-
.jpeg "What Is A 'Pink Tote Lid Moment'? How A TikTok About A Girl's Fight With Her Mom Created A New Slang Term")
What Is A 'Pink Tote Lid Moment'? How A TikTok About A Girl's Fight With Her Mom Created A New Slang Term -
'The Children Yearn For The Mines' Meme Mentioned In New 'A Minecraft Movie' Trailer, Sparking Renewed Interest In Child Labor -
What Is The Name Of The Public Healthcare System Of Brazil And Why Shouldn't You Google It? The Viral Meme Explained -
What's Up With Sunday From 'Honkai Star Rail' And His 'Charmony Dove' Copypasta? The 'One Day, After Dinner' Meme Explained -
Who Is The Harris Family On TikTok And What Are The Allegations Against Them?
+6
So what you're saying is... / You're saying what I keep saying you're saying, even though you won't say it
Uploaded by Don Jan 22, 2018 at 04:05PM EST
so what you're saying is cathy newman
Origin Entry: Jordan Peterson
File type: jpg
Resolution: (596px x 505px)
File size: 84.3 KB
More:
![BEYOND LEFT v. RIGHT: A WORKED EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR QUADRANT MODEL This prototype depicts my Four Quadrant Model of Interaction between Institutional Media promoting the Gated Institutional Narrative (On Diagonal) and an Intellectual Dark Web off-Narrative (Counter Diagonal) when applied to the Interview of Prof. Jordan Peterson by Channel 4 News. -@EricRWeinstein Actual) Prof. Jordan Peterson [Institutional/Corporate News] Channel 4 News FIRST PRINCIPLE THINKERS So you're really saying that... DUPES CONTRAR丨ANS RENT SEEKING POLICY SUPPORT FOR USING THE LAW FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING TROGLODYTES RENT SEE KIN G ELITE S (Fictionalized) "Controversial Professor Jordan Peterson"](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/335/167/250.jpg_large "Eric Weinstein's Four Quadrant Model")
+6
Jordan Peterson - So what you're saying is... / You're saying what I keep saying you're saying, even though you won't say it
| ◄ Previous | View Gallery Random Image | Next ► |
![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/list/001/399/607/1e9.png "Dropping the memes for a second and bringing in arguments. And some complimentary insults.")
Comments (0)
Add a Comment
Image Details
18,363 views (0 from today)
Uploaded Jan 22, 2018 at 04:05PM EST
Origin Entry
Source
About the Uploader
Don
Administrator & Meme Daddy
There are no comments currently available.
Display Comments