He's the new alt-right leaning sam harris aka pop-culture icon wannabe posing as an intellectual...

he's the new alt-right leaning sam harris aka pop-culture icon wannabe posing as an intellectual, anyone who likes him should be drowned in a hot tub along with the tsunami wave of rhetorician pseuds crashing down upon millenial shore.

Other urls found in this thread:

openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Never heard of him. Thanks for spreading free advertising for him in an age where ideas don't need to be good to gain mass audience, they just need to generate conversation.

I disagree, Sam Harris is intelligent and talented at what he does, even if what he does is worthless dogshit. His work is the origin of his fame.
This guy is only known because trannies were angry at him and /pol/tards assumed this must mean he's einstein

He was a Harvard Professor

Oh wow, because academia is an efficient meritocracy right

Plebs think so, especially ivy league. And plebs are the audience for fraudulent philosophers.

not really. much like how harris jumped on the fuck religion bandwagon this guy is hopping on the fuck trannies/minorities (in the name of free speech) bandwagon. it's fucking hilarious because i'm pretty sure a huge number of the exact same people who were militantly against religion are now part of the christian far right.
it's more like plebs say university is a bunch of brainwashing bullshit until someone who panders to their brain diarrhoea because they're so thirsty for fame comes along.

Eh, I don't know what I think of him. He seems intellectually sound in a lot of respect, but I don't think he actually knows what Marxism is, which is weird for an academic.

Like sure thing professor, Solzhenitsyn sure BTFO'd the entire economic theory of Marxism by complaining about how shitty gulags are. That sure constitutes a reasoned and non-emotive argument.

>it's fucking hilarious because i'm pretty sure a huge number of the exact same people who were militantly against religion are now part of the christian far right.

I get the impression there's a lot of contrarians who consider themselves lefties as teenagers and then turn to the right when they go to college and realize that being left wing is now the default.

he is good rhetorician bullshitter much like sam harris.
it's not that what he says is absolute bullshit but he's part of a trend where you mix truisms into your ideological bullshit. his complete opposition to marxism as a wholesale "murderous" ideology shows where he's coming from.

>economic theory of marxism

why is it wrong for anti-communists to point to soviet russia as an example of how marxism is a poisonous ideology but capitalists who say "we don't have capitalism, we have crony-capitalism" are (rightly) laughed off?

>economic theory of Marxism
he doesn't need to since it has been thoroughly btfo by reality

Duuuuude ideology lmao

the right wing is going to be the default in about a year or so.
it's fucking hilarious because people criticize communism for the deaths involved to while the USA props up puppet dictators and starts wars directly or by-proxy under the name of "democracy" (capitalism).
communism is scrutinized for not being a perfect system while capitalism is heralded for being the most perfect system there is.
let's totally ignore US trade embargoes and actual wars designed to buttfuck anyone who dares to try the "evil" of communism. but your brain is cucked and you love it.

Sam Harris is the biggest fraud going.

"someone who has studied marxism for 40 years and is a professor at a highly respected university doesn't really know what marxism is or at least doesn't know as much as me."

t. millenial who read das kapital

>gods are outside or inside

Finally we know why the Egyptians thought that cats are gods

The sad thing is that 99% of Veeky Forums would get crushed by this guy or Sam Harris in a debate.

It's mainly his rhetoric that does it. He doesn't actually teach Marxism or talk about it, he just makes it an example of the horrors the authoritarian left. Regarding individual points he just says "go read the Gulag Archipelago", and I mean really, that is decent advice considering the current level of general education (do young people even know who Solzhenitsyn is in the US or Canada?) He is a psychologist interested in the authoritarian mindset and how it affects people and their identities (IIRC he specifically cited the example of ordinary Germans doing horrible things under the Nazis as an early inspiration in one of the Maps of Meaning lectures). He is not a philosopher or an economist and so doesn't really spend any time discussing those aspects of Marxism. Granted I've only watched some of his MoM 2016 lectures, which I do find pretty enjoyable.

I just don't really understand where the fraud-bit comes from. He made a couple of videos in October because of Bill C-16 in Canada, and just because of that people on Veeky Forums think he is a fraud? Even though the guy has hundreds of hours of material on his channel going back several years? I do wonder who the actual ideologue here is... It's exactly the same rhetoric that the SJWs use against him.

not that guy but he's a psychologist you dumbass. why not trust a veterinarian to fix your faulty water heater?
also, you're implying that he read up on marxism to really understand it and not to discredit it entirely. everyone has biases you're just another dumbass getting cucked by popular opinion because you can't think for yourself.
here's a simple example for your intellectual consumerist mind, thomas edison believed that DC was the way to go forward because if he admitted AC was superior it meant he would be wrong.

