Lurker > nicklebro

Well first of all it wouldn't be nearly as terrifying as they make it out to be. Second if it were I'd just hide somewhere like up a tree.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

See how no one can cone up with a legitimate argument against my post? That should tell you a lot.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

nicklebro posted...

It triggers an assumption that the person wearing it is inferior to me, but that's about it.

So do you judge all people based on what they wear, or what they look like? If so, that's not cool man. Like, really not cool. I think there's a few words for people that do that, can't think of them now.

As for the topic, of course a hat doesn't trigger me. I couldn't imagine being raised to judge people on their clothes, or to be angry about it.

And I just have to do an edit to laugh at you saying inferior. You really are hilarious dude and hopefully this is some character you like to portray.

No I judge people on their beliefs, lol did you really think I was making that assumption based on their fashion choice? Jesus bro...
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Really? Cool!

Lmao that was hilarious
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

JohnLennonTrump posted...

Kineth posted...

Shut the fuck up. It's a patriotic duty to squash Nazi scum.

Who is a Nazi in this situation?

The man who attacked somebody for holding a different viewpoint?

Well seeing as how that viewpoint is "fuck minorities and muslims" I'd say it's the guy with the hat.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

It triggers an assumption that the person wearing it is inferior to me, but that's about it.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

DarkTransient posted...

nicklebro posted...

DarkTransient posted...

He's mocking someone claiming to be a race they're not for social justice brownie points, and a movement that overlooks legitimate victims in favor of those who claim "oh like this one time a guy farted near me, it was totally rape".

There is literally no reason to be offended by this.

She's not native American?

And MeToo overlooks legitimate victims?

Are you sure?

Trust a sigless user to pretend those aren't the case.

Where did I pretend those aren't the cases? I'm simply asking if you're sure those are indeed true facts. So can you prove either one? Or at least give me a reason to believe them? Cuz it's hard to trust your judgement when you're not even capable of realizing I have a sig.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Be twice as skilled as they are.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

HiddenLurker posted...

nicklebro posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

nicklebro posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

Kavatar posted...

What a stupid analogy. In your scenario, the other team has done nothing to warrant being labeled villains. Trump is sending out divisive, hateful stuff every single day. He is actively fomenting feelings of anger.

So tell me then why does "wearing a hat" warrant assault?

If the hat had a swastika on it, would you still frame it as just "wearing a hat?". Not saying that the two things are equal, but to act as if there's no difference between a maga hat and any other hat is just as disengenuous.

The hat did not.

Did not what?

I know you are just trolling, intentionally acting dense, and strawmanning but the hat did not have a swastika on it.
Therefore your "what if" scenario has no merit .

And don't bother replying as it seems you are incapable of having a rational discussion so I have you on ignore.

Wtf? I was asking what you meant cuz your post was unclear. And whether the hat had a swastika on it or not is irrelevant, it's called a hypothetical question. Look it up if you don't know what that is.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

DarkTransient posted...

He's mocking someone claiming to be a race they're not for social justice brownie points, and a movement that overlooks legitimate victims in favor of those who claim "oh like this one time a guy farted near me, it was totally rape".

There is literally no reason to be offended by this.

She's not native American?

And MeToo overlooks legitimate victims?

Are you sure?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

ultimate reaver posted...

Dwight is in that horrible House of 1000 Corpses movie

Really? Who does he play?

The X Dawg posted...

Sorry, I created this topic assuming that most people would recognize that Steve, John, Rashida, Ed and Ellie were in the minority that I was talking about. Heck, the guy who plays Gabe as well.

Thinking more along the lines of Oscar, Phyllis, Angela, Dwight, Stanley, Creed, Kevin, etc.

You thought people would just ignore all the actors that don't fit ITT? Lol
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Andy is in that Tag movie. Also known as the literal only other thing I have ever seen him in.

