jordan peterson

[qnio]

For some good ol’ fashioned what about it, it should be noted that men also do the ol damaged condom trick or in more extreme cases slip the condom off midway through the act of coitus.

*jots it down*

[roasty]

Cultural appropriation or cultural apartheid is an idea intended to keep the races and cultures pure. To hinder contamination of the dominant culture by external influences, we must support segregation

[Candiru]

If I don't culturally appropriate something every day, I could die of cultural smallpox. 

[YangYing]

 

 

 

^ I agree with your last paragraph (though it's quite possible to be a serious guy in your 50s and to be less nuanced with your social media use than someone who's grown up with the stuff) and partially with your first.

 

But this is silliness: "he sheds no light on the material or psychological realities of the kind of vulnerable men he's exploiting but instead keeps them distracted by irrelevant outrage. and it's very good for business. "

There are literally 10s if not 100s of hours of the guy's university lectures in psychology (from before he blew up re C-16) online.

He's a very engaging lecturer and communicates ideas in ways that people find easy to grasp, hence his popularity.

 

I'm not very interested in the 'cheap outrage' factory coming from all directions (I lie, it's fascinating) but to dismiss the man completely is.............."trite and idiotic".

i'm sorry but this doesn't stand up on it's own terms. we're supposed to value the 100s of hours he spent lecturing on psychology on a professional level and ignore the fact that he publicly throws around "crazy harpy" and "insane" as epithets against his opponents? is this the kind of behavior we should expect from a psychology professional? this comes up on practically every subject he speaks about. he's got years of professional academic experience and he still can't even manage to demonstrate that he has read the texts he holds entire lectures proselytizing about? i'm sorry but his whole analysis of foucault as some suicidal marxist is bad on your own terms -- it's not only historically false but it's extremely stupid analysis.

 

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even stand up to its own terms. 

beat ya to it m9

 

na man but seriously, I don't think this side of the argument you're taking is fair. The philosophy he holds entire lectures proselytizing about  is not postmodernism per se. is the form of postmodernism which is manifesting itself in canadian policies and our policies here in sweden!, which persists on the idea of victims/oppressors... and especially on group guilt and equity  (which from what I understand doesn't align with postmodernism at all (but does with marxism...)) and is retailed most strongly by demonstrations such as this (in which a woman was arrested and found in possession of a garrote). I mean.. how would you refer to people like that in a heated discussion? I'm amazed that he hasn't slipped the ball and said something truly offensive... is what I surely should expect of a person in general being subject to that. 

 

now in regards to your other points.. simply dismissing people as wimps or their discussions as half-baked amateurish reasoning, cheap sensationalism and outright lies. That is your opinion... obviously not in regard to lies which I think you mean in the context of postmodernism.. but I have addressed that. If anything this makes people aware that there is a discussion and Peterson repeatedly sells the idea of individualism and warns that similar ideas as those being implemented into university policies(here and in canada) have been shown in history to lead to catastrophy... and that 

 

it would be better if people tried to solve some real problems, instead of playing these idiot diversity games.

Now the fact that he's making money out of this does not automatically make him a conspiracy theorist exploiting young men.. he's helping young men out of suicide (to which he refers to in the talk above) and all of his content is on youtube for free and unmonetized.

 

I just don't see the bullshit, but as I have stated before it might just be due to the fact that I'm young and naive.

 

I do want to point out that i still love u n ur reviews and fanfics pls don't hate me too much  

 

 

 

MIXL2:

 

but why is one right and the other wrong..? where is the line defined and who defines it? what if I want to learn the native dance? There are for example "buggkurser" here in sweden which would correspond to the "native dance class" . There are also "salsa dance courses" which is a danceform from colombia (my country of origin).. should I be outraged about that? is the problem in the use of language?

This sentence from wiki does a good job summarizing - and yes it can be confusing - but life is generally not an either/or condition.

"...issues of colonialism, context, and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analyzing cultural appropriation."

 

what? thats quite a confusing sentence

 

How is that confusing to you?

