ITT: stupid man's smart person

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cwiJlQUrwdA
youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k
youtube.com/watch?v=kL61yQgdWeM&feature=youtu.be
youtube.com/watch?v=d1dZq8IZxLI
youtube.com/watch?v=kL61yQgdWeM&t=3913s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Nobody would call that guy smart.

...

At least he's right. Even if most of its common sense and the rest babbie first psychology course.

When is his socialist revolution going to happen?

This guy was interesting at first but after a couple videos you realize he just talks about the video title for like 2 seconds then rambles about the same shit he always does. I'm not particularly fond of his evolutionary psychology perspective on everything either.
>The snake in the bible is representative of the dangerous snake in the jungle!
Yeah, I don't think so Mr. Peterson. He also seems to struggle taking a stand on things.
>It can be good, but also can be bad
And then of course he's always stating obvious shit that internet autists consider revelations
>Women like strong men who take no shit
NO FUCKING WAY. Throw in some "intellectual" fluff such as rambling about postmodernists, something the layperson has no idea of its meaning, and you have a recipe for people thinking they're listening to a "genius". Seriously, what the fuck does this guy even talk about besides
>Psychologically analyzing disney movies
>Jung jung jung jung jung
>Muh alphas, betas
>Feminists and post modernists
>basic life advice bullshit

[name of someone whose politics I disagree with]

>stating obvious shit
And whenever he does, the left loses its collective shit claiming he's every *ist in the book

...

russell btfo

youtube.com/watch?v=cwiJlQUrwdA

jordan btfo

youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k

Classic pop intellectual.

>stating obvious shit
Yeah, this clown's entire shtick is dressing up basic stuff in fancy terms so the couple morons who genuinely fell for PC bullshit (as opposed to playing along to get along) can feel like it's not their fault and you actually have to be very learned in history, philosophy and psychology to see these obvious lies for obvious lies, as opposed to just not being a complete fucking imbecile.

Then these mental midgets turn around and parrot the infantalizing "clean your room" meme their cult leader amazes them with to us, their betters. Reality check: normal people don't have to be told that in our mid twenties, you pathetic lowlives.

Real life? Neil Degrasse Tyson. He is a smart man in terms of his field of expertise and general basic scientific principles, but it's painful obvious he doesn't have a clue when discussing theoretical physics. Or maybe he does know, but dumbs it down for the layman. Either way I just get a feeling of insincerity. He's teaching people to be interested in science fiction, not science.

I respect the man and believe he is a smart man, but laymen seem to think he's a super genius, when really he's just par average for a scientist. Still a great guy even if his cult of personality is agitating.

Fictional? Sheldon, TV Sherlock Holmes, Bones, basically any smart TV character that shows only a vague understanding of their supposed specialty.

say what you will about Brand but this conversation was genius
youtube.com/watch?v=kL61yQgdWeM&feature=youtu.be

...

t. dirty room dwellers

>watching 2 hour long videos
no thanks

Bill nye
Neil dregrasse tyson

People don't get that NDG is just a great orator. Normies seem to think he's some sort scientific genius, but he's just a (probably very good) astrophysicist that's really good at talking about science.

he might be right about jungian psychology but he know fucking nothing about postmodernism

Explain why.

I doubt he's good relative to his scientific peers. Has accomplished any more than the average astrophysicist, apart from making documentaries for redditors?

wtf sam is kind of jacked?

for one thing he often conflates postmodernism and marxism, postmodernism starts with a skepticism of metanarratives, shit like a concrete idea of progress. Marxism is predicated on a historical dialectic, the idea that history is the motive force and that society and economy are the medium through which it acts, thats a pretty huge metanarrative. There are resolutions to this but it's more complicated than JBP makes out. He also seems to think derrida and foucault are marxists when most of their work is analysing language and subjectivity. Anyone who thinks postmodernism is just 'dude anything goes' is either an idiot or arguing in bad faith. If you want an actual introduction to postmodernism/20th century philosophy i highly reccomend rick rodericks lecture series 'the self under seige'. I'm not saying derrida and foucault are geniuses or right about everything, but it triggers the fuck out of me when JBP is clearly just pulling shit out of his arse, I wouldn't expect authority if i were to lecture him on jung, idk why anyone takes him seriously about postmodern philosophy
youtube.com/watch?v=d1dZq8IZxLI

Well, I don't really follow the field of astrophysics, nor do I know much about astrophysics, but he seems to have won some noteable awards based on his scientific work, and he is the head of a pretty big planetarium. That last part probably isn't all that relevant here, but I doubt you get a position like that unless you are somewhat respected in your field. It seems to me like you judge him based on his fanbase.