Ed helms was in the hangover movies and on the daily show and a few other things as well. He's a bad example to use cuz he was actually in other things before joining the office.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

8.8
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Same old Republicans
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

HiddenLurker posted...

nicklebro posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

Kavatar posted...

What a stupid analogy. In your scenario, the other team has done nothing to warrant being labeled villains. Trump is sending out divisive, hateful stuff every single day. He is actively fomenting feelings of anger.

So tell me then why does "wearing a hat" warrant assault?

If the hat had a swastika on it, would you still frame it as just "wearing a hat?". Not saying that the two things are equal, but to act as if there's no difference between a maga hat and any other hat is just as disengenuous.

The hat did not.

Did not what?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Payzmaykr posted...

I see the democrats are still making pathetic attempts at damage control after the heinous democratic assault on the children the other day. Cant outdo that one. You guys set the bar and now you can dig yourSELVES out.

Lol deflect much? And you can't even use facts to do it? Man the Republican party has abandoned responsibility entirely. Makes sense since Trump is the least responsible person alive.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Lol Sonic got trounced ITT. Not only did he keep repeating that this guy was just doing his job by asking for ID which is clearly wrong, he also accused the lady of "making a scene" when there's 0 reason to assume that and actually doesn't make any sense.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

CableZL posted...

MedzXVIII posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

MedzXVIII posted...

1) Cooperate with the police, be extra nice

Great advice

Especially if you are black and don't want to get shot.

Works for anyone. No race card needed

Didn't work for Charles Kinsey

Or philando Castile
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

SenTedCruz posted...

nicklebro posted...

So yes you know you're a part of the problem but just don't care?

You know who else liked to talk about solutions to problems?

SenTedCruz posted...

"Yeah but WHAT ABOUT NAZIS." Repeat ad infinitum for 12 years.

Man you look really stupid right now lol.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

So yes you know you're a part of the problem but just don't care? This is the real reason trump won, some people just wanna watch the world burn.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

SenTedCruz posted...

nicklebro posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

Kavatar posted...

What a stupid analogy. In your scenario, the other team has done nothing to warrant being labeled villains. Trump is sending out divisive, hateful stuff every single day. He is actively fomenting feelings of anger.

So tell me then why does "wearing a hat" warrant assault?

If the hat had a swastika on it, would you still frame it as just "wearing a hat?". Not saying that the two things are equal, but to act as if there's no difference between a maga hat and any other hat is just as disengenuous.

"Yeah but WHAT ABOUT NAZIS." Repeat ad infinitum for 12 years.

I knew that there'd be at least one stupid response like this, even after I addressed it with the second half of my post. Why do you try to stifle discussion with your shit posting? Do you not realize you're part of the problem?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

HiddenLurker posted...

Kavatar posted...

What a stupid analogy. In your scenario, the other team has done nothing to warrant being labeled villains. Trump is sending out divisive, hateful stuff every single day. He is actively fomenting feelings of anger.

So tell me then why does "wearing a hat" warrant assault?

If the hat had a swastika on it, would you still frame it as just "wearing a hat?". Not saying that the two things are equal, but to act as if there's no difference between a maga hat and any other hat is just as disengenuous.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

CableZL posted...

So many questions

Like why is this even a story. They got it solved now time to move on.

Cuz white people calling the cops unnecessarily is an issue we need to solve, not just move on from.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

MisterPorn posted...

nicklebro posted...

All athletes are pretty active

Active or retired is the terms I am using. An athlete that isn't active is either retired or a free agent. I think the answer is zero since that is what the other topic basically said but wanted to see if I created one the contrarians would come out to list some.

You obviously never saw Albert Haynesworth play football.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

All athletes are pretty active
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Lol so white people are the only people who are actually racist? Racism likely existed before white people existed so that's stupid.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

TheRealDill2000 posted...

WTF!? Am I on an island here? There have to be others here who feel OJ is innocent.

Anyone who thinks that is either uninformed or unintelligent.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Yes, I'll risk your life to learn more.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Totally agree, amazing story telling mixed with investigative journalism.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

All it takes is once.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

CrimsonRage posted...

nicklebro posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

They're probably all in California though so it doesn't do them any good with the electoral college.

