So is this guy the new Sam Harris?

>revolutionary hyper-intellectual
nobody said that
lmao Veeky Forums is so tumblr-tier leftie (mods and all). Not a single good argument just whining about "normies". What makes you so special?

I'm using normie to mean pop, easily accessible. These Peterson fags could just as well be into Gray, is what I mean. And I'd prefer that, because I never did this:
>Just because you now fell for the sophistry of a man who claims that there's a meaning to life doesn't mean that more cynical thinkers are without their merits.
I like Gray, but he is still a pop philosopher. He's the poor man's Rorty.

>hat he's being posited as this revolutionary hyper-intellectual when many of his ideas already emerged in the 20th century.

Not in the package that he delivers them. I suggest you actually see the interview where he talks about his influences and how he constructed his worldview.

Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants before them, that doesn't mean they are worthless.

There's no such thing as a 'respectable public intellectual' anymore. There's just effective and ineffective media brands. All public figures will be CGI simulacrums within 10 years, anyways.

Poetry

You should include the detail that they tend to be skinnyfat. A lot of them are flabby and have poochy bellies. I have yet to see a single Veeky Forums numale.

it's a tautology
if you saw anyone who was fit you wouldn't think of him as a numale

>Also call me SJW if you want but it's fucked up that his rise to fame was basically exploiting transgender controversy.
p sure his rise to (in)famy was due to an autistic reading of individual rights in light of specific language-policing legislation, not "exploiting" generic idpol controversy.
The fact that you couldn't pick up on that makes me think that you are, in fact, the kind of person /pol/tards refer to when they say sjw.

Same shit you pedant.

Not him, but how is it the same shit?

Being ordered by the State to use specific words =/= Some random transgender dingbat asking you to use specific words as courtesy

The state never ordered anyone anything of the sort. Hate speech laws are not so strict. Peterson grossly misinterpreted the law and its consequences. This is specifically because the changes to the law which were proposed lay neatly in anti-pc sights: namely, the inclusion of non-binary gender expression.

All you Peterson fags make the same error in making the distinction you did.

He's kind of synthesizing "post modernist" thinking, with scientific thought and applying their terms and ideas to science, which no one has done before
His nature vs nurture argument for example. When you reduce evironment forces (removing gender norms and other social constructs) all that's left are biological forces
He's forcing liberals to take very extreme positions like suggesting behavioral training to make women more aggressive and men less aggressive
He may not be the most "original" thinker but I think he does a great job of navigating and communicating reason in such a chaotic time

>The state never ordered anyone anything of the sort.

Yes it did? The inclusion of non-binary gender expression in the law literally means that when a person asks you to use their preferred pronoun and you say no, the social justice tribunal in Canada will punish you for it.

He really isn't a post-modernist at all. He's more of a pragmatist.

Why is that pic so accurate?

The court you're referring to is run by the OHRC. This is a provincial institution. It has very little legislative power and the court as a result is a joke. At worst the offence could be construed as "quasi-criminal", which is a fine at worst.

It doesn't matter. If you refuse to pay their fine or accept their punishment, you will be held in contempt, which is punishable by jail time.

>Hate speech laws are not so strict.

That's kinda his point. The extremely vague wording in the law means that what exactly is considered hate speech when it comes to misgendering is hugely up to interpretation, and thus the decision whether to punish someone is largely made on a whim or on the personal thoughts of the officials rather than within the precise specifications of what should be in the law, which is a HUGE issue because it opens up doors for abuse.

There's also the fact that it includes UNINTENTIONAL misgendering as hate speech if the victim in question is sufficiently offended, which also allows the victim to decide whether or not they want someone sent to the tribunal on a whim.

This isn't even considering the fact that legally requiring someone to use a word that someone literally made up with zero justification except "I feel like it" is unbelievably retarded in its own right.

>which is a fine at worst.

And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

>Peterson grossly misinterpreted the law and its consequences

Not to dick-ride here but:
1. Seems unlikely that the university would be aggressively coming after him with cease and desists unless there were serious legal ramifications for it.
2. IIRC he had a debate with a lawyer and what basically came of it was that you couldn't technically be jailed but you could have all of your financial assets seized, which is scary enough given the indictment is "you failed to use the words the legislation forces you to use". No other hate speech legislation work this way.

