Jordan Peterson 'red-pilled' on the Bill Maher show?

[fffurken]

I mean, he doesn't look comfortable being surrounded by a bunch of lobotomized progressive jackals (with TDS) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A

I feel his pain, we all do.

[Dutch]

wtf? He wants to know what's going to happen to Trump supporters if he
ends up getting removed from office? What kind of a moronic question is
that? Trump's opponents are supposed to worry about Trump supporters'
feelings?

Petersen had some good moments on the show, that sure wasn't one of them.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 03:03:45 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 4:29 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > I mean, he doesn't look comfortable being surrounded by a bunch of lobotomized progressive jackals (with TDS) -
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A
> >
> > I feel his pain, we all do.
> >
>
> wtf? He wants to know what's going to happen to Trump supporters if he
> ends up getting removed from office? What kind of a moronic question is
> that? Trump's opponents are supposed to worry about Trump supporters'
> feelings?

Says the guy with TDS who thinks Jordan Petersen [sic] is a 'right-winger'.

You know, I don't claim that Jordan Peterson is a genius, and I don't even know that much about him, but I do know that y'all don't understand him.

And I wouldn't be anywhere near as conciliatory as he is if I was in power. I'd execute every single one of you mutherfuckers.

[Dutch]

On 4/25/2018 7:24 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 03:03:45 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 4:29 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>> I mean, he doesn't look comfortable being surrounded by a bunch of lobotomized progressive jackals (with TDS) -
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A
>>>
>>> I feel his pain, we all do.
>>>
>>
>> wtf? He wants to know what's going to happen to Trump supporters if he
>> ends up getting removed from office? What kind of a moronic question is
>> that? Trump's opponents are supposed to worry about Trump supporters'
>> feelings?
>
> Says the guy with TDS

TDS, a term as dishonest and illegitimate as "Islamophobe". If anything
is a "syndrome" it's falling under the spell of that charlatan.

> who thinks Jordan Petersen [sic] is a 'right-winger'.

He's a darling of the right wing media. His apparent sympathy for Trump
supporters seems to be an indicator.

> You know, I don't claim that Jordan Peterson is a genius, and I don't even know that much about him, but I do know that y'all don't understand him.

You don't know shit.

> And I wouldn't be anywhere near as conciliatory as he is if I was in power. I'd execute every single one of you mutherfuckers.

Nice talk.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 05:22:27 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > Says the guy with TDS
>
> TDS, a term as dishonest and illegitimate as "Islamophobe". If anything
> is a "syndrome" it's falling under the spell of that charlatan.

'Islamophobe' is a legitimate word/descriptor, according to you.

> > who thinks Jordan Petersen [sic] is a 'right-winger'.
>
> He's a darling of the right wing media. His apparent sympathy for Trump
> supporters seems to be an indicator.

What's the "right wing media"? Fox News?

> > You know, I don't claim that Jordan Peterson is a genius, and I don't even know that much about him, but I do know that y'all don't understand him.
>
> You don't know shit.

Do you want to watch it again and see if you can understand it? Leave your TDS at the door.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g

By the way, the gay guy sort of latches on to it. He's the only one with half a brain on that panel and my God, Maher is awful. I can see why Billb likes him (except when he gets the very basics right on Islam).

[Dutch]

On 4/26/2018 7:10 AM, fffurken wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 05:22:27 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Says the guy with TDS
>>
>> TDS, a term as dishonest and illegitimate as "Islamophobe". If anything
>> is a "syndrome" it's falling under the spell of that charlatan.
>
> 'Islamophobe' is a legitimate word/descriptor, according to you.

I knew you would say that. I should learn to never speak with nuance in
response to people who deal in bad faith.

>>> who thinks Jordan Petersen [sic] is a 'right-winger'.
>>
>> He's a darling of the right wing media. His apparent sympathy for Trump
>> supporters seems to be an indicator.
>
> What's the "right wing media"? Fox News?

They have in on all the time, but I was actually thinking of Rebel Media.

>>> You know, I don't claim that Jordan Peterson is a genius, and I don't even know that much about him, but I do know that y'all don't understand him.
>>
>> You don't know shit.
>
> Do you want to watch it again and see if you can understand it? Leave your TDS at the door.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g

Petersen sees The US's main problem as polarization, and he believes
that attacking and ultimately bringing down Trump will only further
alienate the 38% that support him, making polarization even worse.

