- Why don’t we let the people decide what they want to hear instead of telling us what we should or shouldn’t hear. – Jay Man
- In this clip, Ian is being the perfect representation of the basic know-it-all science bro who think he’s got everything figured out, but has never even heard of epistemology, and thus never gotten to the point of realizing that everything needs to be questioned, and thus, is unwittingly guilty of everything he hates in others.
- The ‘willing to debate anything as long as there’ a camera rolling’ Jordan Peterson is actually describes himself very well. Did he purposefully forget to mention how ripe with psychopaths his own profession (psychiatrist) is?
- Saying he’s talking about Candace Owens is crazy. He never mentions her name or anything about her. She doesn’t even match the description because she’s been on the right long before it was safe or in power. She went against the grain, not with it. She just happens to be on the side of power today. This is feeding drama for views, and this is the kind of ish that makes me lose trust in so called “journalism”.
- I stongly disagree with so called conservatives who say we should not push pack as hard as the left pushes. If we do not push back, harder than the left. If we do not expose criminality, if we do not attack, conservatives will always be on their heels. And conservative values will always be lost. Lost in compromise and eventually apathy. Because when you are forces to compromise without victory, you too will become numb, and lethargic in apathy
- Tim, I like both Jordan and Candace, and find them both extremely hard workers, they both try their best to be honest, and do quality work. Having said that, while Candace hasn’t posted anything overtly “mean” in writing about Dr. Peterson that I’ve seen. She has criticized him quite a bit on her YouTube show over the past six months—mainly targeting his ethics, past struggles with addiction, and claiming he doesn’t live up to his own advice. She’s even used an old video from 2016 showing a messy kitchen in his home to mock his “clean your room” rule. But that clip seems like a one-off, and frankly, who knows what was going on that day? It’s a strange hill to die on. Peterson’s work isn’t about perfection—it’s about helping people who are struggling. To dismiss his message because of a messy background or moments of human vulnerability seems incredibly reductive. It feels like Candace is starting to represent a kind of all-or-nothing mindset: if someone falls short once, they’re written off completely. She’s articulate, passionate, and presents herself well—but beneath the smile, I do think you can sometimes catch glimpses of real anger. Dr. Peterson’s criticism, harsh as it may sound, might be pointing to a larger issue of pride wrapped in religious language, and that’s worth reflecting on.
- DId he actually call Candace a psychopath? I didn’t hear that. It matters because that would be unethical for a psychologist to do. As I understand it you are not supposed to diagnose someone who isn’t a patient. It is in the rules of conduct for that profession.
- there is flexibility in actual truth. Things that are true can be true or real even if you have not or cannot prove it, this is the first lesson of straw manning any one conversation. Science is true, like math is true, like you’re unaltered senses are true, like the individual circumstances in the choice of action are true.
- I thought the point was to let bad ideas or thoughts be brought into the light because sunlight is the best disenfectant. The bad ideas will be squashed or filtered thru public forums of honest discussions. Not censorship
CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS