Jordan Peterson debate on fb

My friend posted a link to a jordan peterson video. then a this girl (who is also black) from our uni commented on his post. I responded (teal colour) and then she sent me this barrage of ideological bullshittery... i can't even grasp how naïve and hypocritical she is being. Sup Forums bros, please help me red pill this girl. Btw I'm a doctorate candidate so please keep the dialogue appropriate since i have my supervisor as a friend on fb and wouldn't want to jeopardize a future job opportunity

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=P78Zd8265_k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

post her response

Her responses

Final response

How do i tackle this bros??

I cant understand anything she is saying

You don't
get on with your life.

I feel the same way... it's like she's just paraphrasing her gender studies professors. I feel like she is using "big words" to just make up for a lack of a coherent argument.

What i do understand however is that, if a view presents itself as an existential threat to a group/minority, it should be silenced which is fascist in itself

I do want to move on but a part of me whats to dig in further as to the actual thought process of this individual

There are no arguments here to respond to. She's made vague assertions and failed to support them. Don't give up ground and accept this.

Also you should be aware that what you mean by the term fascism and supremacy isn't what she means by these terms. There might be some overlap between your definitions, but hers is far broader.

Simply restate your case, quoting his opposition to these types of regimes and his insistence that he isn't a part of the alt-right or whatever movement she thinks he's associated with. Then demand that if she has any evidence to dispute this, that she provides it.

However, you should be aware that you won’t convince her differently.

I'll sum up her thought process for you: A is fascist, because my bubble said so. openly arguing about A's points is therefore the same as giving a platform to fascists, which, in her mind, is fascist.
It doesn't matter one bit that Peterson doesn't call for the eradication of blacks. She thinks he does. That's all that matters. It's walled in lefty thought.

"Direct me to a statement made by either myself or Peterson that indicates his (or my) willingness to see you exploited, executed and eradicated.
Not his fans, who we have already established isn't him, and not anybody misquoting or incorrectly citing him, but him directly (or me directly for arguments sakes).
You are using words like 'execute' in a very specific format, so I assume you know their true meaning."
30 minutes later after no response, put "...I am waiting."
post results.

>epistemological violence
>ideological --> institutional/societal --> literal genocide
Her brain is broken. You cannot argue with someone who is unwilling to engage in logic. Send her the "ignorance is strength" meme and leave it alone.

if she hasn't even taken the time to research what he actually says and stands for, why are you bothering with this idiot?

Why would she spent time watching youtube video's of some fascist "professor" when she could be straightening her hair?

>How do i tackle this bros??
Call her a nigger. Also tell her that she specifically says that moral superiority leads to genocide, so tell her that her opposition to Peterson comes from a place of moral pretension, making her genocidal. I didn't read the second response, shits ridiculous.

This seems to be the best option. Ask her for specifics. But be prepared for her not answering any of that.

>Inferences and metaphorical language are largely the mode of communicating and inciting explicit acts of violence

Inferences and metaphors, we better close the English departments down. A book of aphorisms or Chinese proverbs must be traumatic to her.

This entire debate is superfluous because White supremacists are literally factually correct

Why do you care?
History is full of omission of meaningless retards, she’s just another statistic

you may have a point.
On the one hand, if she is willing to type out all that in response to OP, she may just be self-obsessed enough that her in-built damage control will take over, and she might actually attempt to provide an answer in order to save face.
We will judge her based on the response, whether she addressed the question or deflected it, and how nonsensical her perception of the word 'executed' turns out to be.
Or we will continue on knowing we stumped another SJW faggot.
Either way, life is good Toothpastebro.

Great response OP, that is EXACTLY my view on this whole alt-right/liberals issue, it's like you read my mind.
I just wish that someday even the hivemind of Sup Forums will acknowledge the fact that blandly labelling someone else's view is not helpful to the debate.

>She's made vague assertions and failed to support them.
In this case, I'd actually "attack" her, asking for specific example and context, for example: "when he's inciting for supremacy and fascism? Why?" And then go from there. Never lose your ground, keep asking for cat that can support her thesis and work with that for a counteragrument.

For once I fully agree with a leaf.

>to quote Remy Ma

>White supremacists are literally factually correct
this honestly
youtube.com/watch?v=P78Zd8265_k

She said that it's implied as opposed to literal, so you can accuse her of making a false assumption.

>it is true many of his followers have archaic political views.