More like post-postmodernism, or whatever its equivalent is

>tfw Veeky Forums unironically drives you sympathise with trannies

Where's the exploitation? Regardless of what you think of transgenderism, laws that regulate speech should be offensive to anyone who values freedom. It's not a left-right issue or a moral issue. It's just a basic human issue.

When I said strict I was referring to legal consequence rather than poorly written legislature. Not that I think it's poorly written anyway. All law draws upon misinterpreted philosophy pooled behind the distilled legal text and modification through case law.

What kind of retard wouldn't pay the fine? From a pragmatic standpoint it really makes no sense. Obviously Peterson is far beyond this: he's a committed idealist arguing his ideology which is just another side in the ongoing debate.

Or the university (being an academic institution) did not want to associate with a vocal political figure.

Seized in what circumstances?

i'm pretty sure that if a student asks him to, he'll use their "preferred pronouns".
it's just that he's against the university forcing him or anyone to change their speech. he's not really exploiting the transgender controversy that much, it's just that in these times people respond outrageously to those topics on either side, so he got a lot of attention for something which is, in reality, fairly benign

you are either a nazi or a failed liberal game developer, there is literally no other choice.

>What kind of retard wouldn't pay the fine?

I certainly wouldn't. The state has no right to tell me which words to use.

They can gladly tell me I shouldn't call a black man a nigger, but they can't tell me I have to say African-American. There is a qualitative difference between the state outlawing something, and the state forcing you to do something.

Wrong.

If it's some bullshit made up term, or even they, he'll just use their proper names and not make a big deal out of it

I bet you would have too.

oh, alright. it's kind of funny those people consider that a denial of their humanity.

Jordan Peterson is the only thing standing between us and full sharia transgender dictatorship

is that sarcasm?

>The extremely vague wording in the law means that what exactly is considered hate speech when it comes to misgendering is hugely up to interpretation,

Great, so the courts have to give it reasonable meaning, like the legal system of every commonwealth nation for the past 300 years.

Is it?

I'm listening....

As the great Voltaire once said, to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise. Hence, it follows the transgender race are actually the secret rulers of this earth.

I've had conversations about this in person, it's absolutely insufferable. And the worst part is that Peterson's right. These people are so ideologically possessed that when you challenge them they'd rather attack you personally than respond to your arguments.

And yeah, it's baffling. "You're INVALIDATING MY EXISTENCE!" Like what the fuck, no. All I'm saying is that you can't just call yourself non-binary and force me to use terms nested within an ideology that I despise let alone disagree with, and then call my disagreement violence when I wont cow to your rhetoric.

It's not funny, man. It's really fucked up. I don't see this situation improving anytime soon.

And yet people like OP thinks it's fine to have those deranged lunatics dictating uni policies and federal legislation.

(1/2)
I would say he's the new Dawkins, rather than Harris.
Harris was a crossbreeding experiment gone wrong where the sperm of a New Age mystic corporate Buddhist met with the egg of a smug and amoral New Atheist. He's an error, rather than a phenomenon. His academic career was essentially bought, and his audience has been brought in via cult practices.
Now consider the careers of Dawkins and Peterson. Both were fringe, heterodox thinkers in their fields who nonetheless managed to attain a substantial degree of respect, despite their offbeat views. Dawkins' monographs such as The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc. are solid, even if the ideas expressed therein are not broadly accepted in the field. Likewise, Peterson has an ideosyncratic but educated understanding of Jungian psychology, mythology, and philology (specifically when discussing religious hermeneutics and applying his findings to socioevolutionary and developmental psychology (usually via Piaget) built on that psychoanalytic ground he finds in Jung. His readings are often quite hard to accept, but regardless of whether or not his theses are accepted by his colleagues does not actually reflect on whether, say, Maps of Meaning, is a good text or not. It's certainly compelling in places, and well-researched.
These types of thinkers are essential for most studies, especially the sciences. If all thinkers were perfectly in line with the orthodox view, science would never move beyond the status quo, and would sit in a quagmire of dogma, fear, and willful ignorance. It's good practice to have a few fringe thinkers, educated in the relevant literature and practices, but deviating wildly from the regular mode of discourse. They're wrong nine times out of ten, and nine out of those ten times, their research leads nowhere, but that tenth man is incredibly valuable. That tenth man was Chomsky in linguistics, Mendeleev in chemistry, you get the idea. If the weirdos are given adequate academic freedom, sufficient resources, and a platform to express their ideas, they flourish and good things happen.
(1/2)

