legislation (in a completely different country) and the system actually worked exactly as intended in that case. The law itself was the problem there, and unless bill C-16 had similar provisions (it doesn't) then it's irrelevant.
Religion is also malleable. If i wake up tomorrow and scream AL-HAMDU LILLAH BROZZERS, does that mean that all discrimination against Muslims is meaningless and that they should not be legally protected because i *felt* i am more Muslim compared to yesterday?
The fact is you have to be a massive jerk for the law to apply to you. You have to consistently harass or discriminate against someone based on their gender while being in a position above them (boss, landlord, etc.) or straight up commit crimes against them (battery, stalking, rape, etc.) with their gender being a motivation for it before the law is relevant.
Why are you against the law? Do you like when people are oppressed by people above them? Do you not want violent psychopaths to spend more time in jail where they would be forced to go through counseling, thereby lowering recidivism rates? Do you think that it's unfair that there should be consequences to actions that directly affect vulnerable people? Just calling Suzie "dude" won't get you in any trouble, so why are you so opposed to protecting people like her?
>Why are you against the law?
Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing, I'll repeat myself:
>The fuzzy nature and the imprecision of all of this is the problem. If someone wanted to fuck you over for bullshit reasons, the leaves a window to do so. Laws should be concrete and unambiguous, and this leaves a chasm of legal ambiguity.
And no, people don't swap religions from day to day. Once or twice in a lifetime at most, and people's religions being something that is relevant to multiple daily interactions is basically not a thing. You call people sir, mam, he she, etc on a very frequent basis throughout the day. Sometimes none of those would be applicable, and all of the above might be offensive.
I've never seen a Sikh swap to a Kippah for funzies. I've also never seen case of someone accidentally discriminating against someone for their religion because it's almost impossible to do that unless you're making racist jokes or something of that manner, which everyone is already against.
I have, however, personally been called a lady from behind by a waiter because I have long hair. That happens. Shit like this happens too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdnBV-S-RXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdnBV-S-RXk)
You think that person wouldn't be thrilled to have legal consequences come down hard upon that employee? They're going out of their way to try and get the employee fired and threatening financial harm to the business *on video*.
> I thought he got famous for publicly resisting compelled speech, which is a law where one could face legal consequences for refusing to use the correct pronouns for trans people.
I was unware that being clinical psychologist who also teaches psychology made Peterson more knowledgable on the workings of Canadian law & bill C-16 than the entirety Canadian Bar Association. Who do you think has more knowledge on workings of the legal system: an entire professional association made up of thousands upon thousands of people who spend years learning & practicing the actual functions of the Canadian legal system & reviewed what the minor amendment to a long-standing Canadian law meant, or a single university psychology professor whose only experience with Canadian law was being an "expert witness" who got laughed out of court for being completely inept?
But, I have a strong feeling that I already know that you believe that the Christian conservative psychologist who believes that Frozen is feminst propaganda meant to destroy the entire Western world through a grand conspiracy by "post-modernist neo-maxist cultural bolsheviks" is more knowledge about the Canadian legal system than all the lawyers & judges who practice it on a daily basis.
Clinical psychologist was a response to nebulous claims of "weirdly misogynistic" because all the comments he's made about the differences between men and women have been backed up by his knowledge of psychology and peer reviewed research. I don't know how you managed to pretend that was somehow tied to his legal knowledge, but well done! Just pull that whole turd out of there ez pz strawturd squeezey.
Yes, the CBA is as progressive as most of Canada, and the very obviously pro-LGBT agenda got pushed through because if it didn't there would be huge outrage and anything but this option is 100% not acceptable. Excellent argument that they approve of "advance equality in Canada, and provide tangible protections for transgender people from discrimination and hate crimes." hence JBP is wrong.
K, weird poisoning the well tactic with the frozen thing and Christianity, but alright, I watched the frozen video to have a clue wtf you're talking about.