Stop with this shit. This is why she believes her retarded fantasies. The right constantly gives up ground based on lies in an attempt to compromise. Is that true? What exactly are archaic political views? It’s similar to the lady that interviewed Jordan Peterson then making the claim that his followers made violent threats. He then tweeted that people shouldn’t have done that. He later said he regretted that tweet bc it validated her accusation which she had no proof that its true. Sorry for the rant, but it’s something I’ve noticed and it’s part of the reason we are where we are and you can’t have a coherent discussion with this girl.

>Help me redpill some nigger on facebook

Why would you need to redpill niggers? I want neo-Sup Forums to go back to facebook

Unfriend her and delete your Facebook account.

Peterson has always said that people are horrible, irredeemable creatures, but that they can make themselves and the world around them better by giving up their self hatred and working towards a hopeful future. If that leads directly to white nationalism and fascism, what's wrong with white nationalism and fascism?

Either what he says is true or it isn't. By taking into account its effects on society, she is trying to keep the argument in the realm of conjecture. She can't debate the merits, only hypothetical situations based on her own biased assertions. That is also why these people reject the concept of absolute truth and logic as "tools of the patriarchy". It's pathetic. Don't give her tl;dr: drivel the dignity of a serious response. Humor (ridicule) is the best weapon.

All debate is superfluous because, as opposed to what was stated in the last sentence of the OP, the ideas that will prevail are those that people were brainwashed to believe in. It doesn't matter how well we defend our positions, leftists have 7 decades of propaganda behind them, making everyone completely deaf to whatever argument we May come up with.

Peterson refers to Nietzsche. That's enough to brand him a full-blooded 14/88 murderous, oven-poking, nazi monster.

Ask her about how white land owners exploited South Central Africa. Then ask her why the black Zimbabweans are begging the white land owners to come back.

There are only two options dude.

1. HItler. I mean actual Hitler tier politics, mass expulsion and genocide
2. Slow descent into Leftist anarchy, maybe some commie revolution, all white countries become Brazil

That's it. Everything else is just irrelevant squabbling

Going to respond with something along these lines. Thanks for all the suggestions. Please recommend any edits

"Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my comment but i do have some things i’d like to clear up.

First, you seem to make a few false assumptions about Peterson himself. So can you direct me to any statement made by Peterson that indicated his willingness to see you exploited, executed, and/or eradicated. Not his fans, who’ve we’ve already established aren’t him or anyone misquoting or incorrectly citing him, but directly Peterson. You’re using the word “execute” in quite a specific manner so I do assume you know it’s true meaning.

Additionally, I do agree and support your right to be offended by what Peterson said (or allegedly implied). However, we must understand that one’s subjective emotions (i.e. feeling offended) do not equal objective reality to everyone else. In other words, simply because you are offended doesn’t make your opinion universally valid. To add to that, where should we draw the line? When does speech/opinion become an existential threat to one person (or a people group) to the extent that it ought to be eliminated and/or suppressed? Also, is suppressing/censoring an opposing view truly going to eliminate such a notion or help change a person’s mind? I personally don’t think any amount of censorship can convince some people otherwise. "

Bingo, Brazilian buddy.

she destroyed you because she exposed both you and jorand petersong as being stooges for white supremacy captialism. you see jordan peterson is just a tool that will be used when the whtie supremacy class wants a genocide. they will use him like how hitler used nietzsche to further his gains. not unitl the entire system is overthrown will this bullshti ends

right now we live in a country that thinks its okay to shoot a black man that has his hands up and begs the cop not to shit

Debates aren't for convincing your opponent; they’re for winning around those who are watching or reading the debate. If it's private and against a progressive then it's probably not worth your time.

>shit lib who is just regurgitating her preprogrammed Antifa rhetoric
>pathetic sperg desperate to defend his fraudster surrogate dad

Both of you need a father figure to slap you in the face. No amount of introspection will help an idiot.

Actually it appears you guys are half-white, scratch that, we all become South Africa

then he should ask for references and thesis. You know, like in a debate.

Why are faggots like this coming to pol

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO PLEBBIT WHERE YOU BELONG

Also l will post updates here

I don't know if the last paragraph is really necessary at the moment. Let her fail to make the evidential case first.

She says that because right-wing people like his content, that she thinks Peterson is fascist, therefore his viewpoint should be prohibited as she thinks it's genocidal. Basically, she's using the slippery slope fallacy to prove a point. She admits to making an assumption by claiming that it's "implied", meaning that it's not confirmed. Tell her that she's dumb as a rock and don't overthink her bullshit.

You're retarded. You're discredited because your ideals are fundamentally flawed, not because it hands credibility to Nazis.

