Peterson v.s Harris

/our guy/ JB Peterson is gonna be debating the liberal Jew Sam Harris on Jan. 16th.

Post Petersons to give him your energy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YnEFt20qe0o
youtube.com/watch?v=48V0m2lia5U
youtu.be/01Tln_6Bxk0
youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
youtube.com/watch?v=P5_-pfqFGJI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In peterson we trust.

He's going to put Harris in his place, I can't wait

where can i watch and at what time?

You can't beat a jew in a debate because they are so dishonest.

about what?

What will the be debating about? Peterson is most known for his stance against SJWs. Sam Harris agrees with him on SJWs.

Sam "HUU HUU HUUUUUU ARM THE MODERATE REBELS" Harris is the dumbest kike to ever live. I can't wait to watch Peterson humiliate him. I honestly can't wait to see that smug kike get his teeth smashed in like he did against Chomsky.

I mean that was a face-pounding, and fuck Chomsky but Harris deserved it. The dumbest most low-information Neocon Jew rat I've ever seen in my life. So glad his side lost. Criminals like him belong in nooses.

My guess is religion, and religious belief, the importance of meaning and truth, belief structures, etc...

He mentions it in this:
youtube.com/watch?v=YnEFt20qe0o

Religion

Debating a jew is waste of energy.

Use your time wiser based old man

Some thoughts:

Peterson doesn't disagree with any biological or scientific truths, he's just usually presenting the importance of faith and myth at a sort of pre-rational level, as a consequence of years of human history and evolution.

His debate with de Sousa went to shit because nobody really defined what the "sacred" was and de Sousa seemed to miss his points entirely, simply responding that they "weren't sacred" and the dumb lefty audience clapped because he was an atheist.

Hopefully the debate with harris doesn't end up the same way, because I believe they would agree on a lot regarding the importance of faith and myth in man at a deep psychological level. I'm not really a fan of harris but he's not usually unreasonable.

tl;dr if ends up being an argument about terms without anyone addressing the terms it's going to be a shitshow, if it's a discussion of ideas it won't, hopefully the latter

I haven't watched Peterson's videos but didn't he say that he was worried about how modern SJW shit was leading to the rise of a new right wing? That seems like something a moderate lefty would say.

Let me ruin it for you.

10 minutes in and Harris will go into a tourettes spiral repeating "muh intentions" for the rest of the talk.

Damn Harris won't stand a chance

Technically they are both jews... but Peterson isn't a kike. Understands Christianity and rejected the stone age judiasim. I hope he microwaves Sam's brain with his words.

not sure what you guys have against Sam Harris 2bh

He was pretty left leaning but he seems to be getting more red pilled by the day.

It's amazing how lefties change when they start getting attacked by their own

This guy actually revived my faith. I seriously recommend any godless anons here to listen to his approach on religion.

the man is redpilled to the core

>inb4 religion is bluepilled
wrong

he is a complete faggot

Let logos guide thee true son of Peter.

I'll give my energy on the 16th user

He sees the future the Progs are choosing for themselves and knows it will be an ironic hell, either the West is conquered by barbarians or the West becomes barbaric to protect itself.

You only had to listen.

Praise kek, Peterson will wipe the floor with the atheist Jew

He sees both sides of the coin.

He too easily discounts religion
>muh secularism
>muh atheism
>muh science
>muh liberal

He needs a good equalizer, and I think Peterson is the right guy to do it.

Totally Agree. People need a mental operating system. Our degenerate society leaves people fucking nuts. If you grew up in a western society, only in Christianity will you find maximum meaning. Just like if you grew up in "Chynah", Buddhism or Taoism would work better.

The structure of your mind is molded by the culture you grow up in, so that's why Peterson is so awesome for Westerners. We can find meaning in a degenerate world, using cultural images and ideas deeply integrated in our history, in a way that doesn't negate science, logic, or reason. Everyone should listen to his talks on Adam Eve, Cain Able, etc...

What could they possibly debate about that they'd have shared expertise in?