What did you hear him say?

In my opinion, it is Trump himself who is the polarizing figure.
Bringing him to justice will actually help matters in the long run. His
base, who actually are the ones with TDS, will recover.

>
> By the way, the gay guy sort of latches on to it. He's the only one with half a brain on that panel and my God, Maher is awful. I can see why Billb likes him (except when he gets the very basics right on Islam).

Petersen did well psychoanalyzing the woman on the panel, that's what he
should stick to.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 19:45:51 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > 'Islamophobe' is a legitimate word/descriptor, according to you.
>
> I knew you would say that. I should learn to never speak with nuance in
> response to people who deal in bad faith.

What's "nuanced" about your version? I keep on telling you that when they use it they mean the same thing you do.

> > Do you want to watch it again and see if you can understand it? Leave your TDS at the door.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g
>
> Petersen sees The US's main problem as polarization, and he believes
> that attacking and ultimately bringing down Trump will only further
> alienate the 38% that support him, making polarization even worse.
>
> What did you hear him say?

Do you think there are any legitimate reasons to support Trump?

> In my opinion, it is Trump himself who is the polarizing figure.
> Bringing him to justice will actually help matters in the long run. His
> base, who actually are the ones with TDS, will recover.

More nuance no doubt

> > By the way, the gay guy sort of latches on to it. He's the only one with half a brain on that panel and my God, Maher is awful. I can see why Billb likes him (except when he gets the very basics right on Islam).
>
> Petersen did well psychoanalyzing the woman on the panel, that's what he
> should stick to.

I wasn't aware that Peterson's expertise was in the clinical psychology of women. And why do you keep on spelling his name wrong?

[Clave]

On 4/26/2018 11:45 AM, Dutch wrote:

<...>

> Petersen did well psychoanalyzing the woman on the panel...

Is that your professional opinion?

[fffurken]

There was nothing to psychoanalyze, other than perhaps her preference for babble over responsiveness.

[Dutch]

I'm basing it on her reaction.

[Dutch]

On 4/26/2018 12:15 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 19:45:51 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> 'Islamophobe' is a legitimate word/descriptor, according to you.
>>
>> I knew you would say that. I should learn to never speak with nuance in
>> response to people who deal in bad faith.
>
> What's "nuanced" about your version? I keep on telling you that when they use it they mean the same thing you do.

My version would apply to people who hate all Muslims automatically
because of their "religion", and who foment hatred against Muslims
and/or attack them. The version commonly used is anyone who finds fault
with Islam, its texts, laws, customs, or specific actions of its followers.

>>> Do you want to watch it again and see if you can understand it? Leave your TDS at the door.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g
>>
>> Petersen sees The US's main problem as polarization, and he believes
>> that attacking and ultimately bringing down Trump will only further
>> alienate the 38% that support him, making polarization even worse.
>>
>> What did you hear him say?
>
> Do you think there are any legitimate reasons to support Trump?

None that amount to anything. He occasionally says things that might
sound good, but he doesn't follow through because doesn't know what he's
doing. There is far more harm and risk in having him in power that there
is benefit.

>> In my opinion, it is Trump himself who is the polarizing figure.
>> Bringing him to justice will actually help matters in the long run. His
>> base, who actually are the ones with TDS, will recover.
>
> More nuance no doubt

Pretty obvious actually. His supporters are suffering from severe
confirmation bias. America is not getting "Great Again", that was
meaningless hype, and his supporters know it by now.

>>> By the way, the gay guy sort of latches on to it. He's the only one with half a brain on that panel and my God, Maher is awful. I can see why Billb likes him (except when he gets the very basics right on Islam).
>>
>> Petersen did well psychoanalyzing the woman on the panel, that's what he
>> should stick to.
>
> I wasn't aware that Peterson's expertise was in the clinical psychology of women. And why do you keep on spelling his name wrong?

He *is* a clinical psychologist.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 04:04:13 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > What's "nuanced" about your version? I keep on telling you that when they use it they mean the same thing you do.
>
> My version would apply to people who hate all Muslims automatically
> because of their "religion", and who foment hatred against Muslims
> and/or attack them.

Please spare me the all Muslims crap and just accept that your version is the same as their version.

> > Do you think there are any legitimate reasons to support Trump?
>
> None that amount to anything.

That's a longer way of saying 'no'.