(2/3 sorry, miscounted)
However, the weirdos tend to develop a few traits that mean they turn into Dawkinses and Petersons. For one: (1) they tend to be charismatic. They have to be. If they can't clearly lay out their ideas in an entertaining and elucidating way that can enrapture the general public, they lose funding. Another mark (2) is that they quickly become paranoid. Because these figures tend to have difficulty publishing their research (because it so often contradicts the normative view) and because they encounter a lot of opposition from their colleagues. Finally, (3) these thinkers tend to overestimate their intelligence, critical thinking skills, and ability to grasp new concepts quickly and accurately. These scientists and philosophers have spent so long honing a specific skill for which they have a natural inclination. They regularly encounter preeminent and well-regarded authorities in their own field who seem to them to be wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z. And they work and study one field to the detriment of all other education. When they encounter an idea with which they were previously unfamiliar, Dunning-Kreuger syndrome sets in. These fellas have difficulty understanding that their understanding of a new topic is roughly equivalent to that of an undergrad on the first day of his first semester in a major he picked because it sounded cool and he watched a Crash Course Video on it and read the *entire* Wikipedia article.
Now what ends up happening is that these potential precursors of a paradigm shift, usually late in their career as their hair starts to gray, come to realize that they haven't changed many hearts and minds within their own fields, and so they start to branch out into other topics.
Dawkins started reading up on philosophy of religion. Peterson started reading up on Marx and Nietzsche. And their understanding, in the cases of Dawkins and Peterson, already heavily biased and bigoted, was only solidified by the sense that they were correct. So when Dawkins reads Aquinas, and he reads "Argument from the unmoved mover" it doesn't matter that he's reading a poor translation and that even if a medievalist scholar walked him through the Latin, he'd still have trouble grasping Aquinas' argument. His reading and the fact that he has read confirms for him that he is correct. End of discussion. When Peterson reads through Marx or Nietzsche and picks up the phrases "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "overman," only his uneducated understanding of the term matters.
(2/3)

(3/3)
That's just trait (3) screwing these guys. What happens next is trait (1) comes into play. Dawkins and Peterson, because they are relatively charismatic, (for academics) will develop an audience and fast. Like-minded people who share their bigotry and ignorance (but rarely their passion for their field) will begin to surround them and inform their thinking through their discourses (see Peterson's recent trainwreck on m'leddit). This ends up in a state of self-imposed group-think where only opposing ideas (of which the ideosyncratic Mr. Peabody turned amateur iconoclast was already wary) are approached with skepticism and confirmation bias informs all induction. In other words, a circle-jerk forms around a shoddy cult of personality.
Finally, trait (2) comes into play. When ignorant statements broadcast will invariably attract the attention of the informed, paranoia takes over. All criticism and questioning becomes censorship and interrogation. Logic shuts down, and rationality ceases. At its most benign, this opposition is seen as the ivory towers crying at their shattered idols. In Dawkins case, it was fundie extremists mad 'cause he proved church was a big dumb. In Peterson's case, it's the evil Kultural Marx and his frankfurter school of queer transgender critical theorists trying to turn his classroom into a safespace.
(3/3)

Holy fuck I see so much of so many people I know in this, and in myself

Interesting viewpoint but I don't think Dawkins and Peterson are as similar as you make them seem. Peterson explicitly states that he's a beginner on many topics, he did not even talk about Islam because he thought he wasn't familiar enough with it after 3-4 years of study. I can definitely see a cult forming around him but that's just how people are, he can't really do much about that.

What arguments of his do you disagree with?