Good thing I'm the part of the 1% dipshit

You're right about RW ideology being default son, but it won't be in a year. It'll be in the next half decade to decade. And it'll just get more extreme :^)

no shit they argue for a living.
>He made a couple of videos in October because of Bill C-16 in Canada, and just because of that people on Veeky Forums think he is a fraud?
do you not see how he's using that as a platform? he actively supports milo the faggot that should say more than enough but if you watch enough of his lectures and you can't tell how much of a bullshitter he is then good luck to you.

nah it'll be normalized within the institutions in a year.

I would love to hear you (or anyone) critique his lectures (ie. the Maps of Meaning series and others; the PC videos, for instance, where admittedly done ad hoc) or research, since I have practically zero background in psychology.

I mean, using something as a platform (has he denied it? He has said it took him by surprise, so if you're saying he was lying then and that makes him a fraud, OK, not something that can be debated) is not enough to make someone a fraud (what do you even mean? That he is not an accredited psychologist? Or that his political stance is pure opportunism?). If you have something to say, you obviously want to say it in a manner that will reach the most people. I would think that is a reason he started uploading lectures to Youtube in the first place.

i'm not critiquing his psych lectures even though i believe psych to be fraudulent to a large degree.
he is an opportunist for sure. he's a fraud in the same sense that sam harris is a fraud, he's an expert in rhetoric and is using that expertise to speak on topics that he's hardly educated in and are in popular dialogue.
it's not to say he's totally wrong about what he's putting forward is that he's using these easy targets as a method to gain fame and propagate his ideology. just look at the pic in my OP, he posted that on his twitter. does that not tell you something fundamentally narcissistic and attention-seeking about his motivations?

I just rememberd that i once watched a video (one of the "sjw getting smashed" or something, i find it's quite funny to see 2 groups batteling eachother, while both of them have flawed realitys) and i could clearly see his smuggness, disguised while talking to some people about prefixes.
He's an oily smug person, who takes where most people break.
You are right user, he's an nacissistic asshole.
Btw, i'm not the person you replyed too.

To be fair to him, he is vehemently against Stalinism and Naziism, and if you read his comments on YouTube, he's decisively against any kind of anti-semitism.

Your categorisation of him as a member of the alt-right is rather unfair.

Yeah give him a few months of attention by these spergs and you'll see him slowly get moulded

Maybe, I agree with the idea he is another one of these pseudo-intellectual sound bite pop culture figures.

When will these retards die off? Perhaps never.

Putting himself away from the alt-right makes him see very much more appealing to most sectiones.
The people who go about, "i'm not racist but..." fit into the category, the racist people kinda see someone who fits too them, even if he says he doesn't.

Isn't this a bit irrelevant to the discussion? Kinda like pointing out how Joyce was a complete piece-of-shit as a person when talking about his literary work.

Do you actually have anything against his stance on free speech? I can get if you get pissed because he simplifies Marxism, but he is just pointing out how Marxism has resulted into some of the most horrible authoritarian regimes, and how restricting freedom of speech is one vehicle of achieving such a society.

I'm not racist but on /pol/ I want a race war

I am pissed off, that he is bandwagoning the shit, joyce did his stuff because he thought he was the best, and he quite literaly is, whilst the guy here is a fake, because he's trying to get some fame without deserving it.
I don't care about his stances, that one point, that he's getting followers, soley because he's talking about stuff people want to hear, makes him shit.

y-you got me there, haha...

it's different because joyce was a piece of shit who created a masterpiece. this fucker is a narcissistic attention-seeking piece of shit who panders to a culture of misdirected anger with rhetoric.
as for bill c-16. i disagree entirely with the western idea of politicizing any sort of sexual identity/preference, let people do what they want there's no need to talk about it.
however, jordan bringing free speech into the issue is completely irrelevant he's just cashing in on the stupidity and anger of the trans people and the alt-right/various ideologues who are all attention-seeking morons.

have a read of the actual bill, there's nothing regarding "gender pronouns" etc as is popularised it's just something propagated by morons.
openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

NOT AN ARGUMENT
O
T

A
N

A
R
G
U
M
E
N
T

How do we stop people from being swayed by pseudo-intellectual rhetoricians, Veeky Forums? I'm beginning to care more about this shit than I do about left or right or any of that sort of thing.