Absolutely nothing about destroying western civilization. He just said he didn't like it and felt it was ideologically driven. As in, they started with the premise of wanting a strong PC-friendly female character and worked their way backwards to build their story to reinforce that narrative. He explains his position on art exceptionally well within the video and why he feels the way he does.
"post-modernist neo-maxist cultural bolsheviks" Not something that was said in that video, and he goes on later to praise soviet art, which he personally collects. But hey bro, you do you, maybe your reality is more fun to live in than mine. There's a lot of "real communism has never been tried" types in these areas, you keep living the dream if that's what you're into.
I can't believe how much people lie and slander to get their point across. It's really telling that exactly 0 people have offered any actual position that this person holds, or offered timestamps to videos on any of these positions. It's always some weird chimeric distortion that tries to make him look bad spewed with self-righteous smugness. GJ, you slayed Strawdan Peterman.
> Christian conservative psychologist who believes that Frozen is feminst propaganda meant to destroy the entire Western world through a grand conspiracy by "post-modernist neo-maxist cultural bolsheviks"
why is it propaganda, you might ask? because... there's a plot twist.
plot twists in movies for actual children go over jordan peterson's head. yet somehow a ton of people still think he has anything vaulable to contribute.
he literally got famous for going in front of the canadian government on the verge of tears while talking about how a bill that would do literally nothing but add "and gender identity" to the list of protected classes re: hate crimes would bring about Stalin 2^^TM (and this has absolutely no exaggeration btw) but go off
Citation please. I'll throw you a bone, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo) Here's the hearing.
Give me a time stamp and we can discuss what you find "problematic" instead of making up bullshit. We can have specifics. I'll listen to the quote and you tell me how what he's saying is wrong. You can also link me to the part where he's on the verge of tears, because I find that a particularly amusing form of slander that is laughably easy to cross-check.
His core argument is this is a slippery slope for free speech. Legal consequences for even accidentally calling someone a pronoun they don't like to be called, enforced by the government. The university was repeatedly trying to silence him from even talking about this as it is potentially already actionable under the provincial human right code.
Having a conversation about whether a law should be passed and it's potential pitfalls is illegal and infringes upon someone else's human right. This is something you want to actually defend is it?
yes, i do indeed want to defend hate speech laws, because free speech cannot be had without it.
"wtf???" i hear you typing that already. let's think it through. if minorities are too scared from extensive violent rhetoric to actually say anything, they don't exactly have free speech, do they?
free speech absolutism is untenable. you have to either curb hate speech, or curb the speech of minorities. i know which one i'm cracking down on.
the fact you don't consider the speech of minorities at any point speaks volumes about your personal values, though!
So if you call me a cracker, then I cease to have the ability to talk? I'm pretty sure people have been saying the N-word for centuries, and you know who's saying it more than anyone? Black people.
Please cite this extensive violent rhetoric you mention that's preventing people from talking. Because to me, it sounds like a virtue signalling hypothetical that absolutely has no basis in reality to anyone. What you're saying is at best, vaguely applicable to 30's Germany.
>free speech absolutism is untenable. you have to either curb hate speech, or curb the speech of minorities. i know which one i'm cracking down on.
I cannot even comprehend what this could possibly mean. The US has had the first amendment for how long? You're saying the USA as a nation is untenable. What the fuck does that even mean? Fucking gibberish.
The speech of minorities is precisely identical to the speech of everyone else because the same laws apply to everyone. That is fucking equality, not whatever pseudomarxist babble you're trying to get at by claiming the only way to achieve equality is to take shit away from someone else.
Who on earth are you talking about?
Sometimes I feel like I live in a different reality than Reddit. Facts are just what you can claim and get upvoted on I guess?