>fantacies

Embarrassing.

is this guy actually interesting beyond being a meme? what books of his should i start with?

the only otoya you're pulling is your nightly dildo dates

too bad the judges suck liberal sjw cock for breakfast

If 'cultural marxism dont real', then what do you call THIS?!?

quality rebuttal

It seems to me as though a claim to ignorance on topics one is about to discuss has become a mere academic formality. I've seen Chalmers claim he didn't know anything about the mind and maybe kind-of knew something about consciousness, before going on to give a two-hour talk on mind and consciousness. (This isn't me knocking Chalmers, just an observation). When he picks up a topic and runs with it and makes so many baseless and often completely wrong claims, it's hard to imagine that he really believes that he knows nothing about the topic. I haven't followed any of his discussions on Islam, so I can't speak to that. Usually, I encounter him making claims about critical theory, Canadian law, Marxism, and general leftist culture. He'll make a claim like, "Derrida is the quintessential postmodernist" and refuse to explain why he thinks this to be the case. He'll make these incredibly bold, baseless accusations of various thinkers, Derrida, Foucault, Adorno, etc. that nobody who's actually read the texts by these authors would make. It makes me think that he's read some far-right journo like William Lind who's quickly and poorly summarized his opinion on, say, Adorno and the gang, and has taken that as fact. When he discusses legal matters like C-16 or M-103, his arguments read like he read them from a thinkpiece posted on The Rebel Media or found them on an amateur American law blog.
To answer your question: in the context of his professional research, while I admire his mythologized understanding of psychosexual development as potentially more coherent than what Freud or Lacan ever theorized (I'm being generous, but only so much), his work in personality typing (like all work in personality typing) sounds like grade-A stinkweaselry to me. I also think his apologetics for Christianity are too abstract to function on any level other than the poetic, though I appreciate the attempt on his part to defend the faith that he and I share. In the context of his more popular commentary on law, culture, freedom of speech, minority rights, academic freedom, and the left, I disagree with most of what he says, either because it reeks of unresearched opinions or because he identifies patterns and conspiracies where none exist (often where none could exist). That said, I certainly sympathize with his *situation* (I've run into the tumblrite crowd myself), I just think he's handled it poorly. People who misread queer theory and critical theory are not put away by misreading queer theory and critical theory back at them.

He's not correct about everything and I think he sometimes contradicts himself when he gets into modern political ideas he hasn't really thought about yet but I really love his talks relating to archetypes and other Jungian concepts. I'm trying to take some of his life advice to heart too, not because I think he's some guru that has it all figured out but I lack discipline and structure in my life and he makes very good cases for why you should

Also no, he may have risen to fame through that controversy but that wasn't his fault. He didn't plan on it at all. Now he's being invited to talk everywhere and people very often ask him the same stupid questions about the pronoun thing

could you share some talks you particularly enjoyed?

MAPS OF MEANING is available as a free pdf from his site. i doubt anyone in this thread has read it.

jordanbpeterson.com/2016/11/maps-of-meaning-intro/

personally i like peterson. he's humble, knowledgable, and determined to make a positive change. exactly the fellow i want to be, and he was born 30 years before me. he's a huge fan of jung's, and seems to be searching for how to make those ideas useful to the 21st century's isolated, distracted man. this is what jung would have wanted for his work, i am sure: that generations ahead would find the collection unconscious "soul" of man useful in surviving their times.

peterson's free speech accolades are deserved imo. i am an american and largely apolitical, but the passage of M103 in canada is a blow to free speech in that country. although largely a symbolic measure, that it COULD be used by the public to legally censor and ruin others is a mistake. canada should be ashamed. this is an accomodation too far, trudeau's bongo-banging liberal party are creating a new class of citizen that is immune to criticism in the name of inclusiveness. simple as that. critical theory is eating itself, the events of may 1968 should be excised from this timeline.

>Canadian supreme court judges
>reasonable

They already said that factual statements can be considered hate speech, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Here's a great one about parenting where he explains the concept of the Oedipal mother
youtube.com/watch?v=50FbeazFkgs

Many of the ones I watch are short clips of longer talks so I can't quite remember the names of many of them but just clicking around the recommended videos will find you some of his really interesting ideas.

i am not the user you were talking to, but i really enjoyed this:

youtube.com/watch?v=CwcVLETRBjg

and especially the Q&A that followed.

>he events of may 1968 should be excised from this timeline.
youtube.com/watch?v=5lWX1GAojHU

youtube.com/watch?v=R8UzTTFd3Q8

Nobody is even sure of what really happened back in the 1960s- what it was and what it could have been- it was a truly apocalyptic time for those living through it. Somewhat like the late 10s so far.