Shes right to think that. If white people start thinking logically about reality, they become fascists of some variety.

The LEft has always been aware of this on some level, hence their Stalinist censorship of everything

>1. HItler. I mean actual Hitler tier politics, mass expulsion and genocide
Exactly. Anyone who's an ethno nationalist and isn't fascist or national socialist is completely deluded.

>all white countries become the US
ftfy :^)

I lost it at "all those buzzwords you're throwing around". Every other word in her post is a buzzword.

This, don't compromise with liberals. Liberals only want liberal ideals, not conservative ones. She won't respect you or him if you don't staunchly defend him.

When I say "they will be deaf..." I mean the people in general because leftists have controlled the media and education for long enough so that no one will ever listen to a white nationalist

Stop saying things that make you weak

>muh gorillion rules for life
Have you read that book? Is it worth it?

Find a quote of mlk or Obama using metaphors as a word tool; try to find something on black fathers and responsibility or something deliberately referencing white guilt and privilege and frame it back to her as whether it is supporting colonialism by her own standards

Just ask the bitch what she wants point fucking blank.
>DO YOU WANT TO CENSOR HIM BECAUSE OF HIS IDEAS?
>DO YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY HIS FREE SPEECH BECAUSE OF WHAT HE BELIEVES?
>WILL YOU GIVE UP YOUR OWN FREE SPEECH IN ORDER TO TAKE AWAY HIS?

Being a leftist means willingly being delusional about the things that you see in front of you. See blacks with a high homicide and armed robbery rate? Blame whites and law enforcement instead of reforming the many issues in black communities.

You have to be confident with your views. Stop being intimidated by them. They won't love or agree with you, they just think that you know that you believe in bullshit.

>who’ve we’ve
>who have we have
Proof read your shit, dingus.
>valid
That's not what the means. Did you mean "accepted"?
>When does speech/opinion become an existential threat to one person (or a people group) to the extent that it ought to be eliminated and/or suppressed?
She already told you this. Stay away from rehashing her shitty arguments and simply assert your argument. "Speech and action are not determinately linked."

She'll just drone on about irrelevant bullshit that's difficult to parse. They can't answer a simple yes/no question. YES CUZ HES NATZEE

Kek, trying to have an honest discourse with a nigger.
That is where you failed.

I would write: "This is why the 14 words matter."

I liked it, but its all stuff you can find in the lectures on youtube.

Well yeah the basic tenet of Leftism is some pseudo-Christian notion that every single homo sapiens on earth, regardless of evolutionary history or sex, has exactly the same potential for development.

They rarely outright say this, but it's the animating force behind their entire shtick.

>remy ma

>Btw I'm a doctorate candidate so please keep the dialogue appropriate since i have my supervisor as a friend on fb and wouldn't want to jeopardize a future job opportunity
NIGGER WHY DO YOU EVEN HAVE A GOYBOOK JUST DELETE IT ALREADY

Congratulate her on being so well spoken. Then, sure back and enjoy. Master troll unlocked.

>why would you tolerate an opposing view that seeks to see you exploited, executed, and ultimately eradicated from existence?

Ask her why should we tolerate communist teachings that has led to mass murder and exploitation in prison camps yet somehow we can't tolerate fascism which has killed far less.

strike the last paragraph. you sound like a pussy. Also if you can't handle her answers quit asking questions that she won't even offer support for when she answers anyway. Just focus on the first half and put the burden on her and wait

I feel like brits are good debaters and writers.

>arguing publicly on Facebook with lefty brainlets
I always feel regret and cringe after doing this.

You can't fix mental retardation.
If it's a chick you're talking about just live your life and be a good person.
Chicks side with winners.
Not logical argumentation.
Go be a winner and she'll either come around or you'll lose dead weight.
In either case you're a winner.

>Congratulate her on being so well spoken.
THIS OH GOD PLEASE SAY THIS

>arguing with marxist niggers
Is this an american thing? Why do you do this?

I am a /lit/ guy and what she said in her second and third paragraphs after quoting Remy Ma is equivalent to the buzzword spam at a TED talk.

I'll leave you with a quote whose author escapes me atm and reveals her 2nd to last paragraph to be a misunderstanding of how
Democracy has been historically understood.

"My disdain for Democracy stems not from naive nostalgia for ages past, but from the reality that a system which allows evil to be presented as a viable alternative to good is itself an accessory to evil. Democracy has chosen strife over unity, conflict over peace, the popular over the true, and Barabbas over Christ. Smash the guillotines and look to the throne and altar once more."