How about Trump supporters, do they all suffer from an ism or phobia of some kind?

> >> In my opinion, it is Trump himself who is the polarizing figure.
> >> Bringing him to justice will actually help matters in the long run. His
> >> base, who actually are the ones with TDS, will recover.
> >
> > More nuance no doubt
>
> Pretty obvious actually. His supporters are suffering from severe
> confirmation bias.

lol Confirmation bias doesn't even begin to describe you cultists

[Clave]

Based on the fact that he did it at all in such a forum, I conclude that
as a mental health "professional" he's nothing more than an
attention-seeking hack.

I watched that show the first time around, and after Peterson's
appearance the first thing I thought was "Geez, where'd I leave the Purell?"

[fffurken]

lol @ two babblers babbling at each other

You have to understand that leftists hate Joran Peterson.. *because* he describes them. It's the uncomfortability of cognitive dissonance.

[Dutch]

On 4/26/2018 8:22 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Friday, 27 April 2018 04:04:13 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> What's "nuanced" about your version? I keep on telling you that when they use it they mean the same thing you do.
>>
>> My version would apply to people who hate all Muslims automatically
>> because of their "religion", and who foment hatred against Muslims
>> and/or attack them.
>
> Please spare me the all Muslims crap and just accept that your version is the same as their version.

It's not remotely the same. Are you retarded?

>
>>> Do you think there are any legitimate reasons to support Trump?
>>
>> None that amount to anything.
>
> That's a longer way of saying 'no'.
>
> How about Trump supporters, do they all suffer from an ism or phobia of some kind?

Answered below.

[Dutch]

On 4/26/2018 8:35 PM, Clave wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 7:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 12:20 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 11:45 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> Petersen did well psychoanalyzing the woman on the panel...
>>>
>>> Is that your professional opinion?
>>
>> I'm basing it on her reaction
>
> Based on the fact that he did it at all in such a forum, I conclude that
> as a mental health "professional" he's nothing more than an
> attention-seeking hack.

I think he needs to quit listening to his fans. He's getting a Messiah
complex.

>
> I watched that show the first time around, and after Peterson's
> appearance the first thing I thought was "Geez, where'd I leave the
> Purell?"

I have to agree, I wanted to see him do well, but in the end it was
pretty cringe-worthy.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 05:27:14 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> >> My version would apply to people who hate all Muslims automatically
> >> because of their "religion", and who foment hatred against Muslims
> >> and/or attack them.
> >
> > Please spare me the all Muslims crap and just accept that your version is the same as their version.
>
> It's not remotely the same. Are you retarded?

So you're saying that you have a really, really, really specific version of what an 'Islamophobe' is? Someone who hates every single Muslim on the planet and/or would attack and kill Muslims? How many people do you think that applies to, ballpark?

[BillB]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:32:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote

>
> I have to agree, I wanted to see him do well, but in the end it was
> pretty cringe-worthy.

I thought it was humorous that he was imploring people not to attack Trump because it's too divisive, yet he slams Trudeau at every turn, to anyone who will put a microphone in front of his face, over the most minor (and sometimes completely phony) complaints imaginable.

I saw through that clown the first time I laid eyes on him. Complete knucklehead.

[BillB]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:

>
> So you're saying that you have a really, really, really specific version of what an 'Islamophobe' is? Someone who hates every single Muslim on the planet and/or would attack and kill Muslims? How many people do you think that applies to, ballpark?

Are homophobes limited to people who hate every single homosexual on the planet and/or would attack and kill homosexuals?

Uh, no.

Stop being deliberately stupid.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 05:39:26 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

> I thought it was humorous that he was imploring people not to attack Trump

lol Another idiot

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 05:42:27 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

> Are homophobes limited to people who hate every single homosexual on the planet and/or would attack and kill homosexuals?

Bahahahaha.. is it because 'homophobe' sounds like 'Islamophobe'?

You have to be the stupidest cunt alive

[BillB]

They mean exactly the same thing, except one relates to homosexuals and one relates to Muslims. The word Islamophobia exists because the term homophobia preexisted. The former was inspired by the latter.

[Clave]

He reminded me of a couple of bible-thumpers who used to show up on the
U of M campus every spring. Brother Jed and Sister Cindy. Had
self-serving (and largely bullshit) answers for everything.

There wasn't much special about them other than the quality of heckling
they attracted, which was consistently outstanding, even if I do say so
myself.