 

Because the terms used there are not defined properly. I can not from that draw the line that tells me if I should be outraged by the salsa classes or not.. has my culture in colombia not suffered from colonialism? who the fuck decides that? This is the problem in general with many of these ideas for equity imo they tell you how you should feel in regards to social interactions and if you belong to the oppressive or  "privileged" group you should feel guilt not for yourself as an individual but for your group identity. 

 

imho tbqh                    

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

 

^ I agree with your last paragraph (though it's quite possible to be a serious guy in your 50s and to be less nuanced with your social media use than someone who's grown up with the stuff) and partially with your first.

 

But this is silliness: "he sheds no light on the material or psychological realities of the kind of vulnerable men he's exploiting but instead keeps them distracted by irrelevant outrage. and it's very good for business. "

There are literally 10s if not 100s of hours of the guy's university lectures in psychology (from before he blew up re C-16) online.

He's a very engaging lecturer and communicates ideas in ways that people find easy to grasp, hence his popularity.

 

I'm not very interested in the 'cheap outrage' factory coming from all directions (I lie, it's fascinating) but to dismiss the man completely is.............."trite and idiotic".

i'm sorry but this doesn't stand up on it's own terms. we're supposed to value the 100s of hours he spent lecturing on psychology on a professional level and ignore the fact that he publicly throws around "crazy harpy" and "insane" as epithets against his opponents? is this the kind of behavior we should expect from a psychology professional? this comes up on practically every subject he speaks about. he's got years of professional academic experience and he still can't even manage to demonstrate that he has read the texts he holds entire lectures proselytizing about? i'm sorry but his whole analysis of foucault as some suicidal marxist is bad on your own terms -- it's not only historically false but it's extremely stupid analysis.

 

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even stand up to its own terms. 

beat ya to it m9

 

na man but seriously, I don't think this side of the argument you're taking is fair. The philosophy he holds entire lectures proselytizing about  is not postmodernism per se. is the form of postmodernism which is manifesting itself in canadian policies and our policies here in sweden!, which persists on the idea of victims/oppressors... and especially on group guilt and equity  (which from what I understand doesn't align with postmodernism at all (but does with marxism...)) and is retailed most strongly by demonstrations such as this (in which a woman was arrested and found in possession of a garrote). I mean.. how would you refer to people like that in a heated discussion? I'm amazed that he hasn't slipped the ball and said something truly offensive... is what I surely should expect of a person in general being subject to that. 

 

now in regards to your other points.. simply dismissing people as wimps or their discussions as half-baked amateurish reasoning, cheap sensationalism and outright lies. That is your opinion... obviously not in regard to lies which I think you mean in the context of postmodernism.. but I have addressed that. If anything this makes people aware that there is a discussion and Peterson repeatedly sells the idea of individualism and warns that similar ideas as those being implemented into university policies(here and in canada) have been shown in history to lead to catastrophy... and that 

 

not to be a dick but i believe you are wrong about his criticisms of postmodernism. contrary to the excuse you provide, peterson very explicitly discusses postmodernism per se and when he does he consistently mishandles the subject on both a factual and interpretive level. for instance, i've addressed a specific discussion he had about michel foucault and pointed out that it was riddled with mischaracterization and falsehoods. that's very clearly an instance of peterson giving a speech at a professional level about a key figure in contemporary philosophy and being dead wrong. it's not a matter of opinion whether foucault was a marxist throughout the late 70s or any of the other points i addressed. it's a matter of historical record and peterson gets it wrong. 

 

your comment about "heated discussion" is similarly evasive, imo. the "crazy harpy" stuff was said in a calm discussion he was having in a conference room with camille paglia who was grinning and nodding along with him as he made such claims. he was in no sense being subjected to even mild pushback at the time. similarly, he begins his discussion of foucault by describing him as the most reprehensible guy imaginable. again, not a "heated" moment, just a civil lecture where he can't help but resort to insulting hyperbole instead of making an intelligent point. 

 

itt there is a pretty consistent pattern of people ignoring quite valid criticism or pretending that an alternative context is required to properly understand peterson which strikes me as pretty insincere. 