Holistically? A disenfranchised young man or woman who, blinded by ultranationalism, economic anxiety, rural decay brought on by irreligiosity and falling education standards, and the simultaneous globalization and fracturing of culture, will seek solace in the misplaced understanding that their problems (poor health, underemployment, income inequality, depression, isolation, alienation, and uncertainty of even the existence of the future, never-mind its quality) are caused by a highly organized grand-conspiracy of Kabbalistic nether-daemons. Because this individual observes many other disenfranchised groups, including racial minorities, the LGBT community, immigrants, and Jews, fighting for their rights and liberties, and sometimes even working together for those rights and liberties, this young man or woman realizes that in their own case, equality with these groups means sitting at the bottom of the totem pole: in other words, that the previously multi-layered caste-system of the West may quickly become a two-tiered class-system of the upper and lower classes. Despite this meaning no real material change, the perceived alteration of status causes this young person a great deal of anxiety, anxiety which is exploited by the ruling caste via various systems of power, specifically the nation state (though not limited so). Convinced of the lie that achievement, success, and happiness can only be achieved once they have actualized themselves through the lens of the nation state, the young man or woman is fully indoctrinated into the fascist mindset, and can be fed any number of bizarre, impossible, even contradictory conspiracy theories ("the world is ruled by evil (((billionaire))) (((Jews))) who drink the blood of children;" "(((immigrants))) are going to take my job, even though they are inexperienced and unqualified for the work I do, and they want to destroy those institutions which they specifically immigrated to take advantage of, apparently;" "a group of (((Jewish))), (((Marxist))) (((intellectuals))) are really just like the (((Nazis))), guys;" "(((transgender))) people want to diddle kids in the bathroom, even though I'm more likely to be assaulted by a (((sitting member of congress))) in the WC;" "(((Hillary Clinton))) is a literal demon who performs horrific sex acts straight out of (((de Sade))) on tens of thousands of specifically white children and operates out of a small family restaurant and she and her (((crew))) communicate by talking about what to eat for dinner"). As a result, this person, rather than uniting with members of other disadvantaged groups to actually make themselves better off and more free, do the bidding of the very global elites they rail against by getting irrationally angry when they see women wearing headscarves and men wearing dresses and by spreading looney conspiracy theories that make them indistinguishable from trolls.

literally nothing wrong with top right

Yeah, use paragraphs and stop obfuscating your Marxist bullshit if you want a serious reply.

Why every gay thinks he is a privileged snow flake and that his sexual choices is a concern for politics?

>As a result, this person, rather than uniting with members of other disadvantaged groups

Maybe because everyone is disenfranchised? And therefore you should let a free market decide how the individual in that chase earns value in society.

>to actually make themselves better off and more free, do the bidding of the very global elites

The global elites are against transgenderism and Muslims. The global elites are FOR transgenderism and Muslims. See how easy that is?

> they rail against by getting irrationally angry when they see women wearing headscarves and men wearing dresses and by spreading looney conspiracy theories that make them indistinguishable from trolls.

Most people care more about Burka's than hijabs, nice try.

God this board is so left it's disgusting.

>black ppl
>obesity
>degeneracy (via mortal sin of GLUTTONY)

Translation: I can't read anything not written with may-may arrows with an attached .jpg. I only brows Veeky Forums to spread my shitty ideology which I've poorly analogized through a shitty 1999 Keanu Reeves vehicle. Any word I don't understand is "obfuscating." If somebody writes more than 100 words and doesn't say "cuck," they're a Marxist, even if they bemoan secular society and express umbrage if indifference at identity politics. I demand serious replies for my ultra-redpill memes, and will take somebody high on cough syrup calling me a troll in a longwinded way as serious criticism of my point of view, but nonetheless dismiss that criticism because it's too long and the words is too big. I demand reddit spacing because I regularly browse r/thedonald. I have serious opinions about Brianna Wu. I watch incest porn because then I can be sure there's no miscegenation going on.

You're a good writer but your reading comprehension is laughable. Way to predicate a wall of text upon a straw man, dude. Good job!

Look, you talk a lot but don't say much.