[fffurken]

lol I know what you think it means. Haven't I been explaining that all throughout the thread?

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 05:50:00 UTC+1, Clave wrote:

> He reminded me of a couple of bible-thumpers

lol Says the Islamophile

[BillB]

You are incoherent. Are you telling me you seriously did not know that homophobia and Islamophobia are related terms?? Just how fucking stupid are you? Is there any bottom to it?

[fffurken]

Why are you telling me that? I already know that. Tell Dutch. Tell him that when you call him an 'Islamophobe', it has nothing to do with a criticism of the (so-called) "religion" of Islam. You'd be doing us all a favour.

[Dutch]

It wouldn't have to be that specific, think anti-Semitic and apply that
to Islam, that would be Islamophobia.

[Dutch]

On 4/26/2018 9:39 PM, BillB wrote:

He has some interesting insights, when he sticks to the subjects he
knows. When he gets out of his lane he looks foolish.

[Dutch]

It's a very weak comparison. Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of human
nature, Islam represents a host of different religious and political ideas.

[BillB]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:40:16 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> It's a very weak comparison.

It's not a weak comparison. They mean exactly the same thing. In fact, one was inspired by the other.

> Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of human
> nature, Islam represents a host of different religious and political ideas.

So what?

Ask 1,000,000 native English speakers the difference between Islamophobia and homophobia. What do you think 99.99% will tell you?

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 09:32:01 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> It wouldn't have to be that specific, think anti-Semitic and apply that
> to Islam, that would be Islamophobia.

Oh ffs. Luckily for you I've already decided to award this post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/Zcq38KJuh-I/_mQjzowbAQAJ stupidest post of the year.

That is a transferal of Billb's notorious inability to read.. to a video.

[Dutch]

On 4/27/2018 1:43 AM, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:40:16 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> It's a very weak comparison.
>
> It's not a weak comparison. They mean exactly the same thing. In fact, one was inspired by the other.

I don't know if that's true, but that doesn't make it a valid comparison.

>> Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of human
>> nature, Islam represents a host of different religious and political ideas.
>
> So what?

Ideas are open to criticism; that is the very essence of freedom of
speech and conscience. I may be opposed to the practice of circumcision,
and have sound reasons for it. I may be critical of Israel's actions in
the middle east, even hate them, for good reasons. These opinions do not
mean I am anti-Semitic. The same argument holds for any belief system
you can name. You make valid criticisms of Christian ideas and
practices, there's no "phobia" involved.

A person's sexual orientation is a fundamental part of who they are as a
person. There are no valid grounds to be opposed to it, or to fear or
hate it. To do so is religious bigotry.

The two words *could* be analogous, but based on the disruptive and
disingenuous way the term "Islamophobia" is used (as a megaphone to
silence critics of Islam), they are not.

> Ask 1,000,000 native English speakers the difference between Islamophobia and homophobia. What do you think 99.99% will tell you?

Do you call that an argument? I call it a fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

[Dutch]

At first I found Trump's plain talk refreshing, compared to the usual
stuffed shirt politicians. Unfortunately underneath that common speech
is a man with nothing at his core except a need for personal ego
gratification. I see him as only technically human.

The US is little more than a kingdom now, where the mentally challenged
son takes the throne and the task of the government is to work around
his quirks, ignorance and outbursts. The good thing is, unlike the crazy
king, they can get rid of Trump.

Sorry if that was post a non sequitur, but so was yours.

[bernit...@gmail.com]

Lol...you dimwit...it is not fallacy. English words mean what a critical mass of native English speakers believe they m
ean. That's how our language works. Dictionaries attempt to capture that widespread understanding in a concise few words, though the translation is not always perfect.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 19:42:20 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > Ask 1,000,000 native English speakers the difference between Islamophobia and homophobia. What do you think 99.99% will tell you?
>
> Do you call that an argument? I call it a fallacy.
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

lol He got it wrong when he said - ask 1,000,000 native English speakers.., if he had said - ask 1,000,000 stupid leftists.. he might have had a point.

And I guess it's difficult to describe the hypocristupidity of being a critic of the word 'Islamophobia' and declaring it a legitimate term.. when you use it (which happens to have the same meaning as when they use it) so I give up. But please don't ever use the term in a post to me again, in any way, shape, or form.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 20:28:15 UTC+1, bernit...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lol...you dimwit...it is not fallacy. English words mean what a critical mass of native English speakers believe they m
> ean. That's how our language works. Dictionaries attempt to capture that widespread understanding in a concise few words, though the translation is not always perfect.