I like his ideas on Darwinism and pragmatism.

We didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics nor physics, but we did evolve to maneuver the being of life phenomenologically. Think about it, if believing and acting out religion, or religious ideas makes you propagate your lineage, and make you successful in being human(e.g navigating hierarchies, and being a social creature), then it shouldn't surprise anyone that evolution selected for that behavior psychologically.

So, religion becomes a sort of Jungian archetype or metameme, a meme that is encoded into our DNA.

I really like that idea, and I've started reading Jung to try and flesh it out more.

underrated bost

If you think Sam Harris is intelligent you should literally off yourself immediately.

watch their videos. pay attention to anything that is meant to ignite some sort of emotion(usually inspiration/anger) within you. think about what that translates to in terms of action. be aware of their associations. fix yourself and then fix everyone you can.
it's really no different from religious zealots, listen to every "academic intellectual" as if they were a preacher and encourage everyone around you to do so.

evo psych is bunkum mate

Sometimes i notice how little i have been here, there are 3 words i don't understand in that sentence. (and it was hard admitting it)

I don't understand this. Do people disagree with the underlying concept of evopsych or just think that it's unfalsifiable and unscientific?

>I don't understand this. Do people disagree with the underlying concept of evopsych or just think that it's unfalsifiable and unscientific?

No, Marxists are just uncomfortable with things that aren't strictly materialistic.

If an idea or concept can't relate in any way shape or form to the struggle between productive forces, it isn't real to them.

Religion isn't "encoded in our DNA", even if what you said is correct it would be susceptibility to religion. Being able to climb a tree that exists in your environment is not even close to the same as having "trees in your DNA". Parallel cultural and genetic evolution is a pretty cool concept though

>if believing and acting out religion, or religious ideas makes you propagate your lineage, and make you successful in being human(e.g navigating hierarchies, and being a social creature), then it shouldn't surprise anyone that evolution selected for that behavior psychologically.
religion documents a fundamental part of what it means to be human. but to equate that to the necessity of religion is foolish. ultimately it comes down to repression.
what is religion founded upon? God. what have the atheists replaced god with? ideology. you don't need to look very hard to see what people have replaced god with. and ultimately what is this "god" that people are empowered by? it's themselves. we own our energy, what our society propagates is that we require some external force to be able to be allowed use it. society represses it in the very first place with the dichotomy of god vs the devil and now good vs evil when in reality they are the very same thing, it's the energy within our grasp repressed by the systems and ideologies that we are put within.
also, jung is a tricky read. he has some insights but i'd advise you to take him as seriously as you do a fiction writer.

>Being able to climb a tree that exists in your environment is not even close to the same as having "trees in your DNA".

Sure, but if natural selection hadn't selected for traits that allows us to climb, we would see trees differently than we do now, and that was my point about it being phenomenological.

A fish cannot abstract such that he understands he actually lives in water, but humans can actually understand their own being, in a sense different from other animals.

Besides, it doesn't seem farfetched to me that just as nature selects, perhaps our DNA also selects based on our experience(a sort of Neo-Lamarckian epigenetics) over long periods.

>but to equate that to the necessity of religion is foolish

But I didn't. I was just speculating that religion might be an evolutionary advantage on a whole different level than people think today.

The latter, and especially on the internet "evolutionary psychology" means "I made up a just-so story to rationalise my position".

Evolutionary psychology is false, friend.
Evo psych is
>unfalsifiable
and
>unscientific,
mostly because it takes western cultural norms as a given and extrapolates backwards into human history. Take a common evo psych claim: "Men and women want to get married because women who were pregnant or had toddlers in the Stone Age needed a man around to protect the baby and bring them food." There are two wrong assumptions here: 1. Marriage among all humans and in human history operates in basically the way a westerner would imagine it to. 2. Marriage (as we understand it) is the only obvious way to protect a pregnant or new mother. Two counterarguments:

1. Man-woman marriage is pretty common across the globe, but it operates differently in different places. In parts of aboriginal Australia, a man first gets married at about age 20 to a woman who is about age 60. He becomes sexually experienced with her at a time when she's already past menopause, so that when she dies he can marry a younger woman, who herself has been married to older men since her younger days, and create children with her. I wish I could remember all of the details of this, but I forget the anthropologist I was reading and it's more complicated than how I present it here. The point is, there are many established systems of marriage that go against our idea of what marriage is. Here, the marriage of man and woman has nothing to do with children or their protection. And yet a system of marriage it is. So simply by looking outside the western world in our present day, we can see that the normal evo psych argument is not universal. Applying a non-universal aspect of human life to the lives of Stone Age people (from whom we have almost no cultural information) is a fallacy. It would be correct, for example, to posit that Stone Age people ate food and wore clothes and had sex, because all people today do those things. But you can't create a timeless psychological framework for marriage when your definition of marriage doesn't work for all societies even in our time.