 

as for the broader point about peterson's concern with dangerous college policy, i'll believe it when i see it. not only have i been unable to find peterson speaking out about any kind of stifling of free speech other than that perpetrated by "sjws" but as i pointed out yesterday he endorsed comments on the issue made by alan dershowitz who is a notorious figure with a disgusting reputation for deceitful attacks against free speech. this is a guy who repeatedly used his prestigious position as well as threats of legal action to stifle campus discussions, and who infamously pressured a university to fire a professor over a personal vendetta in which he shamelessly lied, posted gross insults on his harvard webpage and bullied people to get his way. this makes peterson a pretty flagrant hypocrite and i cannot take some one like that seriously. if you want to read people wringing their hands about sjws just read any media from the nyt oped to fox news and call it a day.

[YangYing]

fair enough man but i got one more posts than u so i win imo

[Alcofribas]

mods pls ban this user for this attack against me

[YangYing]

no don't :(

 

edit: coming back the discuss, i guess it comes down to that we disagree on the kind of person he is.. his stuff just rlly resonates with me and apparently it does with alot of other people. he might be a hypocrite but I just don't believe there is malevolent intent in his actions.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

 

^ I agree with your last paragraph (though it's quite possible to be a serious guy in your 50s and to be less nuanced with your social media use than someone who's grown up with the stuff) and partially with your first.

 

But this is silliness: "he sheds no light on the material or psychological realities of the kind of vulnerable men he's exploiting but instead keeps them distracted by irrelevant outrage. and it's very good for business. "

There are literally 10s if not 100s of hours of the guy's university lectures in psychology (from before he blew up re C-16) online.

He's a very engaging lecturer and communicates ideas in ways that people find easy to grasp, hence his popularity.

 

I'm not very interested in the 'cheap outrage' factory coming from all directions (I lie, it's fascinating) but to dismiss the man completely is.............."trite and idiotic".

i'm sorry but this doesn't stand up on it's own terms. we're supposed to value the 100s of hours he spent lecturing on psychology on a professional level and ignore the fact that he publicly throws around "crazy harpy" and "insane" as epithets against his opponents? is this the kind of behavior we should expect from a psychology professional? this comes up on practically every subject he speaks about. he's got years of professional academic experience and he still can't even manage to demonstrate that he has read the texts he holds entire lectures proselytizing about? i'm sorry but his whole analysis of foucault as some suicidal marxist is bad on your own terms -- it's not only historically false but it's extremely stupid analysis.

 

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even stand up to its own terms. 

beat ya to it m9

 

na man but seriously, I don't think this side of the argument you're taking is fair. The philosophy he holds entire lectures proselytizing about  is not postmodernism per se. is the form of postmodernism which is manifesting itself in canadian policies and our policies here in sweden!, which persists on the idea of victims/oppressors... and especially on group guilt and equity  (which from what I understand doesn't align with postmodernism at all (but does with marxism...)) and is retailed most strongly by demonstrations such as this (in which a woman was arrested and found in possession of a garrote). I mean.. how would you refer to people like that in a heated discussion? I'm amazed that he hasn't slipped the ball and said something truly offensive... is what I surely should expect of a person in general being subject to that. 

 

now in regards to your other points.. simply dismissing people as wimps or their discussions as half-baked amateurish reasoning, cheap sensationalism and outright lies. That is your opinion... obviously not in regard to lies which I think you mean in the context of postmodernism.. but I have addressed that. If anything this makes people aware that there is a discussion and Peterson repeatedly sells the idea of individualism and warns that similar ideas as those being implemented into university policies(here and in canada) have been shown in history to lead to catastrophy... and that 

 

it would be better if people tried to solve some real problems, instead of playing these idiot diversity games.

Now the fact that he's making money out of this does not automatically make him a conspiracy theorist exploiting young men.. he's helping young men out of suicide (to which he refers to in the talk above) and all of his content is on youtube for free and unmonetized.

 

I just don't see the bullshit, but as I have stated before it might just be due to the fact that I'm young and naive.

