Peterson Analyzes Crowder

Comments

skeptoid's picture

LOL dude make up your mind. One star or two?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

I went 2/5 because it's Crowder's Youtube channel so he's getting our clicks when you upload his stuff.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I was referring to the guy who gave it one star and then two stars and then one star again. I know of your desire to censor and suppress certain viewpoints so no worries there. Crowder is hit-and-miss for me but I do like that he brings controversial guests on his show that have been blacklisted by the mainstream media for various reasons.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

You know me:  I LOVE to censor the shit out of The Right.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I wouldn't say the right per se. I'm talking about the fact that you don't mind the idea of suppressing an entire source regardless of what they're presenting on a case-by-case basis. You feel the same way about styx and he doesn't particularly seem to be very right-wing to me. I'm of the position that people should be exposed if only so that they can come to the same conclusion that you have that a particular source is not worth their time rather than prevented from experiencing The Source altogether.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Skeptoid, that's the argument going on at colelge campuses right now and there's a bit of a flaw to it here on SpikedNation.com.  On SpikedNation.com the entire purpose of the site is to judge and rank videos.  I watched the video and judged it as a 2/5 and you jumped to the conclusion that I straight up downvoted it because it was Stephen Crowder.  I will also point out that it would be okay for me to instantly vote this a 2/5 even if I didn't watch it because Crowder is a source that I look down upon and he has given me reason not to give him the time of day in the future ever again.  If you have someone who lies to you once and then lies to you twice it is not unreasonable for you to stop trusting the person before they even open their mouth; I would even go so far as to say that it is appropriate that you stop trusting them and start actively ignoring them.  Crowder's a fool, he lies upon climate change shit, he always pushes a right wing and Christian agenda, and he's just not funny.  Because he has burned me in the past and because he burned me in this video he gets a 2/5.

Tell me where I lost you on this front.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You lost me when you wrote "I went 2/5 because it's Crowder's Youtube channel so he's getting our clicks when you upload his stuff." You didn't even imply - you explicitly stated that your reason for your rating was the channel and its host, not the content. You KNOW I don't like that, and you KNOW the reason why. We would disagree strongly about who is lying to who about climate change, our ability to understand what affects it, and the proper solution assuming all bad weather moving forward is your fault (not mine, yours - that's your belief system). It is not Crowder who lies about climate change - at best it would be the guests he has on that lie about climate change, and I don't see it that way at all. Crowder made a crack about climate change in the first 15 seconds of this video - if you had said you gave it 2/5 because of what he said about climate change I would not frame it as a suppression or censorship issue. But when you say you downrate it just because it's Crowder and you don't want anyone else (I would assume, because you watched it right?) to add views to his channel, that's you expressing the desire to act as a censor on behalf of others. You didn't even need to make a comment but you felt compelled to do so and explained that it was a blanket dislike for the source that prompted your rating. I don't downrate based on source or poster (for example I just ignore the John Oliver posts, or sometimes watch about one minute and then comment without rating) because I understand the therapeutic value he offers for those who are still recovering from the trauma of the world as represented to them by the MSM revealing itself to be false. That shit is scary, so many have been infantalized, and I understand the emotions involved.

For a while I was one-starring any extreme left anti-Trump posts by dupes driven by CNN and other MSM propaganda regardless of source or poster and then just stopped caring altogether, having recognized that severely hurt and confused people are just trying to work through their cognitive dissonance and, although I don't think the approach is healthy (it's like that debunked psychology method where a patient is told to pummel the shit out of a representation of their mother or father to address past issues of real or perceived trauma). Sometimes I see something so utterly idiotic in relation to Trump that I watch 30 seconds and then give it 1 star, but I'm doing my best to avoid that and just stick with the objective, rational and non-triggered evaluators such as Scot Adams. I recommend you check out his interview with Sam Harris - I never thought I would hear such a triggered, whiney and empty moralizing version of Harris. He doesn't sound like himself at all, and struggles greatly with actually backing up his emotional statements with rational arguments as Adams repeatedly spanks him. It was strange and embarrassing. So even the great intellects are still not quite able to accept what has occurred and seem still to be stuck at Nov. 7th 2016.