2. Also from the anthropological literature is a society in southwest China (non-Han people) who have no marriage at all. Women "invite" men they want to have sex with to their house for the evening, on a night-by-night basis. No strings attached, the invitation is only for the night. Sisters all live in a housing complex WITH THEIR BROTHERS who collectively raise their nieces and nephews. Sometimes a woman will invite the same man to her room every night for several years, but it's never considered marriage in any sense. Sometimes a woman will invite a different man every night, and there's no stigma to this. No man is ever in the role of "father," because the BROTHERS of the woman impregnated always fill that role for her child. Here we see a system, alive in the modern world, where a pregnant woman or new mother has food, protection, etc., for her baby––without marriage.

Neetchee strokes his beard...

I'm basically a communist in abstract terms.

I get generally why people on Veeky Forums troll but why would you spend all your time and energy on this shit?

Sam Harris, Evola, whoever the fuck this guy is, they're all third rate minds. Why waste your time. I guess they're probably easier to read than Spinoza or Nietzsche but are you really that lazy?

Is it all cognitive bias toward thinkers that make convoluted arguments to justify a myopic worldview?

There's more genuinely interesting philosophy in a Jorge Luis Borges short than anything Sam Harris has ever done.

>alt-right
this anti academic movement needs to die quick. and its all thanks to the self proclaimed """feminists""" who thought they knew what feminism was without having to read more than a wiki article.

Thank you comrade for writing this. If you have received somewhat basic education in psychology or philosophy and also have a healthy, critical mind it's EASY to see evolutionary psychology is shit.

nice try cultural marxist

Really? Classical global capitalism totally broke down in 1929 and never recovered. New Deal state capitalism in America, fascism in western Europe, and the first 5 year plan in eastern Europe all emerged as a response to this. The Keynesian welfare-warfare system worked for a while after the war till it reached its structural limits in the 70s with stagflation and now the era of the neoliberal experiment is currently breaking down.
The central hegemonic empire has just elected a total clown who is promising a massive Keynesian spending spree but this can't really save capitalism. Government spending every year since WWII has kept growing under all administrations as a necessity to manage this situation. Global profitability has been in total crises since the 1970s and we're starting to run out of schemes to get out of this situation without leaving behind capitalism or accepting the fact that the global economy will pretty much be centrally planned by the pentagon for the US oligarchy. Marxs law of value will have to break down in some fashion.

>Evo psych cherrypicks shit based on a Western worldview
>I'm going to cherrypick some shit myself to prove evo psych wrong

Good job.

really? i never liked freddie.
unless you're saying the opposite of what i think you are then that's great.

But the burden of proof is on evo psych, so your analysis is exactly correct. If you create a totalizing theory for how something is, then all I need to do is find any evidence to prove it wrong. I'm not advancing a worldview here, only disproving evo psych.

Evolutionary psychology is pretty much the opposite of a "totalizing theory" though. It's not like it's Communism or Fascism.

>it's not to say he's totally wrong about what he's putting forward is that he's using these easy targets as a method to gain fame and propagate his ideology. just look at the pic in my OP, he posted that on his twitter. does that not tell you something fundamentally narcissistic and attention-seeking about his motivations?

I really don't see how this proves anything. I am a big fan of Chomsky, and you could realistically say the same thing about him, or any other number of public intellectuals, Sartre, Foucault, Zizek, Scruton (who I really dislike), etc. Tons of books, endless TV and radio appearances, and now internet videos. To people who disagree with them, they are just fame-whoring attention seekers who jump in on some contentious issue, like the Vietnam War, to get attention and push their rhetoric out there. To people who like them, they are so motivated by a particular issue that they step into the public sphere to describe their beliefs and ideas, in which they have great faith. I don't know much about Peterson, aside from what is being said in this thread, and he does sound kind of narcissistic to me, but your vague personality diagnoses could just as easily be leveled at Zizek, who I also like, or almost any public intellectual.

except other cultures don't come up with an academic framework that claims what every human/culture is like.
what are you saying with that? that everything outside the western world is unnatural and an aberration of human psychology/biology?