 

I do want to point out that i still love u n ur reviews and fanfics pls don't hate me too much  

 

 

 

MIXL2:

 

but why is one right and the other wrong..? where is the line defined and who defines it? what if I want to learn the native dance? There are for example "buggkurser" here in sweden which would correspond to the "native dance class" . There are also "salsa dance courses" which is a danceform from colombia (my country of origin).. should I be outraged about that? is the problem in the use of language?

This sentence from wiki does a good job summarizing - and yes it can be confusing - but life is generally not an either/or condition.

"...issues of colonialism, context, and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analyzing cultural appropriation."

 

what? thats quite a confusing sentence

 

How is that confusing to you?

 

Because the terms used there are not defined properly. I can not from that draw the line that tells me if I should be outraged by the salsa classes or not.. has my culture in colombia not suffered from colonialism? who the fuck decides that? This is the problem in general with many of these ideas for equity imo they tell you how you should feel in regards to social interactions and if you belong to the oppressive or  "privileged" group you should feel guilt not for yourself as an individual but for your group identity. 

 

imho tbqh                    

 

 

i'll let chen respond to this but i'd like to mention a few related points.

 

along with xxx, spiral and others you have articulated a frustration people have with sjw rhetoric, specifically with the way they promote guilt and shame for being white or for how they express stupid ideas about free speech or cultural appropriation. while i don't really buy that this is a truly dangerous or serious threat to anyone's free speech atm i'd like to say that generally speaking i agree with you that such ideas are bullshit and that a lot of what passes for "woke discourse" is bogus and sometimes outright harmful (incidentally i am also against "no-platforming" as a political tactic). but what confuses me is why you would overlook the numerous failures of peterson as a public intellectual just bc he calls these people out on their bullshit? you can actually find intelligent discussions of this issue that do not resort to petty outrage and mendacity. for instance, this is a very well-done piece on the call-out culture of the left written by some one who peterson would doubtlessly ridicule as a demonic marxist:

 

http://www.thenorthstar.info/2013/11/22/exiting-the-vampire-castle/

 

here's an article by another leftist which discusses cultural appropriation:

 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/09/cultural-appropriation-culture-amiri-baraka (note that this piece critiques an article by bari weiss who is ideologically aligned with peterson on the issue. the author also wrote this piece which is a good account of peterson's appeal and its relevance to the left and it seems quite relevant to this thread: https://medium.com/@shujaxhaider/what-makes-life-shitty-e739902b2529)

 

whatever you might think about the value of these two articles i think they both present a picture that seriously problematizes peterson's cartoon narrative about "the left," "marxism," and the so-called battle for free speech rights. the reality is that the debate is far more complex and nuanced than the cute picture peterson provides in which he is the Sane Man defending Common Sense agains the insane left who are simply comprised of the pathetic green-haired hordes that occupy autopilot's imagination.

 

i'm not suggesting you or anyone ought to read such articles and become anticapitalists or something, i'm merely pointing out that peterson is deceiving people about the kinds of discussion that really go on among "postmodernists" or "cultural marxists" and i think there is a reason he ignores the discussion beyond the level of crazy sjws.

[YangYing]

why did chen delete his post? anyway, now this feels more like a discussion... I will agree that I am uninformed in the depth of the debate, and from what you and the articles say perhaps so is Peterson. However the reason why I resonate with his way of viewing things is because of the way in which the legislation in Sweden has been affected.. In universities all aspects of the university must follow the "gender-mainstreaming" or however you would translate it. We have a goal that by 2020 that 40% of professors must be women and that regardless of the course 40% of the literature has to be from female authors which is ludicrous for disciplines that have not had many female authors. The press cannot even propose to discuss correlations between transphobia and mental illness. Ffs our leader for the radical left party was accused of sexual harassment and came out with a statement basically saying "yes I'm responsible, and because I say I'm responsible I'm better than other men" again pushing this bs about group-guilt.. and man, people are just tired of it.

 

So from my way of seeing it the danger to free speech is real and quite unsettling.

