Sadly. While they talk this talk they continue to provide zionists with material support.
LaughingLion
joined 4 years ago
it just feeds me news about china from mostly pro china sources and ads for iqiyi and viki now and you know what, im okay with that
congo free state but for landlords
I was actually just looking into CSAM
Quote: VibeCoder, 2025
We got 'em.
only real ethical use case is using it for yourself, like on your own picture for entertainment purposes but of course people like us dont need that because hexbear users are already a fucking snacc
Nice. So what's the scheme? A real estate investment grift where you help get funding to build housing for the homeless that has no obligation to keep its promises after a criminally short period of time? Or just the old-fashioned skim off the top?
... I kid I kid, I hope you do some good work out there and really help some people who desperately need it.
That's hilarious and also good on you. Neurodivergence wins again. I think people new in rhetoric can't help but answer a carefully laid out question because that is how conversation works. But in debate if you someone says, "well if you think this then would you...." you know they are leading you somewhere. You can reject the premise.
JP knows this and employs it but he decides to employ it so often in a few sections on absolute gimme questions, like "would you lie to Nazis". Some will say it's because he's crypto and maybe so but I think he sees the trap being laid and wants to avoid it. He can always avoid it later the line or claim a false-equivalency. But the real irony is that he didn't need to be in that situation in the first place if he didn't try to post-structurally prance his way out of the belief question. Oh, you wouldn't put yourself in the quagmire of lying to a Nazi, bitch, you couldn't even avoid the quagmire of dodging this set of questions.
I used to listen to Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience debate callers. This was a public access show in Texas. To say he's an experience debater on the topic is a massive understatement. I did not watch the entire debate he did with JP because I knew he was going to walk all over him. I've heard JPs rhetoric on the subject and it's amateur at best. I think even a worm like Tom Leykis could have wrecked JP in that one. At least he has that funny line, "I don't know and you don't either."
usa unironically doing the social credit thing
A few things I noticed about Peterson "debates".
- When he's dodging a question he gets real intense and stern sounding and stares directly into the eyes of the person who is pushing him to answer something he doesn't want to. It's a clear intimidation tactic and its funny when it does not work.
- Doing the pedantic nonsense about defining "believe" and "is" and shit is post-structuralism. It's an extension of the post-modernist movement. JP is a post-modernist when he doesn't want to answer a question.
- JP would never "put myself in that situation" where he is being asked about hiding Jews because he wouldn't hide Jews. So obviously he's not antifascist.
Most importantly people don't know how to "debate" these kinds of people. You don't go in for something serious. You go in to make them look like a clown because they aren't serious. If one line isn't doing the trick you change tactics. Unfortunately this involves studying the tapes on these people. Watching a ton of them and learning the rhetorical devices they use and how to defeat those devices. How to craft rhetoric carefully to paint them into a corner and not give up when they refuse your rhetorical device.
And never forget, you can always reject a rhetorical device. JP does it frequently when he can see it's going to back him into a corner. You can return that. When your opponent makes a declarative statement you can just say, "no, that isn't true."
trump bragged about it afterwards too saying that he sent them in there and they took him out like a dog
im 42 and this man inspires me