Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Alliance for Responsible Citizenship" channel.

  1.  @VarianteMobile  no one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    4
  2. No one can find a valuable message by JP.
    3
  3. JP pretends that the ARC has ideas for a better world. Let's check it out: 'What do you mean by WE? The untrammeled atomistic isolated liberal individual is indistinguishable from an immature immediate hedonistic model or itself. Our values are the same as a 2 year old, technically, the work we do pertains to that topic...sexual gratification is a wish, sexual pleasure on its own, men who have many women are psychopathic and sadistic...' [Translation; big words attempting to sound technical discussing nothing technical or useful at all. OUR values are the same as a 2 year old technically? Like everyone? How does JP know that my values are the same as two year old, or the other 7 billion people on earth? Everyone who likes a lot of sex is a sadistic psychopath? What about the sadistic psychopaths that do school shootings because they aren't getting any sex?]
    3
  4. No one can find a useful idea by JP.
    2
  5.  @yogi2436  Ok, you can't find a profound intellectual coherent useful idea by Peterson.
    2
  6.  @donnyg1984  Has JP ever said anything that you didn't know already? I gather some people get motivated when they hear a guy in a suit on youtube tell them to stand up straight and be responsible. I fully support his message that helps people.
    2
  7.  @stuartannetts300  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    2
  8.  @illbeyourmonster5752  What you should understand is that Sacrifice makes a difference, the hierarchy of identity, the lower to the higher, proximal hedonic whims, the payback is good, to escape from primordial narcissism, some things go wrong with children, having children can be rewarding, there is no technical difference between thinking about yourself and being miserable, serve a higher purpose, technically, think about a fork and a table and a plate as a microcosm of the universe, that is all real, we forgot responsibility.
    2
  9. ​ @BadFeelingsClan Great pacing great suit great speaking skills, but exactly zero coherent profound intellectual ideas about anything. The most gifted fake intellectual of this century.
    1
  10.  @ozonius_6859  You found one? A useful idea that you didn't know already? Please share. Anything in his ARC message which can be reduced to 'its good when good people do good stuff'?
    1
  11.  @ozonius_6859  Did you find this alleged intellectual profound idea by Peterson yet?
    1
  12.  @ozonius_6859  JP said something wise that you didn't know already? what was it?
    1
  13.  @ozonius_6859  Check out his recent ARC videos for some full on nonsense. 'I am very precise in my wording...climb jacob's ladder above the subsidiary hierarchy to the shining city on the hill.'
    1
  14. No one can find a useful idea by JP.
    1
  15. 7:00 'There is a cost to pay for being alive, the cost is the suffering, if the suffering has no purpose you will get bitter, its not good to make things worse, you should ask what do I want so I won't be bitter, negotiate a contract that you like, rub the genie and get a great relationship, manifest it to be motivated, try and be a person you would admire, you are technically motivated, then I would be pleased and in harmony, that would be a good existence...' So apparently it is not good when you make things worse, and good when you make things better. Holy crap this guy is a total genius. You should also try to get what you want. Amazing. 10:30 'Ask and you will receive is practical advice, an unexplored storehouse of potential treasure, if you make the sacrifice to your goal you can attain it, sometimes you modify your decision, a shining city on the hill, stumble and improve, if you are all in, the worst thing will happen definitely, that is a risk, to manifest in the world...live a life worthwhile, that is the purpose of this conference...' [So apparently setting goals and strive for them is the message of ARC. Wasn't that already covered in a Berenstein Bear episode? So if everyone just does good stuff we don't need rules or a government? I suppose that is true. Is JP suggesting that is within the realm of possibility?]
    1
  16.  @jayjaychadoy9226  No one can find a useful idea by Peterson.
    1
  17. No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  18. No one can find a useful intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  19.  @silvykara2927  The ARC is Peterson pretending he has world solutions when he doesn't.
    1
  20.  @fxgrindinger4352  Peterson has no ideas, except when you climb Jacob's ladder with a fork and a plate you are organizing the cosmos. Pick a problem, I will tell you the solution.
    1
  21.  @fxgrindinger4352  Bill Maher, Tulsi Gabbard, have some pretty good ideas. But has we agree, JP has none.
    1
  22.  @davemontgomery5856  No one can find a useful intellectual idea by JP.
    1
  23.  @fxgrindinger4352  JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that we do not understand pre-experimental thinking, so we try to explain it in terms that we do understand – which means that we explain it away, define it as nonsense. After all, we think scientifically – so we believe – and we think we know what that means (since scientific thinking can in principle be defined). We are familiar with scientific thinking, and value it highly – so we tend to presume that that is all there is to thinking (that all other “forms of thought” are approximations, at best, to the ideal of scientific thought). But this is not accurate. Thinking also and more fundamentally is specification of value – is specification of implication for behavior. This means that categorization, with regards to value –determination (or even perception) of what constitutes a single thing, or class of things – is the act of grouping together according to implication for behavior. Do you agree?
