Jordan Peterson - Images
Peterson during the debate
Jordan Peterson
I wonder where they got that idea from
Jordan Peterson
we was born eating from the trashcan
Jordan Peterson
"Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek debating (2019, colorized)"
Jordan Peterson
Steamed lobsters
Jordan Peterson
Cool new ideas
Jordan Peterson
Zizek spitting fire at Peterson
Jordan Peterson
Missing JP's point
Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson photo with fans
Jordan Peterson
Larry Sharpe - Why Do You Hate Teachers? - Joe Rogan
Jordan Peterson
AMA
Jordan Peterson
The Power Team
Jordan Peterson
Rules 4 Virgins
Jordan Peterson
Dropping the memes for a second and bringing in arguments. And some complimentary insults.
![Anonymous 07/21/17 (Fri) 18:32:26 No.1887814 >>1885107 Anonymous07/20/17 (Thu) 23:35:51 No.18851071887814 1884973 Anonymous 07/20/17 (Thu) 22:29:46 No.1884973 1885107 :>>1884755 Anonymous 07/20/17 (Thu) 20:25:12 No. 1884755 1884973 21884981 1857860 Anonymous 07/12/17 (Wed) 03:39:06 No.1857860 1857975 1858040 1884755 : : : : File (hide): 191 92foee06cd6a-.jpg (39.67 KB. 587x316, 587316, jordan b peterson s a mor JPG)(h) (u) G ШЫПК Jordan B Peterson 1856532 (OP) Follow Why does /pol/ love Jordan Peterson so much? Anonymous 07/11/17 Tue) 18:45:11 No.18565322 1856572 >>1856622 >>1856634 2 1857 152 2 1857666 1857860 > 1858859 : : Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without 18608621882475 Watch Thread] [Show All Posts] : Is it because of all the stuff about archetypes? He basically vomits out ideas of actual thinkers like Joseph Campbell and Aristotle and many others, and rightwingers, being rightwingers, never heard these ideas before and :an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in :Gd is a prerequisite for all proof 03 PM-25 NOW 201 become suitably entranced. Sadly, Peterson doesn't add any of his own, but it's not like he needs to. In fact, that could be detrimental. Pic related. Then he finishes by conflating ogue buzzwords like "cultural Marxism", "postmodernism" and "Frankfurt school", and presto, his idiotic viewers think they just received a revelation from the archangel Gabriel himself and come back for more. Absolutely nothing keeps people coming back more than making them feel smart. I only cringed at his statements about politics, but as I person educated en formal logic who has actually read Godel, I marvel at how can people take him seriously after that tweet. Irefuse to believe that none of the STEMlords who seem to follow guys like this called him on that b-------. : lain What this guy did is t Godel didn't prove anything about proof without axiom ruc of the most coward truisms I've seen d given the fact that I'm h it's given that I liket about irectly provide example of why we need t efully our axioms with his "Ontological Proof inclusion of Godel doesn't add anything beyond attempting to earn credibility by some ggots who might have heard the name of the logician, but lack erstanding of his work and use it as an authority argument of Peterson's beliefs Still by the reason I mentioned before, provides an easy escape if anyone tries to challenge his claims. He can just weasel out claiming that the intention of the tweet was to say that belief is necessary befor y proof of god, and beca of brevity he just sually omitted the last part, which would fit i r the necessary ence to Godel needed to ment t thi the trilli didn t, but a f------ sneaky b uld have used scholas iloso sider him ignorant, now I'm pretty s ven gr urpose, but that e target e guy Is in Of course ely to know that all the says about c al marxism s book is just false, before this tweet l liberately misleading Seems more likely rring to Godel's incompleteness theorem in that tweet. Which is substantially more well known I with the logical systems wr ince logical completeness othi o with requiring axioms to prove thin Also olding axiomsfaith in god](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/399/607/1e9.png)
![Anonymous 07/21/17 (Fri) 18:32:26 No.1887814 >>1885107 Anonymous07/20/17 (Thu) 23:35:51 No.18851071887814 1884973 Anonymous 07/20/17 (Thu) 22:29:46 No.1884973 1885107 :>>1884755 Anonymous 07/20/17 (Thu) 20:25:12 No. 1884755 1884973 21884981 1857860 Anonymous 07/12/17 (Wed) 03:39:06 No.1857860 1857975 1858040 1884755 : : : : File (hide): 191 92foee06cd6a-.jpg (39.67 KB. 587x316, 587316, jordan b peterson s a mor JPG)(h) (u) G ШЫПК Jordan B Peterson 1856532 (OP) Follow Why does /pol/ love Jordan Peterson so much? Anonymous 07/11/17 Tue) 18:45:11 No.18565322 1856572 >>1856622 >>1856634 2 1857 152 2 1857666 1857860 > 1858859 : : Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without 18608621882475 Watch Thread] [Show All Posts] : Is it because of all the stuff about archetypes? He basically vomits out ideas of actual thinkers like Joseph Campbell and Aristotle and many others, and rightwingers, being rightwingers, never heard these ideas before and :an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in :Gd is a prerequisite for all proof 03 PM-25 NOW 201 become suitably entranced. Sadly, Peterson doesn't add any of his own, but it's not like he needs to. In fact, that could be detrimental. Pic related. Then he finishes by conflating ogue buzzwords like "cultural Marxism", "postmodernism" and "Frankfurt school", and presto, his idiotic viewers think they just received a revelation from the archangel Gabriel himself and come back for more. Absolutely nothing keeps people coming back more than making them feel smart. I only cringed at his statements about politics, but as I person educated en formal logic who has actually read Godel, I marvel at how can people take him seriously after that tweet. Irefuse to believe that none of the STEMlords who seem to follow guys like this called him on that b-------. : lain What this guy did is t Godel didn't prove anything about proof without axiom ruc of the most coward truisms I've seen d given the fact that I'm h it's given that I liket about irectly provide example of why we need t efully our axioms with his "Ontological Proof inclusion of Godel doesn't add anything beyond attempting to earn credibility by some ggots who might have heard the name of the logician, but lack erstanding of his work and use it as an authority argument of Peterson's beliefs Still by the reason I mentioned before, provides an easy escape if anyone tries to challenge his claims. He can just weasel out claiming that the intention of the tweet was to say that belief is necessary befor y proof of god, and beca of brevity he just sually omitted the last part, which would fit i r the necessary ence to Godel needed to ment t thi the trilli didn t, but a f------ sneaky b uld have used scholas iloso sider him ignorant, now I'm pretty s ven gr urpose, but that e target e guy Is in Of course ely to know that all the says about c al marxism s book is just false, before this tweet l liberately misleading Seems more likely rring to Godel's incompleteness theorem in that tweet. Which is substantially more well known I with the logical systems wr ince logical completeness othi o with requiring axioms to prove thin Also olding axiomsfaith in god](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/399/607/1e9.png)
Jordan Peterson
Frozen is propaganda apparantly
![- roe 89 points 1 year ago Good evening Dr. Peterson. 1. In a previous AMA (on youtube) you've called Frozen - and other later era Disney movies-"propaganda"- that is, only half the truth. This probably has to do with the presentation of masculine/feminine achetypes. Can you expand? 2. How does one choose, and adhere to, transcendent values without falling into ideological possession? It seems to me both things involve service to a higher value. Thank you! permalink embed save give gold I-A drjordanbpeterson [S] 103 points 1 year ago Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art. Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not. permalink embed unsave parent give gold](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/399/149/bf7.png)
![- roe 89 points 1 year ago Good evening Dr. Peterson. 1. In a previous AMA (on youtube) you've called Frozen - and other later era Disney movies-"propaganda"- that is, only half the truth. This probably has to do with the presentation of masculine/feminine achetypes. Can you expand? 2. How does one choose, and adhere to, transcendent values without falling into ideological possession? It seems to me both things involve service to a higher value. Thank you! permalink embed save give gold I-A drjordanbpeterson [S] 103 points 1 year ago Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art. Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not. permalink embed unsave parent give gold](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/399/149/bf7.png)
Jordan Peterson
Don't blame others
Jordan Peterson