She is genuinely brainwashed down to the core.

>What do you want to do?
>What is your solution to the problem?
>Should we take away free speech?
>Do you want to give up your free speech?
Fuck that shit. Just keep asking the questions.
Don't address droning.
I make those fucking retards tell me what they want to do.
It's always ban his speech.
Then they have to ban their own.
It's fucking hilarious.

Well she's actually right. Post modernists are critical of science, IQ tests, and inequality. Why? Because it has led to too much discrimination and suffering in the past. Peterson is not a fascist but he's fighting for those things which gives ammo to other fascists. Plus he's incredibly wrong and jumps to some inane conclusions all the time but people buy into his emotional output and personality

Keep doing what you're doing. Be persistent and patient, even if she's too dumb or too weak to back down in shame. There's no convincing the stupid or intellectually weak ones. But, even they know when they've lost the debate. You just have to keep on pressing in a polite manner with superior arguments.

I don't think OP is against popular suffrage, but telling her that she misunderstands her own argument might be even better than condescension .

>tfw jordan peterson is genociding soyboys and dirty rooms

She is basically saying Peterson is espousing white ethnic colonial principles but masking them in the language of his art (subversive racism.).

Kinda sad because hes more into the individuals by their merit principles...
She a retard trying to hide in the language of academics , and doing exactly what she accuses Peterson of... the irony is shes doing it unironically

I know. She claims allowing bad think opinions in a democracy is inexcusable yet that is the exact opinion monarchists hold.

This. Also
>using Facebook
>getting into arguments on Facebook
>trying to use us to win a meaningless, fatuous spat with some deluded and vacuous social justice minge. Give me a fucking break

White supremecy is fucking retarded. Half the time whites cant even agree on who is ans isnt white, and they use their whitness to project an air of smugness thats akin to how women project an air of smugness because the are stronk womyn.

Posted a response. Now we wait. I agree that brits are more superior at this political discourse than others. Thanks for all the suggestions

Yeah and it all hinges on their belief in the blank slate or that everything is nurture.

They like to claim everything is nurture and they believe everyone can be fixed, but there are certain aspects of nurture that become cemented after a certain age. You can’t teach a feral child to speak for instance. The time has passed. You can't rid a person of their sexual preferences. That is paedophiles can't be cured. There sexual urges can be reduced via chemical castration, but those feelings can't be cured.

Therefore, even if we were to accept that everything was nurture, it would change nothing about the here and now. These third world people have these behaviours and beliefs cemented in them and we still have good reason to reject them and reject the idea they can be made equal to us.

If you rejected nature, at most you might accept that abducting their new born children and raising them in the west could work, but that’s about the extent of it and of course nature plays a bigger role then they claim.

>White supremecy is fucking retarded. Half the time whites cant even agree on who is ans isnt white, and they use their whitness to project an air of smugness thats akin to how women project an air of smugness because the are stronk womyn.
and when they do figure out who is white...

>How do i tackle this bros??
>Call her a nigger

KEK

Arguing with a woman about politics is pointless. Politics is a male domain which the female brain cannot process. No matter how logical you are she's never relate because you views go against the religion she follows.
At the very least argue for the audience not for her, you may not get her you your side but you can make her look like an idiot to onlookers.

WAAAAY too verbose. Stop playing into her game. If you post that, she is just going to reply back with an even larger word salad. You can't win that game.

You need to keep your responses short and to-the-point. Attack the fundamental assumptions of her argument, and stop flowering up your response with dumb shit like "I do agree", "I personally", "Thanks for the reply". Your response should be 4 sentences max. A short reply will embarrass her; next to her word salad, it will make her look like a fool.

Look up Jordan on Adolf Hitler. If you still take this man serious after that video... congrats, you are braindead

Now go clean your room good goy

>*some* monarchists hold

wow that was an excellent first response!
I'd just leave it at that.
Let her go crazy, you're done.
/thread

sorry to break this to you, but you're a cuck

You need to learn how to make women cry. That's the best way to win. Call her fat or something.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY GEE GOLLY!

you are a faggot

He's trolling her you retarded newfag

user is correct here and it's also worth considering what if your opponent is right. If Peterson was advocating for fascism while still making the points he was making, would he be wrong? Would it suddenly be illegal? Would it suddenly justify censorship?

The answer is still no.

Waiting with you, if for nothing more than the sake of science.
Sometimes just sticking it on someone is enough to make them crumble.