^ Who's this idiot?

[fffurken]

I really have no interest in anything you have to say about Trump - you're not rational. But I can see where you get your TDS from if you listen to loopers like Maher.

[bernit...@gmail.com]

Put him in a kangaroo suit and then you'll listen....lol

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:03:13 UTC+1, bernit...@gmail.com wrote:
> Put him in a kangaroo suit and then you'll listen....lol

lol Berni Takmann.. is that your real name?

[Dutch]

On 4/27/2018 12:28 PM, bernit...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lol...you dimwit...it is not fallacy. English words mean what a critical mass of native English speakers believe they m
> ean. That's how our language works. Dictionaries attempt to capture that widespread understanding in a concise few words, though the translation is not always perfect.
>

You didn't propose a definition at all, you just committed a fallacy of
appealing to the mob. The definitions, as found in dictionaries, reflect
the widespread fuzzy confusion surrounding the word, as I have clearly
demonstrated previously. Members of the Canadian parliament raised this
very issue, as have many commentators. Criticism of Islamic ideas,
customs, beliefs, governments, sects, or actions inspired by Islamic
texts, do not constitute any kind of phobia or bigotry any more than
your habit of criticizing the ideas of fundamentalist Christians. The
word is just a convenient club SJWs like to use in an attempt to demean
their opponents.

[Dutch]

Do you believe there is such a thing as antisemitism? Is that a valid word?

[fffurken]

Yes and yes. But it doesn't relate to an ideology. I realise that you're quite confused about the difference between 'Jew' and 'Muslim'.

[bernit...@gmail.com]

Lol...there is no such thing as an invalid word. What does that even mean??? A word is just a symbol. Either people know what you mean by it or they don't. (Almost) Nobody is confused by the meaning of Islamophobe any more than they are by antisemite or homophobe.

The reason you don't Islamophobe is because it is derogatory and.many people use it to describe you and your bizarre fear and obsession with Muslims.

[Dutch]

My point is that the word Islamophobe could legitimately be a parallel
to the antisemite who hates Jews, a racist who hates blacks, a
Protestant religious bigot who hates Roman Catholics, or a misogynist
who hates women. It isn't used that way though, unfortunately it has
been seconded by SJWs as a weapon to shout down any criticism of Islam.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:40:15 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> My point is that the word Islamophobe could legitimately be a parallel
> to the antisemite who hates Jews, a racist who hates blacks, a
> Protestant religious bigot who hates Roman Catholics, or a misogynist
> who hates women. It isn't used that way though

It IS!

That's exactly how leftist morons use it. Leftist morons think Islam is a race. Of "scary brown people".

[Dutch]

On 4/27/2018 1:31 PM, bernit...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lol...there is no such thing as an invalid word. What does that even mean??? A word is just a symbol. Either people know what you mean by it or they don't. (Almost) Nobody is confused by the meaning of Islamophobe any more than they are by antisemite or homophobe.
>
> The reason you don't Islamophobe is because it is derogatory and.many people use it to describe you and your bizarre fear and obsession with Muslims.

You are making my point. I have neither fear of nor obsession with
Muslims. Nobody outside a couple of nitwits on this newsgroup think
that. You use the term to refer to anyone who is critical of Islam,
which I am, on occasion. You can't stand that I feel free to do that.
You think calling me a derogatory name will deter me. It has the
opposite effect.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:49:32 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> You use the term to refer to anyone who is critical of Islam

He DOESN'T! Jesus Christ.

[Dutch]

I think SJWs see Muslims as an oppressed, misunderstood, maligned
minority who need advocates from the master race to stick up for them.
Anyone who suggests that Muslims are in any way the authors of their own
problems must be silenced.

[Dutch]

I don't follow. My only crime is being critical of Islam. The fear and
loathing of Muslims he attributes to me is in his head.

[fffurken]

Please stop

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:58:52 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> On 4/27/2018 1:54 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:49:32 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> You use the term to refer to anyone who is critical of Islam
> >
> > He DOESN'T! Jesus Christ.
> >
>
> I don't follow. My only crime is being critical of Islam.

That's *not* why you're called an 'Islamophobe'. Please stop.