>Maybe because everyone is disenfranchised?
This is false.
>And therefore you should let a free market decide how the individual in that chase earns value in society.
Why is that the case? I generally follow the economics of Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and Laffer more closely than Keynes or Piketty, but even I'm not this neoliberal. Disenfranchisement is not exclusively economic, dude. How do you expect the free market to solve racial gerrymandering (against whites in Illinois and Maryland; against blacks in Texas)? Do you expect the free market to get money OUT of politics? You're not making sense here. Even if we ignored forms of disenfranchisement other than the economic and adopted a totally laissez-faire approach and assumed absolute socio-economic equality at T=0, there are many factors that keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Ensuring that businesses actually compete in the labour market (rather than the workers) is a complex task.
>See how easy that is?
This is incoherent, and I cannot engage with it.
>Most people care more about Burka's than hijabs, nice try.

>God this board is so left it's disgusting.
I was intentionally strawmanning (a difficult task, considering the concentrated autism of the attached image) because that entire comment was an insult, not a legitimate critique.

Fuck, now you have me defending my shitposts because you're just that retarded.

every american has the god given right to enjoy the burger of his preference

I'm tired and on cough sizzurp, and I'm just trying to go to an inordinate amount of effort to straw-man the post and call it out as a troll because I don't have anything better to do. I'm also frustrated because some dummy in this thread apparently identifies with the image, which means that that shitpost is now being read a legitimate political statement, because I'm actually a shitty writer with decent reading comp.

He' really really boring.

>This is false.
Name one group that is disenfranchised. I am assuming you mean institutionally oppressed.

>How do you expect the free market to solve racial gerrymandering (against whites in Illinois and Maryland; against blacks in Texas)

Are you seriously saying EVERY white person is disenfranchised in those Illinois and Maryland?

I am saying even if one thinks they are oppressed, they can still find a means to live and contribute in some way. For example, a 80IQ woman that sews scarves will make way less than a computer engineer. She will live without a lot of "material" wealth. It is not up to the government to redistribute wealth so that she lives a better life. Not everyone has a high enough IQ to live a comfortable life. Deal with it.

>This is incoherent, and I cannot engage with it.
Your statement is that the global elites want us to think Muslims are bad, what makes you think the elites want us to think Muslims are good. C'mon, Achmed.

Oh, and you're a degenerate too? Even better!

(1/2)
>Name one group that is disenfranchised. I am assuming you mean institutionally oppressed.
The black descendants of slaves in the United States. I'd recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which examines the issue in the context of prisons and criminal justice.
Also in the United States, poor whites from the Appalachian region, where a long history of class conflict, poor education, neglect, and malignant welfare policy has left the region economically and socially devastated, with high unemployment, high rates of drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime, low rates of education, and other assorted endemic problems.
Indians in my own country of Canada, where discrimination by police, judges, and landlords, as well as the Indian Act makes it difficult for those born on reserves (Canuck version of reservations) to leave for an economic climate with greater opportunities, and ensures that those born outside of reserves face an uphill battle from the often terrible conditions into which many Indians are born in the Western prairie provinces. Neglected infrastructure and a long history of oppression, genocide, racism, and cultural criminalization (much of which hasn't ended) means a poor home environment for young Indians. In my province, the murders of white women are almost always solved, while more than 90% of the murderers of Indian women never face justice.
>Are you seriously saying EVERY white person is disenfranchised in those Illinois and Maryland?
Under that vector, sort of. On average, the value of a black vote in Illinois or Maryland is mathematically worth more than the value of a white vote in those states, although this depends on the specific constituency in individual cases, although the overall effect is the same as if it weren't the case. The converse is true in Texas and Oklahoma, alongside many other parts of the South. However, there are other ways in which black people in Baltimore and Chicago are intentionally kept in poverty by the state and the ultra rich. Conflict among the lower classes is good for those in power.
>I am saying even if one thinks they are oppressed, they can still find a means to live and contribute in some way. For example, a 80IQ woman that sews scarves will make way less than a computer engineer. She will live without a lot of "material" wealth. It is not up to the government to redistribute wealth so that she lives a better life. Not everyone has a high enough IQ to live a comfortable life. Deal with it.
Let's examine this inductive argument:
C0: IF A is O, THEN A can L&C
P1. A is O
P2. A ~can L&C
C1: (A is O) & (A ~can L&C)
C1 contradicts C0. (apologies for not using proper notation, but Veeky Forums)
Or more simply, you are arguing that someone who is unable to contribute as much as another can still live sufficiently with enough work. You then argue exactly the opposite, that this person will struggle to live, even if they work their ass off.
(1/2)