Religion and belief structure, meaning, philosophy

Come on leaf.

Harris is nu-Atheist, meaning he is as tribal as the groups he targets.

Sam's Waking Up Podcast. It's free on iTunes and the like

I disagree. Christianity is something that is critical to the history and development of white people. It is a part of us. Without it we wouldn't exist.

I am personally not a practicing Christian, and I don't currently believe in the existence of God. But I appreciate the role that Christianity has played in my legacy - my grandparents were Christians, and everybody before them would have been Christians too.

Christianity gives you strong family morals. It gives you moral support in times of desperation. It also pushed the West forward in every single conceivable way - just look at any church, and how much the designers and builders of that church were inspired by the thought of God to create massive, ornate, lavishly-styled buildings.

So I think it is a valuable debate to have, because people need to at least understand the value of Christianity, even if they do not believe in it themselves. Putting one of the stalwarts of atheism in their place over this issue would be very good.

BASED PETERSON

>2 of your favorite people arguing over trivial bullshit.

This is fucking bonkers and super unproductive.

I need healing.

That's not the specific topic question of the debate.

What do they even disagree on?

He'll be shredded in the eyes of the Canadian public.

But he isn't really religious though?

As far as I know, he doesn't believe in God. Just that he thinks the stories and morals of religion are accrued knowledge by people and civilizations to better live in the world.

He is not strongly political one way or the other, which you can perfectly understand given that he is a psychology professor. It would be pretty inappropriate for him to lean heavily in either direction.

He has mentioned that he voted for Canada's New Democratic Party in the past (centre-left), but that he doesn't trust them anymore, so maybe he votes for the Conservatives now, but I am completely guessing. I am guessing he didn't vote for Trudeau though, given what he thinks of SJWs.

He is very wary of extreme left-wing ideology though, which is why he's so good - he's presenting a very strong objection to campus political correctness and far-leftism. He knows that far-left ideologies leads to communist autocracies that crush the freedom of the people. And he speaks passionately about that.

So yeah, I wouldn't call him a moderate lefty. He's probably either a centrist or centre-right at this stage.

>He was pretty left leaning but he seems to be getting more red pilled by the day.
>It's amazing how lefties change when they start getting attacked by their own
I think he's been wary of far-left ideologies like Marxism for a long time. He clearly knows his shit on this stuff and hasn't just come across it recently.

He reminds me a lot of Peter Hitchens because Hitchens also objects to the far-left on the same basis: because of the horrors of 20th century communism. Hitchens is of course an overt conservative though while Peterson is not, which is completely understandable since he is a psychology professor and it would probably be pretty inappropriate to make political views that strongly lean in either direction.

He's obviously a reformed leftist since he said he used to vote NDP. I think these days he's probably a centrist or centre-right. But he clearly has read a lot about communism and has had concerns about authoritarian leftism for a long time.

>trivial

into the bin

>bin

Across the pond with you

He is religious. He featured on a debate show as a religious voice, criticising the atheist bus campaign that took place several years ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=48V0m2lia5U

This is the debate we have needed for a long time user

See
Harris directly disputes this

>Jew
>liberal
>atheist
>hates Trump and tried to stump him

hes only good for talking shit about Muslims but as a Jew I'd expect nothing less, hes cowardly with anything beyond that.

Source?

He would probably lose desu. His argument is too theoretical and build upon the idea that the truth is what works and not any objective truth. That said, I like his thinking a lot and would look forward to the debate.

Yeah but debating atheists doesn't really mean he is religious in the normal sense, rather he don't want people throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

But I don't know, I guess we'll see in the debate with Harris.

If i remember correctly Joe Rogan kinda questioned him by saying "yeah but you don't really believe in a literal hell/heaven and God etc" after he had said he was deeply religious/spiritual and Peterson didn't really answer it

see

>But he isn't really religious though?
I forgot which video but he did say he was Christian.

>As far as I know, he doesn't believe in God. Just that he thinks the stories and morals of religion are accrued knowledge by people and civilizations to better live in the world.