>Evolutionary psychology is pretty much the opposite of a "totalizing theory" though.

"Evolutionary psychologists suggest that EP is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology but that evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology in the same way evolution has for biology."

I do not like any of that anyway. Still there's a difference. He's appealing to the lowest of lows, as he's gaining from the genderwar. And he knows it. He knows it and still uses it to boost himself up.
I can't speak for what his motivation is, but mostly he looks like a smug idiot, who's not trying to solve anything, he's trying to gain something from the retards who follow/hate him, which initself is the same thing to him, as he just gets more attention to it.
And i don't like Zizek either, whilst he seems a little more earnest about his dishonesty.

>what are you saying with that?

I'm saying that simply because evolutionary psychology is spawned in the West doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean it's explanatory power is wrong.

I mean nobody would ever dream of making such a facile strawman argument about physics even though physics was created by European Christians.

good thread anons

bumping

Have you actually watched any of the videos from the protest at the University of Toronto and Peterson's interviews afterward? You say he's "not trying to solve anything," but he keeps repeating, again and again, that this is a free speech issue and that he wants to defend an individual's right to speak without fear of prosecution. This is especially important when "gender expression" is essentially equivalent to "fashion choice." Under the new law, you could be prosecuted for criticizing someone's fashion choices, since it could be taken as a hate crime against zir gender expression.

How are these reasonable arguments appealing to the "lowest of the lows"?

Evolutionary psychology as a field might be pseudo-scientific, but where does that place us in terms of trying to make guesses and assumptions about how our behaviour could have been formed?

>Evolutionary psychology as a field might be pseudo-scientific

If evolutionary psychology as a field is pseudo-scientific, then so is evolution to begin with.

I am more sympathetic to Evo psych than most people here, but there are a number of people in the field who are "totalizing" in their application of evo psych in a way that, without a lot more evidence that we don't have, is improper. It's a newer field, so of course there is going to be a lot of bullshit churned out by small-time professors and grad students who are jumping on the bandwagon and hoping to have the next big discovery, but that doesn't excuse the number of people in the field who start viewing every little thing through that lens.

Tbf that says that Evo psych people think the field can provide a complete, totalizing framework for psychology, not necessarily understanding the world. If you think psychology itself is totalizing, though, then that's a fair point to make.

I get flamed for this, but I personally think that you need to limit the scope of your investigations into human behavior. If you want to understand why Zoroastrians worship fire, it makes sense to study the Zend-Avesta (their holy text) and even to cross the border into a neighboring and near-contemporaneous ancient culture in India, to understand their Vedic fire worship and see how that can compare/contrast to Zoroastrian fire worship.

BUT, it would be intellectually dishonest to come up with just-so stories about (imagined) Stone Age people's relationship to fire in order to explain, with no textual/archaeological/historical evidence, why Zoroastrians worship fire. If your impulse is to explain "humans' relationship to fire around the world," then you will either give up or create something intellectually dishonest. It is too big and varied a topic to cover in one blow. So you need to reduce the scope of your work to what the evidence allows. That usually means sticking to a single culture and the cultures it interacted with.

Obviously this board is full of lefties, and if you defend free speech to the letter, it must mean that you support people screaming nigger in public to everyone they want.

It's interesting how the debate in Western culture has now shifted so much that the onus is on people who want free speech to dig up reasons for why they aren't shit people.

I think the difference is that Peterson got popular because of an outrage video about SJWs and latched onto that fame, whereas Chomsky, Zizek and Scruton actually believe they have something to say and promote it.

I think that's why we'll forget about this dude in a few months while we're still talking about Manufacturing Consent a quarter century later.

I never said that the role he is filling isn't one that shouldn't be fought over. I said that he isn't solving it, but using it.
There's a difference, which is quite major, mostly because one can notice his condesending posture towards both sides, if you watch the video you might notice.
He's pissed off at his supporters and at his agressors, he's useing them to get his own idea published and hates himself for it.
That is dishonesty, jumping a bandwagon, and so on.

that was more of the icing on the cake than the cake itself.
he is a narcissistic piece of shit, but that's not the main problem. it's his willingness to jump onto easy targets in order to gain credibility to eventually support something far more sinister.
nothing generally terrible with wanting fame, but there's something fucking disgusting with getting fame by using things like free speech as a way to disguise a support for alt-right ideology.