 

I think the reason he ignores the discussion or that he appears to is that perhaps he is not exposed to it. By the nature of the internet, one vid of Peterson and all you will see for the next week is the anti-sjw cookie cutter bs u talk about. Now this is hypocritical of him since he is so influential, but then again he suddenly became influential and came into the political debate from that side so I still give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I don't know.. these just sound like excuses but my bottom line is that I do not believe there is malevolent intent his work and lectures to strengthen the individual shouldn't be ignored.. he has talked against both the extreme left and the alt-right... and from the amount of content I have seen of him I think he just wants to prevent the wonderful society we have from plunging into another catastrophe of totalitaniarism .

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

MIXL2:

 

but why is one right and the other wrong..? where is the line defined and who defines it? what if I want to learn the native dance? There are for example "buggkurser" here in sweden which would correspond to the "native dance class" . There are also "salsa dance courses" which is a danceform from colombia (my country of origin).. should I be outraged about that? is the problem in the use of language?

This sentence from wiki does a good job summarizing - and yes it can be confusing - but life is generally not an either/or condition.

"...issues of colonialism, context, and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analyzing cultural appropriation."

what? thats quite a confusing sentence

How is that confusing to you?

Because the terms used there are not defined properly. I can not from that draw the line that tells me if I should be outraged by the salsa classes or not.. has my culture in colombia not suffered from colonialism? who the fuck decides that? This is the problem in general with many of these ideas for equity imo they tell you how you should feel in regards to social interactions and if you belong to the oppressive or "privileged" group you should feel guilt not for yourself as an individual but for your group identity.

 

imho tbqh

Man you trolling....you don’t need anyone or a line to tell you when to feel outrage.

Just think about the context. Did Sweden colonize Colombia? Did salsa draw from colonial Europe’s music in its origins and development?

Can you maybe see how this is different from some college bros in blackface and Afro wigs for Halloween in the US?

 

Edit: sorry I deleted the previous post cause the formatting was all messed up and I was at work and couldn’t fix it.

[Alcofribas]

i've gotta run in a sec but quickly i'd like to point out that i don't think there's any reason to provide peterson with the benefit of the doubt here. if he lacks exposure he's still being dishonest bc he makes his living in part by espousing his views on the topic. 

 

as for your concern for sweden i agree there are many problems with bureaucratic representational solutions. but frankly i don't see what peterson offers to the discussion besides stirring the pot. he's a bad critic and he has no analysis. 

[YangYing]

@Chen I will read more on the subject

 

@Alco I stress the point of his work for strengthening the individual, which has helped me and seems to help others. I'm not disagreeing in that he might be a bad critic. I'm new to the debate and thus really don't know much about this.

 

edit: I also stand by that i don't think there is malevolent intent behind his actions.. but ye thanks for the discussion watmm

 

edit2: i also still got one more posts than u REKT

[Salvatorin]

the argument isn’t about whether he has “malevolent intent”. it is about contesting the intellectual rigor that many people seem to be ascribing to him.

[YangYing]

the argument isn’t about whether he has “malevolent intent”. it is about contesting the intellectual rigor that many people seem to be ascribing to him.

na man alco kept implying it. saying that he thought there was a reason behind him wilfully ignoring parts of the discussion and before that by acussing him of exploiting young men for profit.

 

I also dont think a person being a hypocrite or ignorant nessesarily means that they are an idiot.. or that everything they say is bs.

[zaphod]

 

life changing stuff here, really deep

[qnio]

[YangYing]

[Alcofribas]

 

this really resonates with me man. thanks for sharing. got a lot to think about now

 

life changing stuff here, really deep

[triachus]

A quiet street occupied with rows of single, individual houses basks in silence and serenity as all single, male individual inhabitants are asleep at night.

 

But a dark wind blows. As a faint sound is heard in the distance. An individual feels the subtle change in serenity so hard that he wakes up. He opens the curtains. The sound is getting closer. He looks outside and sees flickering red and blue lights in the distance. A siren.

More individuals have woken up and more curtains have been opened as they all look towards the flickering lights. The siren is getting louder.

By this time, the whole street has woken up and opened curtains. All heads are turned towards the flickering lights who are getting closer and whose siren has now replaced all silence and serenity the street once basked in. All individual heads collectively turn as they follow the vehicle driving by. When it passed each house, the inhabitants heads snapped forward, looking straight in the eyes of their neighbour across the street, and they all gave eachother the same look. A look that said "A firetruck!"