Yes, literally all of them are in CA. Top tier well thought out post

he's right in that democrat voters are usually concentrated in specific areas while republican voters are more spread out. an extra million democrats doesn't help them if they're all in new york or california.

What makes you think that?

statistics? it's how hillary lost the election despite winning the popular vote.

That's one election tho, Democrats win every other election, just like Republicans, so how do you explain that?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

CrimsonRage posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

They're probably all in California though so it doesn't do them any good with the electoral college.

Yes, literally all of them are in CA. Top tier well thought out post

he's right in that democrat voters are usually concentrated in specific areas while republican voters are more spread out. an extra million democrats doesn't help them if they're all in new york or california.

What makes you think that?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

DarkTransient posted...

nicklebro posted...

Develop a drug habit.

You could argue that he gets something out of that; specifically, the being high all the time.

On the other hand, if he were to take up smoking cigarettes, that has pretty much no gain...

Except you're only high till you run out of money, then you're left with nothing except withdrawals
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Man what a great podcast, Rogan does a great job of letting his guests speak, too often podcasters will try to talk as much as their guest does which is stupid when you have a genius mind like Peterson or someone like Bret Weinstein.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Id still like to wake up in Chris browns body
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Develop a drug habit.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

s0nicfan posted...

What I meant by "let him talk" is simply that it's more of a discussion than an interview. Poor choice of wording, I suppose. I also wasn't criticizing Rogan or Harris... simply stating that the type of appearances vary wildly.

Harris and him had a pretty good debate on the idea of truth, you should check it out.

Fuparulez posted...

Liberals: Conservatives are uneducated!
Also liberals: Jordan Peterson is too educated!

It's his delivery. The left KNOWS they've got it wrong at this point, that's why they're so desperate. When Trump says something liberals don't like, they can fall back on "Who cares what he says, he's a hateful sexist racist bigot!" That one's not going to work with Jordan Peterson.

I'm a liberal (like Peterson) and I don't say anything you just said I say.

Webmaster4531 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

nicklebro posted...

For all the hate in this topic, you'll see 0 actual arguments against him. That's true for almost every topic of this kind. His haters aren't smart enough to even understand his arguments to attack them, let alone actually refute them.

Antifar posted...

Peterson's shtick is couching inflammatory statements in mountains of obfuscation, and then crying foul when critics rightly note the wild shit that comes out of his mouth. The rallying cries of his fans downplay the only noteworthy things he says: "he doesn't mean that literally," "you need to watch the full two hour lecture," "he's just asking questions, that's not something he believes."

His substance is one part self-help platitudes and one part gussying up in academic language anti-SJW stuff that otherwise wouldn't look out of place coming from someone on CE.

Yes, I'd bong Peterson's farts.

Okay...

And now people can see what the typical Peterson hater is like. Thanks again!
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Webmaster4531 posted...

nicklebro posted...

For all the hate in this topic, you'll see 0 actual arguments against him. That's true for almost every topic of this kind. His haters aren't smart enough to even understand his arguments to attack them, let alone actually refute them.

Antifar posted...

Peterson's shtick is couching inflammatory statements in mountains of obfuscation, and then crying foul when critics rightly note the wild shit that comes out of his mouth. The rallying cries of his fans downplay the only noteworthy things he says: "he doesn't mean that literally," "you need to watch the full two hour lecture," "he's just asking questions, that's not something he believes."

His substance is one part self-help platitudes and one part gussying up in academic language anti-SJW stuff that otherwise wouldn't look out of place coming from someone on CE.

Yes, that proves my point fantastically.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

s0nicfan posted...

emblem boy posted...

I don't know. I feel like most of these people don't say crazy stuff. They are just bad at making clear what they are trying to say or they'll mix in some crazy shit every now and then.