>Ben Shapiro SLAUGHTERS leftie SJW professor

Clearly it's Ben Shapiro. Mr. Gish Gallop himself.

Cool, I'll check that out.

So what makes the posters ITT believe they're not part of the "stupid" group?

Brand is kino.
He's one of the few lefties willing to take in alternative ideas rather than going full sjw.

We need him to bridge the gap to the insane leftists.

...

Common sense is contemptible by the left, which is why he has any renown at all.

It's an indicator for how sad society has gotten.

>itt just came to Sup Forums after reading my favorite hit piece site or /r/destinybonnell

youtube.com/watch?v=kL61yQgdWeM&t=3913s

calm down kermit

Shapiro's only good at debating because he's very good at predicting what his opponent will say against him. He complements this by talking fast so they can't really wrap their head around what he's saying to give anything beyond generic talking points. Anybody who knows how he is going into a debate can beat him easily, though he'd still post about how he DESTROYED them on his website.

got a good chuckle out of this to be honest.

>tfw read the gulag archipelago, a message to the soviet leaders and one day in the life of ivan denisovich and am still a leftist

...

dat image iz brettygud bruther.
>*clap*clap*clap*

fpbp

Not him but...

>"I fucking love science! I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is the shit!"

Can you blame him?

>Can you blame him?
Yes. I know this new pop-science trend is cancerous, but you should never judge someone based on their fans. I knew R&M fans were human garbage, but I had to watch the show in order to find out that it was garbage too. I hate Breaking Bad fanboys, bit I still think it's a good show.

...

>Dumb failures criticizing the celebrated and successful: the thread

Losers.
Also
>Sup Forums - Television & Film

He's an e-dad for role model-less millenials

Joe Rogan
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris

>postmodernism is about deconstructing metanarratives
>the argumentative tools made up by postmodernists are used by feminists and critical theorists to construct metanarratives around gender, race, and colonialism
Good fucking job. At least Peterson recognizes the inherent nihilism of postmodernism, even if he is wrong on the details.

Which celebrity are you/which celebrity in this thread do you love you fucking assblasted brainlet fucking FAGGOT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>post-modernism is bad because some people use it for their own means
Brainlet and a tripfag. I'm not surprised.

...

>Joe Rogan
Are there really people who think he's smart?

>/r/destinybonnell

still undefeated
56 debates with the alt-right
56-0

>this one cultural institution is bullshit
>why is it bullshit you ask?
>well because its origin is arbitrary, or once served the purpose of the elites
The main problem with postmodernism is that it completely discounts the psychological function certain mores or institutions serve. They genuinely don't believe in human nature, which is why there's so much alienation and atomization in the societies their ideas ruin.

he's not at all, russel is just tall and anorexic.

I realise you don't like atheists, but come on user. Richard Dawkins is an incredibly well respected evolutionary biologist. Not just as an atheist, critic of religiond and author, but as a serious academic.
No one thinks Joe Rogan is smart.

he does jiu jitsu, and is apparently pretty good

>>well because its origin is arbitrary
You might wanna learn what post-modernism is before embarassing your self like this.

Peterson acknowledges the contradiction between the postmodern rejection of grand narratives and the cultural marxist acceptanse of the marxist grand narrative. His point is the nihilism of post modernism leaves one with nothing to do, and so nihilistic thinkers embraced the resentment fueled philosophy of marxist class struggle, but since they knew economic marxism wasnt viable anymore after the horrors of the 20th century, in a sleight of hand they changed it to racial, gender and sexuality group struggle.

...

He is actually smart.

this is the correct answer

A lot of people say he's smart, in interviews, and his fanbase. He's not stupid but he's really sure of his convictions.

I know Richard Dawkins is a good scientist and did important work in his youth, but the issue is when talks about politics, religion, or ties philosophy. I get that there needs to be a "popular" scientist type in the media but Carl Sagan will never be topped.

What's up with the cut at 1:30:55 on the Sam Harris video?

He was a bit knowledgeable about politics, but when it came to economy he was borderline retarded. Ironic.

