T Nation

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Religion, Trans Activism, and Censorship


Yes. Not really a great way for you to start out your rebuttal - those two things, me being able to quote BM and have concern for a cogent argument are not mutually exclusive. Sorry you think so.

This is again not an argument. Strictly your vague opinion. So far, you’re 0 for 2 in a rebuttal but let’s keep going.

It was one line of my response. Still not a rebuttal - you’re literally just repeating what I said.

Your response was rife with logical fallacies - again, you’re not rebutting my assertion - you’re simply stating what I said. Good job, you’re like 0 for 5 at this point … but let’s keep going despite your redundancy.

I feel like I applied these concepts fairly and accurately. You’re more than welcome to point out my inconsistencies.

However, your failure to refute this in any logical way proves my points. You’re still resorting to a rebuttal rife with logical fallacies. Sorry you can’t see that and adjust appropriately. 0 for 6. Let’s continue.

Quote it then. Prove me wrong. Right now you’re assuming I’m going to take your word for it…clearly I can’t take anything you say at face value since you’re batting 0 for … or is sports euphemisms too much for you to follow too?

Caution them against what? This isn’t a complete sentence.

True. it’s not. But it would be nice if you could craft a coherent argument or rebuttal. You’d think someone as smart as you would be able to form a coherent argument, yet here we are…As of now, you have done nothing to prove you know what you’re talking about. Literally nothing. You’re 0 for 100 at this point.


“muh logical fallacies”


Not gonna lie, as I went line for line through that “response” I was just blown away by how bad it was. All he did was say “you’re stupid” without pointing out to me HOW I’m stupid. Like, bruh, if I’m stupid, and you know how I’m stupid, let me know how I’m stupid, point out how I’m wrong so I can learn and be less stupid moving forward. Don’t just be like, “look you made an argument and closed it with a billy madison quote, you’re stupid.” - that shit’s a non-sequitur.


You just need to think for yourself and not outsource your thinking to others. Have an original thought for once, Christ. Like saying the Civil War was not fought over “muh slavery”, but a manufactured reason that was given to us by the North (which is a dumb ahistorical unoriginal thought anyway. Hell, I bet it’s been talked about on here before).

He’s just your typical internet intellectual who’s too intelligent and too busy to educate us plebians, but has the time to point out we’re idiots all the while spouting utter nonsense.


You know me too well…


Dude literally just quoted Carlin in a response in the GHWB thread, this fucking guy.


Yea but Carlin is acceptable … Billy Madison clearly isn’t…


Maybe I’m retarded but you criticize postmodernism, Shapiro and Peterson but Peterson, and probably Shapiro, have criticized postmodernism.

And what’s wrong with postmodernism anyway?


It’s simply Marxsism-Leninism under another name, renamed by rich leftist worshipers of mass murderers (Sartre cough cough) who’d even go to justify 9/11 as an reaction to the spread of capitalism (Baudrillard cough cough)


Wasn’t Sartre an existentialist who referred to himself as an anarchist?

There are a lot of great postmodern novels.



From what I understand about communism, it’s technically an anarchic ideology i.e. the abolition of borders/states and private property … it just gets hung up at the Socialism phase of transition


He was a self identified Marxist, a Soviet (and gulag) apologist and that’s without mentioning Comrade Mao…


Didn’t he change his opinion on the USSR?


The French communist party believed Sartre was not a proper communist.

And I bet there is plenty of postmodern literature you like, and don’t realize it’s postmodern.


Nuances. It was all supposedly for the betterment of mankind, including the gulags and the purges. Even purges of fellow writers.

He’d occasionally champion a local puppet behind the Iron Curtain, praising his supposed uniqueness but it was all in the realms of “allowed” criticism.


Regardless, that is not really postmodernism.


Don’t speculate … What post modernist literature do you think I like and I’ll confirm.


I think it should be stated that “postmodernism” here should be defined within the context of political thought because it is a very broad ranging movement. My understanding of it is mainly derived from a brief stint in art theory during my school days.


Yeah, like you have any either!

Fucking funny!


@Loppar. You seem to be one of the more informed posters on this forum, but this statement of yours seems wrong.

Post-modernism as a broad phenomena, is a current in academia from roughly the 1960’s onward, who was in opposition to “the grand narrativ” of history and positivist empiricism. Marxism (and the Leninist variation/revision) is an intellectual tradition, that 1) has it’s own “grand narrativ” of history, and 2) who seeked to establish a scientific approach to socialism (somewhat positivist and empiricist). The starting point for all marxist thinking is in its most simplistic form: How man produces, dictates how he thinks. Does not sound very much like post-modernism to me.

Btw. Sartre is better described as an existentialist, than a post-modernist.