Peterson's biggest problem IMO is he's an opportunist. He's sacrificed some of his academic integrity in taking as many interviews as he does, and is making bank doing so. His popularity combined with his polarity means half his interviewers are trying to "get him" and the other half just want to shoot the shit, and nobody wants to ask him the same 5 questions directly relating to his career. You've got the Vice interview where they explicitly cut and edited footage to make answers to one question sound like answers to another, and the infamous Cathy Newman interview, and on the other side you've got his interviews with Rogan or Sam Harris where they just kind of let him talk about whatever comes up. The result is he's put on the spot a lot and needs to more often say he should read into a topic more (which he's done, for example with Islam). Give anyone enough time with a mic and eventually they'll say something objectively wrong. The trick is to address each argument relevant to the topic rather than hand-wave away every argument because of one or two bad ones.

Idk how Peterson is an opportunist. And you haven't listened to him and Sam Harris if you think he just let's him talk, they've had some pretty indepth debates, and idk what you expect Rogan to do.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

Recounting, you then said that not everything Jung has said was wrong. And I called you out on that asking for empirical support of Jungian ideas.

I don't see how I have moved any goal posts

Lol I had to quite this specific oart because of how ironic it is. That's literally an example of you moving the goal posts. I said Jung wasn't wrong every time he spoke, and your way if Calling me out on that was to move the goalposts from Jung always being wrong to whether there are any Jungian experiments. Those two things are not related at all.

And match that with your inability to relate it to something Peterson has actually said and I've exposed you as merely rewording the same old argument you keep trying to make and I keep refuting.

See there incorrect ways of utilizing Jung, but there are correct ways as well, you're refusing to post anything Peterson has actually said because you know he's in the latter category.

And really Peterson doesn't utize Jung all that often anyways, so really even if we pretend you aren't terribly wrong it wouldn't matter anyways. The vast majority of what Peterson has said has nothing to do with Jung, so your argument isinsufficient on top of being completely incorrect.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp

It's his one and only trick tho, which is why it's so easy to expose him.

he's a smart guy, he just happens to be dishonest because he is already committed to the far left regardless of what evidence or reasoning anyone provides

He's smart, just not as smart as he thinks he is, which is why it's so easy to recognize his flaws.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

I can't, what's your point? Why do you always feel the need to manufacture arguments to refute rather than pointing to something he's actually said and refute that?

Show me where Peterson said that he's relying on jungian experiments. If you can't then your argument is irrelevant.

The point is that Jungian "psychology" isn't evidence based, and therefore isn't actually representative of psychology. If you think this is untrue, then show me some experiments that support Jungian psychological views.

So you can't connect this strawman to anything Peterson has actually said? Well I guess your argument has been refuted yet again. Until you bring up Peterson's actual words, there's no reason to humor you any further.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp

It's his one and only trick tho, which is why it's so easy to expose him.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.

And?

Show me some great Jungian experiments.

I can't, what's your point? Why do you always feel the need to manufacture arguments to refute rather than pointing to something he's actually said and refute that?

Show me where Peterson said that he's relying on jungian experiments. If you can't then your argument is irrelevant.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

For all the hate in this topic, you'll see 0 actual arguments against him. That's true for almost every topic of this kind. His haters aren't smart enough to even understand his arguments to attack them, let alone actually refute them.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.

And?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

My issue is not him talking about whatever his philosophy is re:anything. You can literally say anything and it'll be just as valid as anything else, given some assumptions.

My issue is his discussing of Jung as it relates to psychology, which I want to remind you is an empirical science.

Your issue is clearly you misunderstanding what he's saying then, which isn't surprising since you're incapable of listening to him objectively. When you're constantly trying to find something wrong with him, you're obviously going to come up with invalid criticisms to match your predisposed beliefs. Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

you are really wasting your time with COVxy. His gimmick is to obfuscate every discussion and to twist what people say and why they say it. You're better off just ignoring his commentary.

I know, that post was for the benefit of others reading it. I know all about COVxys disengenuous ways.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.