...

jamie pull that up

Postmodern philosophy is wrong because they claim, since there is an infinite number of ways to interpret the world, there is no 'one correct one'. This is false. The most correct interpretation is the one that is most useful to decrease suffering.

Are you kidding? Post-structuralists argue this all the time. They think that certain mores, conventions, and positions of dominance arose due to arbitrary historical accidents, or as a response to material conditions that no longer exist. They don't think that the human psychology evolved in those conditions, which is why they're okay with explaining them away and replacing them with their own ideas.

fpbp

stupid person's smart directors:
Villenueve and Nolan, maybe Inarritu

That reminds me, Christopher Hitchens is a stupid mans "smart person"

I wouldn't belittle the intelligence of a professor, but I also think people overrate his intelligence because he talks over people with high concepts that he doesn't attempt to break down or explain in any way to maintain intellectual dominance and get his point across.

The reason you get moments like SO YOU'RE SAYING is because he refuses to dumb down his speech so it doesn't sound like an excerpt from his fucking dissertation.

Yikes. I didn’t know they allowed brainlets on Sup Forums

>Heh heh, if liberals are so against the exploitation of workers, the how come they ... *lens flare eyes* WEAR CLOTHES?
Video title: Godlike Shapiro DESTROYS communist loon with logic, data and facts

...

t. Utilitarian
How’s baby’s first philosophy working out for you?

>Post-structuralists argue this all the time
Not really. Like I said, try to get your information from the source and not from middle aged frauds with patreon accounts.

>nuh uh
>nope
>shut up you Peterson fanboy
Great responses on your part

ITT: assflustered redditors

>it-it's wrong because daddy Peterson said so! muh cultural marxism which doesn't even begin to make sense as a concept!
I'm just playing at your level, champ.

u realise by putting words in 'their' mouths you come off as ignorant? like the 'so you're saying' woman. Can you cite me a post modernist or post structuralist making such a sophmoric point?

ITT: the smart man's smart person

If you disagree with this, then you havent looked into it.

Your "correct" interpretation of the world calls for immediate nuclear holocaust of all life on earth, saving billions of beings from being born and eventually suffering, as well as saving every extant living thing from suffering in the future

Is that the most correct?

he got BTFO by his favorite writer a decade after he died

My own university professors, they claim any and all categorization of for example types of literature is useless and/or arbitrary since no text fits ONLY in one category.

Anyone who will disagree didn't see this video I watched, they look fake to me

fpbp

these x10000

he's really not though, free speech is something all normal people supported even before he came around, SJWs were always and still are unanimously unpopular, retard faggots like jordan peterson calling himself counter culture is just dead wrong, that cunt is THE culture

Id say nuclear holocaust would add significantly to suffering.

None of my arguments have to do with Peterson or what Peterson argues. I even conceded that he was wrong about the details of postmodernism. I know you're aware that you're strawmanning me, but there are people who actually use Peterson's partial ignorance to defend postmodernism as a whole. "If you think postmodernism is toxic you must be a right wing Peterson-loving conspiracy theorist who rages about muh cultural marxism on Sup Forums"

>Gets criticized for talking about the same simple concepts repeatedly using simple vocabulary
>dude dumb it down more

Just because few people like the dominant sjw culture doesnt mean majority opninion=dominant culture. What about hollywood, mainstream media, politicians pushing sjw culture?

>I even conceded that he was wrong about the details of postmodernism
Then why can't you admit you're wrong too?

The thing is that our culture is really fragmented right now. Peterson's ideas are mainstream in certain institutions, but radical and outsider in others. Just look at the student professor who was reprimanded and legally threatened just for showing a Peterson clip in her class. That's not the sort of reaction a mainstream thinker elicits.

The typical new-atheist misrepresents Dawkins though. He is very good at discussing religion, has some good points, and is positive to many parts of christian philosophy, and is concerned with keeping in touch with the christian heritage of the western world. My only beef with the man is that he comes off as a bit too harsh in his criticism of christians themselves. It sounds to me like you just do not like people disagreeing with your beliefs.

if that culture was as effective as it used to be Trump would've lost by a landslide, the world is increasingly becoming more polarised and there is a total and absolute disconnect from american culture from the people

>can you cite anyone or any papers regarding post-modernism?
>WELL MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE TELLS ME
Christ.

>didn't know Sup Forums allowed his kind here
LMAO