    1
  24.  @fxgrindinger4352  Peterson has genius ideas? This is exciting. Can I see one?
    1
  25.  @donnyg1984  Did Peterson have a coherent useful idea in this video?
    1
  26.  @donnyg1984  Listen to the video and timestamp and quote an intellectual useful idea by Peterson that you didn't know already. I will check it out.
    1
  27.  @donnyg1984  'He is the first to admit his words or insights aren't groundbreaking.' Are you joking? The guy is the self appointed explainer of the world, with the ARC thing being a perfect example of 'look at how smart I am and how revolutionary and needed by ideas are'. Apparently lots of people need someone to tell them stuff they already know. I am not one of them.
    1
  28.  @donnyg1984  Someone is projecting envious sentiments towards those who appreciate his contributions? That sounds weird; someone in this thread? I am just pointing out that as much as he wants and feels he is an intellectual, he isn't. His coherent statements state stuff everyone on earth already knows. Then there is the incoherent stuff. He is the perfect definition of pompous fake intellectual, as noticed by most analysts discussing his ideas.
    1
  29.  @arc_conference  No one can find a profound intellectual coherent idea by Peterson.
    1
  30. But what if you are climbing Jacob's ladder with the fork and plate in your hand as you try and organize the cosmos? Wouldn't that be dangerous?
    1
  31. No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  32. ​ @Gordo999ify no one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  33. ​ @stuartannetts300 No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  34.  @stuartannetts300  But JP thinks he is an intellectual.
    1
  35.  @stuartannetts300  I agree. You can't find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  36.  @stuartannetts300  I am an intellectual. Pick a problem and I will give you an intellectual idea.
    1
  37.  @stuartannetts300  We agree you can't find an intellectual idea by Peterson. Is there something else you want to discuss?
    1
  38.  @stuartannetts300  Gobbledy gook? Are you in the third grade? JP is a fake intellectual, I am a real intellectual since I realize that Identity is the proper union of faith and responsibility. It does that in a hierarchical subsidiary manner, if you have conflict, you need a counter position, that is subsidiary structure. Jacob's ladder, the vine that unites the material and proximal realm of the earth with the eternal realm of heaven, how do we climb it, there is a vision of how we build ourselves, a glorious macro-vision; it is the proximal beginnings, we scaffold ourselves upward from the finite to the infinite, the scaffold constitutes our identity...also that you think so that your stupid thoughts can die instead of you. At the upper end of a hierarchy, you find people who know a lot, if you are stupid, smart people won't listen to you, so you can inform yourself with tools and you won't be an embarrassment, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is that if I can force you to do something then I have the right to do it.
    1
  39.  @stuartannetts300  So what if he does? [JP pretends he is an intellectual with valuable ideas] Who are you to define who is an intellectual? [I am a person analyzing JP content.] Does being part of this "intellectual" community somehow mean you're right about everything? [An actual intellectual is generally accurate.] Does being an intellectual mean you speak in a way that the peasants can't understand you? [A fake intellectual uses fancy words to fluff up no content, like JP.] If so, why would anyone think that is better in any way? [Why do lots of people think JP is an intellectual just because he uses an impressive vocabulary? That is the question I am attempting to answer.]
    1
  40.  @stuartannetts300  The important thing though is we agree. Neither of us can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  41.  @stuartannetts300  What I mean is, since neither of us can find an intellectual idea by JP, we agree on that issue.
    1
  42.  @stuartannetts300  Actually using lots of big words to say little is pseudo intellectual. So we agree Peterson is a pseudo intellectual. See that wasn't so hard was it? That was from maps of meaning.
    1
  43.  @user-nc9pc3gr4c  The guy said something brilliant? What?
    1
  44.  @swississue8550  This video had intelligence and truth? Timestamp and quote?
    1
  45.  @swississue8550  'Intelligence, deduction of truth through intuitive thought.'?? Did that happen in this video?
    1
  46.  @voltydequa845  We are searching for a deep useful idea by JP and the ARC. No one can find one.
    1
  47.  @illbeyourmonster5752  No one can find an intellectual idea by Peterson.
    1
  48.  @illbeyourmonster5752  'I am very precise in my wording...climb jacob's ladder above the subsidiary hierarchy to the shining city on the hill.'
    1
  49.  @illbeyourmonster5752  I win again. My facts don't care about your feelings.
    1
  50.  @illbeyourmonster5752  I know facts are scary for you, but here is another lesson; JP at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options.... [Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman, SO YOU ARE SAYING if is composed mostly of women it is a tyrannical patriarchy? No Jordan she didn't say anything like that. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.] JP at 8:00: Helen; women were barred from professions until 1919. JP: Why would you blame men for that? [Jordan really, why would you blame men for barring women from professions? Score for Helen.] Around 44:00 Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.' JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistical. [Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', ie Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0] --Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies one-dimensional...' [Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert'] 'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy... [She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy? Score for Helen.)
    1