Author Topic: Jordan Peterson.  (Read 326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

summa logicae

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +19
Jordan Peterson.
« on: November 06, 2017, 01:14:49 PM »
0
Does anyone else find it strange that Jordan Peterson agreed to be on Molyneux's show? I was somewhat surprised that a real psychologist didn't look into FDR and its history before lending his credence to the show by being a guest.

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +433
    • FDR Liberated
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2017, 02:11:04 PM »
+1
No, I'm not surprised. That's been the whole trick behind these interviews since Molyneux began doing them.

His interviewees are just there to promote their own thing. They have no idea (and don't particularly care) who he is beyond being a popular interviewer who is giving them a forum.

Molyneux's followers on the other hand take each interview is proof that their hero is of equal stature to (or above) the person he is interviewing. And Molyneux gets his name associated with a bunch of people as if he is part of that "set," even though most of them--if they knew what he actually stood for--would dismiss him as a crank.

To my knowledge, the only person who had the goods on Molyneux from the outset is Joe Rogan during Molyneux's last interview with him.
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

summa logicae

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +19
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2017, 02:27:53 PM »
0
No, I'm not surprised. That's been the whole trick behind these interviews since Molyneux began doing them.

His interviewees are just there to promote their own thing. They have no idea (and don't particularly care) who he is beyond being a popular interviewer who is giving them a forum.

Molyneux's followers on the other hand take each interview is proof that their hero is of equal stature to (or above) the person he is interviewing. And Molyneux gets his name associated with a bunch of people as if he is part of that "set," even though most of them--if they knew what he actually stood for--would dismiss him as a crank.

To my knowledge, the only person who had the goods on Molyneux from the outset is Joe Rogan during Molyneux's last interview with him.

Oh, I fully understand why Molyneux tries to get these interviews with real thinkers, and I understand that Peterson just wanted to promote his own ideas, but just by appearing on the show, he lends credence to Molyneux and FDR, albeit indirectly. And it's troubling (at least to my line of thinking) that he wouldn't at least do some research on FDR, instead of using it as just a platform.

money detonator

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Respect: +692
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2017, 04:32:21 PM »
+2
No, I'm not surprised. That's been the whole trick behind these interviews since Molyneux began doing them.

His interviewees are just there to promote their own thing. They have no idea (and don't particularly care) who he is beyond being a popular interviewer who is giving them a forum. 

Molyneux's followers on the other hand take each interview is proof that their hero is of equal stature to (or above) the person he is interviewing. And Molyneux gets his name associated with a bunch of people as if he is part of that "set," even though most of them--if they knew what he actually stood for--would dismiss him as a crank.

To my knowledge, the only person who had the goods on Molyneux from the outset is Joe Rogan during Molyneux's last interview with him.

Questeon,

There is someone more on the ball than Joe Rogan.  I really admire Sam Harris for seeing Molyneux for what he is right away, and making a point to not have anything to do with him. Harris figured out the dynamic with how Molyneux used association as a trick to gain status.

As a popular podcaster producing serious content for real thinkers, he wanted to protect his reputation.  He said a lot of his listeners and YT commenters pressured/ hounded him to go on Molyneux's show or have him on his show.  Anyone producing videos on YT knows what this feels like, to be hounded by Molyneux's trolls.  Harris said he looked into Molyneux and concluded he was a "crackpot" and "Internet goon" and said in some of his earliest episodes he would say Molyneux's name as little as possible so as to not give him any publicity.

I learn a lot from Harris' podcasts and listen to all of them.  There is some overlap in guests with FDR guests, and I notice that right away.  One of these was Douglas Murray, who is frequently on FDR.  His big gripe is about people who exploit identity politics, esp. on social media and YT, to get audience.  Oh the irony!  It did not get by Sam Harris either, and he confronted Murray on why, then, would he go on Molyneux's show all the time, when Molyneux is all about white identity politics and exploits the hell out of it, and why would he just go along with all the IQ stuff if he did not believe in it.  At that point, Murray confessed he didn't know much about Molyneux, and just went on there to promote himself, and he didn't want to argue with him about IQ because he just wanted Molyneux to shut up so he can get back to talking about his own stuff.  LOL

Anyway: it is around 41 min. in this YT podcast. 
Listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/q2-G7E5BfGQ?t=40m

It's a very interesting exchange.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 04:40:48 PM by money detonator »
"They are just money detonators!"  - Stefan Molyneux, passive-aggressive parenting expert, describes his wife and child as worse than taxation, podcast 2650

Weston Dupree

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Respect: +60
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2017, 05:27:58 PM »
0
No, I'm not surprised. That's been the whole trick behind these interviews since Molyneux began doing them.

His interviewees are just there to promote their own thing. They have no idea (and don't particularly care) who he is beyond being a popular interviewer who is giving them a forum.

Molyneux's followers on the other hand take each interview is proof that their hero is of equal stature to (or above) the person he is interviewing. And Molyneux gets his name associated with a bunch of people as if he is part of that "set," even though most of them--if they knew what he actually stood for--would dismiss him as a crank.

To my knowledge, the only person who had the goods on Molyneux from the outset is Joe Rogan during Molyneux's last interview with him.


There might have been some guy who posts on this site that met Milo Yiannapolous and told him about Molyneux being a cult leader.