 

All inhabitants rush to the street in shirts, boxers, bathrobes. There was no time to dress. They gaze at the direction the firetruck is driving towards. They see a flickering orange light in the distance. Above that, a thick dark plume of smoke was being illuminated by the orange light, making it visible against the dark sky of the night that had no sun.

 

"Is that... ?" one individual asks.

 

"... It is!" one individual answers.

 

All individuals collectively run out of the street, only to find more individuals from the next street, and the street after that. The whole town is woke. And they all make haste towards the fire.

 

The square in front of the burning building slowly fills up with a crowd. When the whole town has fully gathered on the (pretty big tbh) square, one individual confirms everyone's fear:

 

"It's the museum!"

 

 

The Museum Dedicated To The Real Victims Of The Left has gone alight, much to everyone's dismay. The crowd stares in silence, listening to the sounds of the crackling and snapping of the burning building. One individual breaks the silence:

 

"Another victim of the left!"

 

The crowd riles up. A blurting cacophony rumbles of individuals going "ANOTHER victim of" followed by a leftist term. "Identity politics!" one proclaimed. "Antifa!" another proclaimed. One focused individual yelled "Hey! What about the firetruck?"

 

The crowd goes silent like a street basked in serenity but without the serenity as they turn towars the firetruck next to the building. They look at the single, individual firemale who is kneeling on the ground, with his head hanging in shame. "I could not do it" the firemale said. "I could not handle the hose, I could not handle the valve, I could not even handle the weight of my gear, for I no longer have my masculinity."

 

An individual steps forward from the crowd and bends over the firemale, analyzing his condition. The individual turns and proclaimed: "ANOTHER victim of the left!". The crowd repeats their blurting cacophony. "Socialism!" one said. "I'm OK with TERFs!" proclaimed another. The crowd howls and bellows louder and louder.

 

But the commotion slowly died, starting from the back, as a dark trenchoated Figure pushes through the crowd. Every single individual is at a loss for words as they see The Figure walk out of the crowd and stops in front of the burning building. The bright light produced by the flames make it hard to see any identity defining features on the figure, apart from it totally being a dude amirite, and they only see a dark silhoutte. The Figure firmly clenches his fists and holds his head down. He stands like that for a while as the whole square is rebasked in silence.

 

A drop of liquid drips in front of The Figure's shoes. Which is soon followed by another drop. And another drop. A rain of drops. The rain gets thicker and has turned into two spurting streams of clear liquid. The Figure then snaps his head forward, the streams of liquid pointed at the building, and runs toward the burning museum.

 

"Figure, no!" A crowd individual yells. But the Figure does not yield and jumps into the fire. A loud hiss is heard. Steam is rising out the windows of burning rooms. A spinning orb of steam and water is seen jumping in and out of windows to various floors, sliding over the outer walls and rooftop. Every room the orb of steam jumps in has its flames reduced. The whole building gets engulfed in steam until it is no longer visible and only the hissing can be heard.

 

The hissing ends. The steam cloaking the building evaporates. All the flames are gone. All that is left is a scorched building with blackened walls and untidy rooms. In front of the building is the spinning orb of steam. Its spinning slows down as the steam vaporizes. It's The Figure, hunched down, his trenchcoat bloated with lumps. He stands up. Two small clouds of steam are still in front of his eyes as the last drops of tears fall down. The steam is gone. Two beautiful brown-greenish eyes stare at the crowd. A collective gasp.

 

"It's our town mayor, Jordan Bernt Peterson!". As if moved by an unseen force, the crowd shuffled apart so they were no longer standing as a group but as individuals.

 

"It is true. Let it be known. I am Jordan Bernt Peterson, as I say unto you" said Jordan Bernt Peterson unto them, which is what prophets tend to do.

 

"What happened?" Asked the crowd.