[Dutch]

If not that then why?

[BillB]

lol...I'd love to see exactly how low your IQ is. Judging by that last comment, it HAS to be in the 80s, at most.

[fffurken]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/Zcq38KJuh-I/DIj8_5lMAQAJ in brackets - these things ()

Furthermore: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/Zcq38KJuh-I/5TEV3KYdAQAJ

Are you impenetrable?

Now, if you happen to get it, and I would not bet a dime on it, don't say that they're wrong (about you). That's not the point.

[fffurken]

lol Bernita K Mann, is that your "wife"'s name?

[Bill Vanek]

Who do you think? Did you really think William Bradley is the only
fake name he uses?

[BillB]

wow ...it only took you two hours to figure that out? lolol Only problem is the IQ test was over an hour and a half ago. You failed. Yes, my wife's name is Bernita, as has been disclosed several times before over a period of years. Try to keep up.

[BillB]

I have never used a fake name. Unlike you, I am not ashamed of what I write, nor am I fearful of the world around me.

[fffurken]

I've only known Bernita to use one fake name.

PS. Being a woman would explain a helluva lot.

[Bill Vanek]

That's all you have ever used around here. It's insanity to believe
otherwise, unless you really do have the IQ of a retard.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:02:43 -0700 (PDT), fffurken

<fffu...@mail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 27 April 2018 23:47:25 UTC+1, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
>> <fffu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 27 April 2018 20:28:15 UTC+1, bernit...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Lol...you dimwit...it is not fallacy. English words mean what a critical mass of native English speakers believe they m
>> >> ean. That's how our language works. Dictionaries attempt to capture that widespread understanding in a concise few words, though the translation is not always perfect.
>> >
>> >^ Who's this idiot?
>>
>> Who do you think? Did you really think William Bradley is the only
>> fake name he uses?
>
>I've only known Bernita to use one fake name.
>
>PS. Being a woman would explain a helluva lot.

He and Dutch both.

[BillB]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:11:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> That's all you have ever used around here. It's insanity to believe
> otherwise, unless you really do have the IQ of a retard.

I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that my name is William Bradley. I'm pretty sure you're the only one here stupid enough to be unconvinced.

As I said, unlike you, I am not ashamed of my views, and I am not fearful of the world around me.

[Dutch]

Jesus Christ, if you have an answer to the question just fucking spit it
out.

[Dutch]

On 4/27/2018 4:11 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> PS. Being a woman would explain a helluva lot.
> He and Dutch both.

The ultimate Vanek insult.

[fffurken]

Fuck me, you would try the patience of a saint. And really, how many different ways, or tries, can I "answer the question". Did you even click on the links, yes or no? It's all in there.

You. are. never. being. called. an. 'Islamophobe'.. for. criticising. the. so-called. "religion".

You. are. being. called. an. 'Islamophobe'.. for. the. same. reason. you. would. call. someone. an. 'Islamophobe'. You. obtuse. cunt.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:15:56 -0700 (PDT), BillB
<williamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:11:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>> That's all you have ever used around here. It's insanity to believe
>> otherwise, unless you really do have the IQ of a retard.
>
>I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that my name is William Bradley.

You are fucking insane. You have offered zero proof ever.

[fffurken]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 05:39:26 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

I thought it was humorous that he was imploring people not to attack Trump because it's too divisive, yet he slams Trudeau at every turn, to anyone who will put a microphone in front of his face, over the most minor (and sometimes completely phony) complaints imaginable.

I saw through that clown the first time I laid eyes on him. Complete knucklehead.
--

Any objections?

[fffurken]

Oh, I should add my justification:

In a thread about leftists (with TDS) spectacularly missing the point, a leftist (with TDS), Billb, spectacularly missed the point.

And I should also add that there are two videos posted in this thread - of the same clip from the Bill Maher Shit Show.

The first one, in the OP, entitled - "The moment Jordan Peterson asked a hard question about Trump to Bill Maher *REUPLOAD*"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A

And then another one I saw subsequently, entitled - "Jordan Peterson STUMPS Bill Maher's Elitist Panel with Questions a Second Grader Could Answer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g&t=5m19s

Which I thought might help because of the extras, annotations and stuff.

It pays to watch videos.

[BillB]

lol..you're incoherent.