Hmm, not sure I think that's the kind of approach that is good in the long term. Obviously, in an individual sense you're better off with localised analysis if you want more accurate results, but usually the beginnings of important fields like psychology with Freud or sociology with Marx or physics back in the times of Thales started with large, groundbreaking assumptions that shaped the field through analysis and criticism.

Just to get this straight, i get what you're saying, and i agree, still i can't agree that he is a noble, wise man.

Does Scruton hold any weight as an intellectual? Some of his output seems a bit like Peter Hitchens-tier polemics, like How to Be a Conservative, but then he also wrote Thinkers of the New Left and Sexual Desire, which seem a bit more hefty.

#justhumanitardthings

It's true though. If you're not going to accept that evolution has anything to say about psychology, because it's "pseudo-scientific", then it's a short step from that to saying evolution has nothing to say at all.

I think this resistance to evo psych is based *a lot* on the idea of Locke's tabula rasa.

I'm not Canadian so haven't really got a horse in the race, but the legislation seems to be about aggravating factors rather than speech policing. He's either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the legislation. Or like it's a slippery slope for him or some shit,

>I'm saying that simply because evolutionary psychology is spawned in the West doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean it's explanatory power is wrong.
no one said it was wrong because it spawned in the west but it was clearly shown to be inapplicable in various examples. you can't use the word "cherrypicking" when the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it applies across cultures.

>but there's something fucking disgusting with getting fame by using things like free speech as a way to disguise a support for alt-right ideology.

I really don't see where you're getting this, that's a really paranoid take on this guy. Did Chomsky support Holocaust denial because he wrote in support of free speech during the Faurrisson affair, particularly when he was known to be a critic of Israel?

The problem is not with evolutionary psychology its with its over reaching. It has extremely little explanative value once language came into play bar a reductionist perspective

Yeah, but exceptions to a rule doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist. It sounds more like it's your head that needs "totalizing theories" than evo psych actually being totalizing.

Just because it can't explain absolutely every single thing humans do, doesn't make it wrong, and frankly expecting it to explain everything is childish.

It's not though. Some ancient Greeks had theories of particles and theories of physics, but if anaximanidosocraticus tried to start talking about particle physics it would almost necessarily be total pseudoscience even if he collected a bunch of followers. He didn't have any scientific ground to stand on, or the tools to conduct a meaningful inquiry into his subject. An existing field of science can be pseudoscientific even if the words could conceivably describe a real thing

Yeah but evo psych *does* have some ground to stand on, and where it doesn't, in my own experience with professors, they are very clear that it is conjecture.

Fair point. I am highly detail-oriented and don't think I'll ever create a work of genius. But I don't think you can really manufacture genius anyway. Freud, Marx, Thales –– all sui generis, but also all read or not read based on the prevailing will of the time, right? We're still in the Freud and Marx era, but imagine Thales' ideas during periods of Christian orthodoxy, or even the normal paganism of his own and Roman times. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm just curious, how do you define a genius from outside the culture or time period where his ideas are considered genius?

Would you prefer the continued degredation of academia (and society) over having someone you dislike opposing it?

This is why I support Peterson in the Toronto affair

me too desu

try watching some of his videos and reading some his tweets.
if noam chomsky had a twitter and he retweeted faurrisson then yes. there's a difference between saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want and actively supporting what they say.
>It sounds more like it's your head that needs "totalizing theories" than evo psych actually being totalizing.
nice projection.
i clearly rejected the "totalizing theory" which is evopsych and it's clearly you who needs "totalizing theories" except when you're presented with evidence that goes against it then you suddenly admit to its flaws in such a hilariously pathetic manner.
>expecting it to explain everything is childish.
isn't that what it's supposed to do? except when it doesn't then it's excused? lmao.

>when you're presented with evidence that goes against it

Oh, you mean those pathetic strawmen you constructed earlier?

Yeah, I ignored those, for obvious reasons.

>any evidence that goes against what i believe is a strawman

Can you clearly state what your position is regarding evo psych?

You don't seem to buy the idea that if there is evidence against evo psych's claims, then evo psych is faulty.

so in looking forward to the progression of academia you're going to sit by and let the alt-right pseuds take over?
unless you're one of them i don't see how that's anything but stupid.

>This guy is only known because trannies were angry at him

To you maybe. I've been listening to his recorded college lectures for years.