 

"Well," said the Jordan Bernt Peterson, "My investigation concluded that in the 'LOL @ This' exhibition room, the Scroll Of Pronouns & Spectrumgenders turned aflame. A museum worker, the only single individual working in the museum (rip now btw), was adding more terms to the scroll. A job that never ends, hence why he was working at night. The scroll became so long and large, he did not notice it was too near his tiny heating stove that he heats with coal for he has no central heating because communism won. A very tiny speck of smoldering ember that wasn't even that big of a deal has set the very delicate and sensitive material of the scroll aflame in such a fiery blazing hellfury that was disproportionate compared to the instigation. The burning scroll, whose size occupied many clean rooms, reached the exhibition room about Intersectional Feminism-"

 

The crowd interrupted: "And it all just spread from there!" they collectively yelled, as they all laughed, cheered and patted eachother on the back.

 

"That's right!" said The Bernt. "And to think. If this was a museum dedicated to Postmodernism & Cultural Marxism, I would not have cried and I would have died. So tell me, who do we have to blame for this?"

 

A single male individual who does not follow nor get himself influenced by any ideology whatsoever yelled: "The left!"

 

The Brent tapped his nose and made a funny kermit sound.

 

 

"But what did you manage to save?"

 

The Bernt turns serious. He looks at his lumped trenchcoat. "I managed to save... the real victims."

 

He opened his trenchcoat and lo, hundreds of tiny cylinder-shaped velvet bags fall down and roll forward. The crowd steps back aghast.

 

The Bernt grabbed a velvet bag, and held it up. He grabbed the top, and slid down the velvet. Revealing a shriveled purple helmet-shaped form. Further sliding reveales a light beige-like stick. A single male walks out of the crowd and falls to his knees in front of The Bernt

 

"That's... that's mine" he said. I ... I never got to use it... THEY made sure I never got to use it. They filled me with so much insecurity and guilt. It just shriveled and fell off. I donated it to the museum. I came to visit almost every day."

 

Jordan Bernt Peterson put his hand on the kneeling individual's head, and turned towards the crowd. "My demographic" he said. "I have found a way... A way to regain what has been taken from you, to revive what is lost. OBSERVE!"

 

The crowd observes as Jordan Bernt Peterson looks at the shriveled purple helmet jutting out of the bag, brings it closer to his mouth. He opened his mouth, and slid it inside, as a bit of spit dribbled down his chin. He took the real victim outof his mouth with a loud POP, as the crowd turned shocked.

 

Peterson held the velvet bag upwards, and the crowd was almost blinded by the gleaming light of the purple helmet, for it was no longer shriveled.

 

"BEHOLD!" said The Bernt unto them. "I have discovered during my steamy crying that what has shriveled these real victims was the fact that they have never been wet. So hence thereforth," The Bernt looked at the individual who was still kneeling before him, and lowered the velvet bag at crotch height. "We shalleth make them wet."

 

The individual struggled. "I... I don't know... I don't think I can do this. I don't think I want to. Maybe I don't even really need it!"

 

"You... deny? Your own manhood? Hmm. So what you're saying is," said Jordan, "is that you're a biology denier?"

 

"No! oh, no no no no. Don't wanna be that!" Said the individual, and he started to gobble enthusiatically.

 

Peterson turned to the crowd with open arms and yelled "Are you all biology deniers?!"

 

The crowd moved forward and they all grabbed a velvet bag.

 

 

The night ended. The first rays of the morning sun gleamed over the square as they were all sucking bags of dicks.

 

 

"Let it be known" said Jordan Bernt Peterson unto them "That I have saved your masculinity."

 

"As what?" a single individual asked.

 

Jordan Bernt Peterson's eyes welled up with tears again. But they did not drip down. For they remained building up around his eyes until they submerged his entire eyesockets, building up pressure.

 

 

"As a single male individual" said Jordan Bernt Peterson. The pressured pool of tears shot out of his eyes and killed 7 people and he went to jail for that.

[YangYing]

fuck off

 

edit: I'm not reading all that

[Alcofribas]

triachus has completed the thread

 

this thread is now complete

[autopilot]

[autopilot]

[YangYing]

triachus has completed the thread

 

this thread is now complete

na man look at those super spicy autopilot memes, this thread is back on track fo shure