[Dutch]

On 4/27/2018 5:05 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:52:35 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>> On 4/27/2018 3:46 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>> On Friday, 27 April 2018 23:26:07 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2018 2:02 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:58:52 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/27/2018 1:54 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 27 April 2018 21:49:32 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You use the term to refer to anyone who is critical of Islam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He DOESN'T! Jesus Christ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't follow. My only crime is being critical of Islam.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's *not* why you're called an 'Islamophobe'. Please stop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If not that then why?
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/Zcq38KJuh-I/DIj8_5lMAQAJ in brackets - these things ()
>>>
>>> Furthermore: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/Zcq38KJuh-I/5TEV3KYdAQAJ
>>>
>>> Are you impenetrable?
>>>
>>> Now, if you happen to get it, and I would not bet a dime on it, don't say that they're wrong (about you). That's not the point.
>>>
>>
>> Jesus Christ, if you have an answer to the question just fucking spit it
>> out.
>
> Fuck me, you would try the patience of a saint. And really, how many different ways, or tries, can I "answer the question". Did you even click on the links, yes or no? It's all in there.

I did look, they were recent posts. If they told me anything I would
already understand it.

>
> You. are. never. being. called. an. 'Islamophobe'.. for. criticising. the. so-called. "religion".

What then?

> You. are. being. called. an. 'Islamophobe'.. for. the. same. reason. you. would. call. someone. an. 'Islamophobe'. You. obtuse. cunt.

That doesn't make sense. I have not done or said anything that would
make me consider someone to be an Islamophobe. Sorry, I'm not getting
it. Please just say it.

[fffurken]

not an argument

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 05:21:52 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Please just say it.

You're dense

[Dutch]

I have another suggestion for Stupidest Post Of The Year, your post
titled "Stupidest Post Of The Year".

[fffurken]

TDS sufferers' objections don't count, sorry

[BillB]

Nope. An observation. Hitting the bottle pretty hard today, huh?

[BillB]

There was nothing stupid about my post at all. In fact, I'm sure anyone Canadian with Peterson's youtube psychobabble and "political commentary" immediately recognized the blatant hypocrisy.

[fffurken]

Your observations aren't worth shit

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 05:49:18 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

> There was nothing stupid about my post at all.

Of course there was

[BillB]

If it still seems stupid when you sober up, then you can explain why. I wouldn't attempt it right now if I were you.

[fffurken]

I'm not drunk, and it doesn't matter how much I've drank. I will always be more coherent than you.

But for starters, why did you say that Peterson was "imploring people not to attack Trump", when he wasn't. The question was about Trump supporters. You have TDS. Much like the panel.

[BillB]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10:05:12 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:

> I'm not drunk

Stop lying.

> and it doesn't matter how much I've drank. I will always be more coherent than >you.

I don't doubt you believe that. In reality, I can tell you would score very poorly on the writing and language section of the SATs.

> But for starters, why did you say that Peterson was "imploring people not to >attack Trump", when he wasn't.

That is my recollection.

> The question was about Trump supporters. You have TDS. Much like the panel.

My recollection is that he was saying something to the effect that if you keep viciously attacking Trump you are going to alienate the Trump voters forever and beyond repair (and he sort of implied that in the process they would become even more deplorable than they already are). He clearly doesn't understand American politics. The Trump bots are completely lost causes. These are (for the most part) evil, selfish, racist, and stubbornly stupid individuals. Can you imagine trying to make someone like Vanek into a good person and a critical thinker? Impossible. Trump supporters aren't to be won over, but ridiculed, marginalized, and eventually castrated.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 06:19:44 UTC+1, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10:05:12 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:
>
> > I'm not drunk
>
> Stop lying.
>
>
> > and it doesn't matter how much I've drank. I will always be more coherent than >you.
>
> I don't doubt you believe that. In reality, I can tell you would score very poorly on the writing and language section of the SATs.
>
> > But for starters, why did you say that Peterson was "imploring people not to >attack Trump", when he wasn't.
>
> That is my recollection.

Your "recollection" isn't worth shit, and it's false.

> > The question was about Trump supporters. You have TDS. Much like the panel.
>
> My recollection is that he was saying something to the effect that if you keep viciously attacking Trump you are going to alienate the Trump voters forever and beyond repair

Nope (see above).

The question wasn't about Trump, it was about Trump's supporters. You remain impervious to reality (with TDS). Much like the panel.

[Dutch]

If you can't put it into words in a plain English sentence or two how am
I supposed to figure out what you mean?