(2/2)
Ignoring the incorrect suggestion that IQ is anything more than a coincidental statistical indicator of education and earning, that it is in fact a cause of success (wrong) we can start critiquing the finer points of your invalid argument. We'll substitute the term "stupid" in for "low-IQ". There are many stupid, sometimes even illiterate people who have attained vast wealth. They do this through accident (such as through the lottery, or through litigation), through inheritance (see Liliane Bettancourt, Donald Trump, Alice Walton, Prince Charles etc.), or through illegal or highly immoral means (though this is less common for stupid billionaires). There are many intelligent people of sound mind and body with a strong work ethic who nonetheless fail to achieve wealth. Let Nikola Tesla, Steve Wozniak, and Richard Stallman serve as examples. There are those who (A) have the skills to achieve success, (B) have an open avenue of success, (C) pursue success with strong worth ethics and sound strategy, and who yet (SURPRISE!) still fail. And there are those who bumble into success like Larry, Curly, and Moe, or like Snidely Whiplash.
Now when you put those quote-marks around "material". What exactly is that supposed to indicate? What sort of wealth is immaterial? Are you proposing an economy of love and kindness like a Care Bear?
I'm not arguing for any redistributive policies. I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.
There's a further implication in your commentary that if a demographic is disenfranchised, it must be because that demographic intrinsically has a low IQ because . . . well, that part isn't justified, but basically praise the free market, may its golden goodness trickle down upon us!
>Your statement is that the global elites want us to think Muslims are bad,
Generally, yes. There are some who feel as though that's bad for business, but it's nonetheless a broad tendency in many parts of the world.
>what makes you think the elites want us to think Muslims are good.
I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said and what you understood. Where the fuck are you coming from. While there are certainly various entities to be found within governments and corporations who either do not care or would prefer a lack of conflict ("the elites" are not a monolith any more than any other demographic), it's rather difficult to deny the extreme thread of Islamophobia, fearmongering, stereotyping, and scapegoating coming out of numerous government, NGO, and corporate entities since the declaration of the War on Terror (as though a 15-year-old goatherd in a cave in a desert on the other side of the planet posed any sort of threat to the global imperial mega-hegemony.
>C'mon, Achmed.
Hey! Give me back my white privilege!
(2/2)

Or maybe I just have a bit of a cough, fagboy.

Very interesting read user, thank you.

Pottery

The correct dosage of cough syrup should never have too much of an effect on anything besides your cough

Well yeah, but then I can't get high.

So your argument isn't so much that he's wrong about the law as that you don't care.

Pretty decent understanding of the alt right, even if there's also a bit more historical aspects in play. Love seeing them get triggered at your post tho :')

Apply cold water to the afflicted area.

>I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.

Since you've clearly thought about this a bit, what's your go-to counter for the atlas shrugged argument that by regulating the free market (corporations) into a liberal notion of fairness--workers can eat AND afford decent housing etc--that this will deincentivize seedling and budding capitalists into apathy or art or what the fuck ever until we end up as impoverished as communist China/Russia/Vietnam?

I'm a total nu-male, but I only fit into one or two of those descriptions. Should I try harder?
>tfw can't even grow a respectable hipster beard

what a kant

There's no difference.
>I'm okay with someone else telling me what to do
I really don't like saying this, but: cuck.

Are there any other noteworthy Phycologists that have a lot of free content / lectures online like Peterson has on JewTube?

>tfw you can't tell where your Veeky Forums-inspired contrarianism begins and you end

I wish there was more people like you on Veeky Forums

>>I, in my free time because I'm a fucking loser with no friends, argue against national minimum wage laws, amalgamated labour unions, protectionist regulations, guaranteed basic income, affirmative action, and most forms of welfare.
>Since you've clearly thought about this a bit, what's your go-to counter for the atlas shrugged argument
Oh God Veeky Forums, never change

parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176
This was the bill that was passed in Canada. My problem with it was that gender expression was included, and not just gender identity.