LEEEEEEEEEEEEEL. Everyone lost subscribers after they kicked off Sargon. Literally everyone. Tim Pool, a journalist, lost like $5000 in subs and he repeatedly states he disagreed with both Sargon and JBP on multiple issues. I've never given money to either of these people and I deleted my account after this happened, despite supporting noclip (video game documentaries) and kurzgesagt (educational videos). Neither of those has anything to do with Sargon.
Wow you people just all have 8000 iq don't you? This is like singling out individual stocks for performing poorly when the whole fucking market is down. Here, have another upvote big brain.
I couldn't care less about the 'patreon market' (gag), he's made a pittance from Bitcoin and his Patreon numbers are way down. We're talking about grift, not social influence. For such a bitter smart-ass you really don't know how to stay on topic do you? The man's pocket is hurting, that's what we're talking about.
You literally ignored what I said and moved on. Cool.
He's received 1.43 BTC in the 2 weeks it's been active. That's bad? He's not advertising this, it's simply a link on his donate page now. You can still donate with a CC on that link. I doubt many people that follow him have an active BTC wallet. This is also not related to the competing platform to patreon he's working on.
He's also sold 2 million of his last book, I don't know why you think he even gives a fuck. If he cares about his patreon numbers, he would keep it instead of making his own competing platform.
Nothing you're saying stands up to scrutiny. Everyone's numbers went down after they banned Sargon, and to you this proves everything JBP says is wrong and he's stupid? Alright, I don't know how one can argue against that so I guess you win, GJ.
Ha. I hear ya but you're dangerously close. Crypto and incels/women haters have a nice strong overlap with each other.
You do realize crypto and block chain don't work right? So are you just buying crypto as lottery tickets and you know it doesnt work but just want money? Or are you still duped? I can explain anything you like about crypto if you want
I'm gambling and I've already recovered my investment with some handsome profits in filthy fiat, like I mention in this thread, I'm well aware blockchain is a ponzi since 2009 but I've learned not to underestimate the power of stupidity and greed, so I might as well enjoy the ride.
I still have some leftover "house money" riding in the ponzi but in a blockchain alternative that while most likely* not usefull, is actually kind of neat.
I say most likely because I don't really think all tech decisions are based on logical/material merits but also on political/emotional factors, so it's actually kind of possible it might end up being used on reasonable scale because of said politics, making it kind of usefull I guess.
tL;dr: don't underestimate the power of greed and stupidity.
TL:DR: Patreon’s ability to remove specific types of content creators from the platform in the search for more social capital and greater profits is so unfair, like they don't even care how we feel; go off to start our own Patreon, but with hookers and blow butts.
"Businesses are in the business of making money. They have no principles or morality." - People when they complain about a business taking part in social justice
"Businesses should stand for free speech. This is a moral issue." - the same people when they're mad that businesses want to associate with them
I mean, patreon is removing content because it doesn't want to run into issues with mastercard or visa's policies (dressed up in some language about company values or whatever), who between them basically entirely control payment processing...which does not sound much like the free market that these people idealize ?
That is the free market though, and that’s why it’s a problem.
Monopolies and oligopolies are almost inevitably going to result from lack of regulation, and the ideal of the free market is zero regulation. Libertarians have an idealized vision that people will vote with their wallets and shut down unethical companies, ones with bad practices, and monopolies but the reality is that the companies have way more influence and consumers can’t spend hours researching every single company they patronize to find out if they sell toxic cereal.
Bitcoin is really a perfect example of a free market and why no one should ever want to live in a world without regulations.
There's a great business opportunity you're letting pass you by FYI. I think the technical difficulties will be severe but I would (unironically) like to see attempts at implementing this.
Of course, I expect comedy godl from the attempt because people in the space trend towards being shitty and sociopathic. I think there are some good points as to why it isn't fundamentally a bad idea though.
Actually some of these guys have some very polished products. Joe Rogan's podcast and The Daily Wire's website and podcast businesses are very well established with tens of millions of watchers. That's why I said they would make filthy amounts of cash if they actually did it.