You said this, "You. are. being. called. an. 'Islamophobe'.. for. the.

same. reason. you. would. call. someone. an. 'Islamophobe'"

Presumably all the periods were supposed to make it clear what you meant ???

Now in place of ".. the. same. reason. you. would. call. someone. an.
'Islamophobe'" give a specific example of something that I have been
guilty of for which I would call someone an Islamophobe.

[Dutch]

Everyone in the world is suffering from TPS "Trump Presidency Syndrome".

[Dutch]

I wasn't referring to your post. In fact I posted something similar. It
had nothing to do with his other commentary, the remarks in question
were a mess on their own.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 05:49:18 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

lol @ youtube psychobabble

Call me an eternal optimist but I think Billb may have rewatched the video(s);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FduxSTXvc0g&t=5m19s

..and realised that he's a cretin, with TDS. Like the panel.

And the only "blatant hypocrisy" I can think of is - "I thought it was humorous that he was imploring people not to attack Trump because it's too divisive, yet he slams Trudeau at every turn".

So, the Canadian leftist moron with TDS, do you realise now why you were awarded the SPOTY?

[Dutch]

That's exactly what he was saying, it could not be any clearer. What is
wrong with you? He is expressing concern for the impact on Trump
supporters if Trump is taken down, as if Mueller and Trump's accusers
should do what exactly, go along with his criminal enterprise?

[BillB]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> That's exactly what he was saying, it could not be any clearer. What is
> wrong with you?

Irish, drunk, not very bright....all redundant.

[Dutch]

What question? Peterson offered his opinion on American politics,
specifically advising Maher and the panel that attacking Trump was going
to have serious negative effects on his supporters, by making the
polarization worse. It was a silly point. The right, and Trump, had no
problem attacking Obama trying to discredit him, and he was a decent,
honorable man.

[fffurken]

not an argument

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 08:10:28 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > But for starters, why did you say that Peterson was "imploring people not to attack Trump", when he wasn't. The question was about Trump supporters. You have TDS. Much like the panel.
> >
>
> That's exactly what he was saying, it could not be any clearer. What is
> wrong with you?

What is wrong with *me*??

lol You are the dumbest mutherfucker alive, along with your fellow Canadian. He never "implored people not to attack Trump" (if anything he said he understood it). He's also clearly the smartest the guy in the room, and feels uncomfortable, just like I said in the OP.

The question was about Trump's supporters, you know, the people you think are only technically human. You're in the bubble, you'll never get out of it, you'll die a cultist.

[Dutch]

Can you see that Peterson was questioning the wisdom of attacking Trump
because of the negative impact it would have on his supporters?

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 08:23:09 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Can you see that Peterson was questioning the wisdom of attacking Trump

lol No. Because he WASN'T. lofl..you have TDS. Much like the panel.

[Dutch]

I said that about Donald Trump not his supporters. I've thought that
about him for decades. I've always known there was something very wrong
with him. His supporters are his victims.

And the question was, "What do you think all those supporters of his are
going to think (feel) when Trump gets taken down?" Implied in that
question, maybe you should think twice about the wisdom of all this
attacking Trump. In other words, don't do it.

> You're in the bubble, you'll never get out of it, you'll die a cultist.

I'm not on your team, that's for sure. Mainly because you don't make sense.

[Dutch]

Then why does he make the point that Trump's supporters' feewings will
be all hurt if he is taken down?

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 08:17:49 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> > The question wasn't about Trump, it was about Trump's supporters. You remain impervious to reality (with TDS). Much like the panel.
> >
>
> What question?

What question?? lol.. are you for fucking real? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rj7qcLu1A&t=8s

Get off my monitor man, you belong in a padded cell.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 08:34:15 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Then why does he make the point that Trump's supporters' feewings will
> be all hurt if he is taken down?

He talks about (the hypothetical of) an impeachment (a leftist's wet dream), that isn't the same as "imploring people not to attack Trump". You people are nuts, the TDS has rotted your brains.

[Dutch]

His comments are in the form of a question, but it's largely rhetorical.

When someone says, "What do you think will happen if you drive your car
into that lake?" what they are actually doing is suggesting that it's a
bad idea to drive your car into a lake.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 08:50:47 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> His comments are in the form of a question, but it's largely rhetorical.

Get. the. fuck. off. my. MONITOR!