It's a set of unspoken principles that have developed out of action and reaction with other people for millions of years. A gigantic ocean of ups and downs set by individual actions that influence the entire society as a whole.

It puts "God is everywhere" and "We're all connected" in perspective.

Oh boy, I'm looking foward to more than a hour of baseless accusations and strawmen thrown at the guy and absolutely no real discussion going on.
At least I'll have fun watching Peter descending even more into despair, one day we might even find him posting here.

Peterson isn't a jew

Exactly.

Just like science is becoming another religion

PRAISE BE TO KEK AND HIS PROPHET

Here we go, it was the Crowder interview.

youtu.be/01Tln_6Bxk0

Peterson isn't your guy if you're a genuine natsoc, you dumb faggots.

no. Science is not becoming a religion.

well good thing only retards fall for the natsoc meme then

>build upon the idea that the truth is what works and not any objective truth
source on that? I took him as the kind of guy who believes in an objective truth

can we call him Cowboy Peterson from now on

>build upon the idea that the truth is what works and not any objective truth.
That's bullshit. Of course he believes in objective truth. You're a fucking moron.

The point is that he believes that religion plays an important psychological role for people - AND, importantly, he thinks that atheism serves the SAME role in people who are atheists. He thinks that atheists have faith just like religious people do (their faith will be in "the right thing to do", or the value of their morals, or just faith in other people to do the right thing. These are leaps of faith because you can't know them with certainty.)

So yeah. You're a fucking moron.

It is.

The Science deacons do nothing but berate anyone who is skeptical about Climate Change.

Oooh. Nice. Then he probably already posting here.
Mr Peterson-person, If you are here would you please elaborate on pragmatism truth and how it have changed with the victory of secular science. What will that mean for your religion?

He's a classical liberal, the only good kind imo

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
There somewhere. A real good interview, best I've seen. Maybe the last hour is a bit of a filler. Probably a bit tired by then.

It pretty much is.
It's gotten to a point where people chastise you for going against the "consensus", even if you are trying to remain skeptical as to the functions of a phenomena.

Look at dietary science. Decades and decades of government-funded "low fat = heart healthy" and "artery clogging saturated fat" mantras went unopposed until the internet allowed for contrary ideas. Now cholesterol recommendations are being removed, salt is no big deal anymore, and you see the rise in ketogenic and ancestral-style diets as alternatives for those who do poorly on the governmental guidelines.

Until debate is not shut down with "but the consensus", it'll appear as a religion.

youtube.com/watch?v=P5_-pfqFGJI

He gets into it here, first few minutes.

I've already watched this and I didn't come to the same conclusion as you. can you point to something he says that made you think that?

>hes only good for talking shit about Muslims

Didn't Harris call Trump a bigot for his comments about muslims? Incredible hypocrisy if true. I'd look it up, but I can't bear to read the guy anymore.

see Well. He might believe there is a objective truth, but that it is meaningless and unreachable and that the useful truth is the only truth that matters for us. That is how I understand him here.

woah.. ur a badass for being so nihlistic, just like genji... badass...

Dave Rubin gets to play the 'classical liberal' card, at least he didn't shill for Hillary, but Sam Harris sold out completely.

What kind of classical liberal believes in neoconservative war policies?

take my energy professor frog

Yeah, lost all credibility by shilling so fucking hard for Hillary

Can anyone explain to me why he keep using the same examples for all his lectures, all his interviews and all the other programs that he was on?

Such as?

Because he thinks, and I think he's right, that people still don't get it.

a common criticism of him is that he cherry picks what myths/fairy tales to discuss in order to make a narrative that fits his world view. another criticism is that all of the myths/fairy tales he chooses can be interpreted in many other ways

I agreed with those criticisms when I heard them so I looked into people who dissect mythology like he does and those who apply it to politics in the way that he does. I think it would be worthwhile for you to do the same.

Leftism, feminism, Marxism, anti-God etc... all leads to the same thing. When you abandon belief structures and the structures of meaning you end up in the same place, every time.