I have presented rational and effective methods of ripping down Trump in anticipation of 2020 and have been repeatedly gang-raped on this site by traumatized delusionals who just want to sink their teeth into a stuffed doll and call it a day. Trump has been your country's Buckley's, pooring die into the petri dish and bringing into sharp relief so many things that are empirically clear now but which those on the extreme left continue to deny - if they keep doing that they'll descend further and further into reckless lunacy (which see "Kid Rock 2020"). 2020 will be the time for a refeshing chaser of Gabbard - that's my dream, Trump was a step towards getting there, and so far it has been well worth it. I still give it 50/50 that he will make it through the year without being removed from office, although I argue strongly against it since if that happens the Gabbard dream dies with his administration and we go back to the old machinery of a well-polished parasitic establishment that will clamp down hard to ensure such an outsider never comes close to gaining power again.

So all that's to say that if you want to give a reason for why you downrated something, if your reason is blanket ideological suppression I would ask you to keep it to yourself because it's just about the only thing that genuinely triggers me on this site. It's been going on now on this site for so many months that it has made me into the thing I am complaining about at several points and I have to keep pulling back, telling myself that there's no fighting THAT level of emotional confusion, and just wait it out. I give the duckling's posts typically 4/5 or 5/5 but do my best to ignore his Trump horeshit rather than get drawn into the thing again, and I am genuinely grateful that berg has left the building. Because things have improved, I'm happy - there's enough content being posted here that the previous 24/7 extreme left Trump temper tantrum nonsense is being largely drowned out, which is good. I continue to do what I can to deliberately funnel new users to this site using whatever leverage I can muster.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"I have presented rational and effective methods of ripping down Trump in anticipation of 2020 and have been repeatedly gang-raped on this site by traumatized delusionals who just want to sink their teeth into a stuffed doll and call it a day."

Perhaps you're too invested.  Keep in mind that SpikedNation.com is a site specifically designed for users to comment upon and judge videos.  All of these extra little rules and regulations you're adding are fine for you to follow yourself, but you can't be upset at me for using the site the way it is intended to be used.  I've been commenting on SpikedNation.com and SpikedHumor.com for over a decade and I will continue to do so at my leisure and however I wish.  I disagree with you that "others" have misrepresented climate change on Crowder's content because I have SEEN CROWDER DO IT HIMSELF; perhaps you can lie to the Average Spiked National, but you're dealing with Grothesk here.  

Again, if Crowder has lied to me twice or more in the past wouldn't it be extremely stupid for me to believe him once again?  Would YOU recommend that you should listen to a known liar?  I'd love to hear your answer.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Crowder's position on climate change is based on the claims of his controversial guests, which he repeats. You and Daftcunt do exactly the same thing. No one is lying - people are watching different films on the same screen.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"No one is lying - people are watching different films on the same screen."

Yep, that's exactly how conflicting information works when it comes to science. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pantysoaker's picture

Scott Peterson > Jordan Peterson

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Andy Petersen > Scott Peterson

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

good debate from you two, wonder if anyone else bothered to read it? anyway my 2 cents is you're both right, depending on circumstance. i think in general skeptoid is right because a liar can alays tell the truth and it's a logical fallacy to conclude that someone who has told a lot of lies will never say anything true, but then grot is absolutely correct in that for these guys it's their entire job to be spreading lies and disinformation. even if they were capable of telling us something truthful and worthwhile, they would do it because it's against their business model, so we can safely assume that it is always going to be bullshit.

as for lying, lying includes the act of deliberately presenting a false impression, so what they're doing by intentionally omitting information in order to present a false impression - such as by only talking about 1998-2014 and deliberately leaving off data before 1998 and after 2014 - is by definition, lying.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down