Desperate, meaningless nihilism which ends up in insufferable, endless despair, and with no meaning attached to it. It's hell.

pol keeps saying this, but he spent the podcast with Andrew Sullivan before the election shitting on the Clintons as opportunistic moneygrubbers and detailing how slimy they were overall. Harris has that INFJ personality and has a hard time wrapping his head around Trump's ESTP personality and lack of intellectual integrity and seemingly flipflopping positions towards whoever has his ear at the time. Being INFJ myself I can see how that would be a deal-breaker for a person like him.

>I believe they would agree on a lot regarding the importance of faith and myth in man
>Sam Harris

Lmao he's just gonna go full "muh determinism" don't kid yourself

Horus Osiris symbolism, Pinocchio, Cain and Able, Adam Eve and the apple, killing the dragons, the hierarchy in lobsters, visions in apes and the snakes and many more. I watched most of his stuff that is available in Youtube and I can say that all of them contain at least one of these and all of these are repeated at least twice in different videos.

I am not saying he is not right, I am saying that his examples are limited.

I get that feeling too, but at the same time I feel that what he said was genuine, at least more true than any other person that I encounter either on the internet or irl.

>Genital surgery is already common practice on infant boys and also on intersex babies

INTJ here to tell you that if you let a personality test dictate your perception of reality in that way, you deserve a sociopath like Hillary Clinton as your president.

>Harris has that INFJ personality
>Trump's ESTP

kill yourself

Alright, so take Sup Forums, "lurk more" is that idea that lived experience is required to understand and internalize the board culture and then participate in the group. This is opposed to reading a set of rules/instructions and you're golden.

Sup Forums is basically a metanarrative that exists in a psychological and referential sense, beyond written and oral records, shared between all anons who you might say have "passed initiation." I think this is why a lot of people identify with his discussions of myth and dramas.

It's not a scientific truth in the sense that you can look up "how to post on Sup Forums" and be accepted, it's in constant flux with certain core tenets which, if they change at all, only change gradually. Scientific truth would be the ability to describe Sup Forums. Religious truth would be the ability to participate. Eventually, should everything become static, you might be able to accomplish the later given the former, but it's generally just going to be a shitty copy.

Peterson isn't denying objective truth rather than postulating a sort of divide we haven't crossed or aren't ready/may never cross, and the utility of that "truth" which has seemingly been cast aside with the push towards modernity.

I might as well defend him a bit right now. He does say that he is focusing on western mythology because that's what his students and the people he is in contact with generally know. So there is something to say about how practical it is for him to choose those myths to discuss.

1:09 and forward. at 1:11 He talks about truth for "finite beings".

would anyone care to exchange some rare petersons

+A Blood group and Scorpio here to tell you that if you let your date of birth or your Blood clotting dictate your perception of reality in that way, you deserve a sociopath like Hillary Clinton as your president.

There are more than one western mythology and the example he gave are not always about the myths but also sometimes about some scientific truth as I pointed out before. My problem with him is that, as I said, his examples are too few and he keep repeating them instead of giving us new ones, maybe that is too much to ask.

Any links to his best videos on religion?

This is my only one, take good care of it

You have autism

How many stories do you need that point to the same thing? The point isn't the stories, it's what they're telling us.

He's used more than enough examples to make his point imo.

not an argument

I know he discusses other things. I'm just saying something he actually said in one of his lectures. He said that he has a focus on western mythology because his students have been familiar with it so he doesn't have to explain the myth before he can analyse it. He then went on to say that recently more and more of his students have stopped being familiar with the western myths and he talked more about that.

I'm just giving one reason that explains some of his limited focus.

idk i dislike that he is unironically religious

...

Hope the Jew walls himself in with his arguments and Peterson brings the appropriate gaseous purifying agent if you know what I'm sayin ;););)

>At 13 years Sam Harris BTFO his parents who want to raise him as a bar mitzvah
>Sup Forums still call him a jew

wew