::wink wink::

Megafauna

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +42
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2017, 01:03:33 AM »
0
Nope, Peterson seems pretty comfortable talking with anyone that will let him pontificate on his views. He doesn't strike me as as someone who bothers to do proper research into anyone he talks to, similarly while Harris & Rogan deserve *some* credit for being critical of Stefan they have both also indicated ambivalence about whether criticism of him is valid or not. Harris seems to be leaning towards changing his stance to give people the benefit of the doubt, and Rogan is usually almost entirely credulous, as long as he agrees with his guest.

summa logicae

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +19
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2017, 11:45:51 AM »
0
Nope, Peterson seems pretty comfortable talking with anyone that will let him pontificate on his views. He doesn't strike me as as someone who bothers to do proper research into anyone he talks to, similarly while Harris & Rogan deserve *some* credit for being critical of Stefan they have both also indicated ambivalence about whether criticism of him is valid or not. Harris seems to be leaning towards changing his stance to give people the benefit of the doubt, and Rogan is usually almost entirely credulous, as long as he agrees with his guest.

I was surprised because Peterson struck me as someone of integrity and awareness of people like Molyneux that could use his stance on free speech and the SJW controversy as promoting and bolstering their own views. But, I suppose in a larger way it's indicative of the age we live in, where self-promotion is sought largely without scruples.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 11:48:52 AM by summa logicae »

QuestEon

  • Just some guy with a blog.
  • Administrator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • What's your opinion? I'd love to hear it!
  • Respect: +433
    • FDR Liberated
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2017, 02:34:26 PM »
0
There is someone more on the ball than Joe Rogan.  I really admire Sam Harris for seeing Molyneux for what he is right away, and making a point to not have anything to do with him. Harris figured out the dynamic with how Molyneux used association as a trick to gain status.

...Anyway: it is around 41 min. in this YT podcast. 
Listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/q2-G7E5BfGQ?t=40m

Thank you! That was a great find!


Quote from: money detonator
...At that point, Murray confessed he didn't know much about Molyneux, and just went on there to promote himself, and he didn't want to argue with him about IQ because he just wanted Molyneux to shut up so he can get back to talking about his own stuff.  LOL

This is what I was trying to get at. Up to this point, at least, it has been difficult to overstate how the reputation dynamic flips outside of Molyneux's fanbase. In other words, to his followers, he is hobnobbing with his peers in these interviews. Outside of the fanbase (and to the interviewee) he is person of little consequence.

I can understand why few of his subjects would research, know, or care the slightest bit about him. He's just another interviewer who claims to have a big audience and they're just trying to sell their books or whatever.  (I wonder how hard it is for him to interview authors who actually have publishers?)

So far, the few who do know are those who have been proactively sought out and informed--they wouldn't do the research on their own.

We may be noticing a change now, as Molyneux becomes more known as a promoter of racism. Good on Sam Harris for figuring it out quickly.
It isn't about winning the debate. It's about the truth.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2017, 07:03:37 PM »
0
There is someone more on the ball than Joe Rogan.  I really admire Sam Harris for seeing Molyneux for what he is right away, and making a point to not have anything to do with him. Harris figured out the dynamic with how Molyneux used association as a trick to gain status.

...Anyway: it is around 41 min. in this YT podcast. 
Listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/q2-G7E5BfGQ?t=40m

Thank you! That was a great find!


Quote from: money detonator
...At that point, Murray confessed he didn't know much about Molyneux, and just went on there to promote himself, and he didn't want to argue with him about IQ because he just wanted Molyneux to shut up so he can get back to talking about his own stuff.  LOL

This is what I was trying to get at. Up to this point, at least, it has been difficult to overstate how the reputation dynamic flips outside of Molyneux's fanbase. In other words, to his followers, he is hobnobbing with his peers in these interviews. Outside of the fanbase (and to the interviewee) he is person of little consequence.

I can understand why few of his subjects would research, know, or care the slightest bit about him. He's just another interviewer who claims to have a big audience and they're just trying to sell their books or whatever.  (I wonder how hard it is for him to interview authors who actually have publishers?)

So far, the few who do know are those who have been proactively sought out and informed--they wouldn't do the research on their own.

We may be noticing a change now, as Molyneux becomes more known as a promoter of racism. Good on Sam Harris for figuring it out quickly.


Look you guy want to talk about your hatred of Stef and how he doesn't do things the way you would like him too go for it I don't care but don't lie about things.....promoter of racism???  Are you kidding me??  All he does is promote facts, evidence and statistics.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it racism.

Megafauna

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +42
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2017, 01:58:38 AM »
0
There is someone more on the ball than Joe Rogan.  I really admire Sam Harris for seeing Molyneux for what he is right away, and making a point to not have anything to do with him. Harris figured out the dynamic with how Molyneux used association as a trick to gain status.

...Anyway: it is around 41 min. in this YT podcast. 
Listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/q2-G7E5BfGQ?t=40m

Thank you! That was a great find!


Quote from: money detonator
...At that point, Murray confessed he didn't know much about Molyneux, and just went on there to promote himself, and he didn't want to argue with him about IQ because he just wanted Molyneux to shut up so he can get back to talking about his own stuff.  LOL

This is what I was trying to get at. Up to this point, at least, it has been difficult to overstate how the reputation dynamic flips outside of Molyneux's fanbase. In other words, to his followers, he is hobnobbing with his peers in these interviews. Outside of the fanbase (and to the interviewee) he is person of little consequence.

I can understand why few of his subjects would research, know, or care the slightest bit about him. He's just another interviewer who claims to have a big audience and they're just trying to sell their books or whatever.  (I wonder how hard it is for him to interview authors who actually have publishers?)

So far, the few who do know are those who have been proactively sought out and informed--they wouldn't do the research on their own.

We may be noticing a change now, as Molyneux becomes more known as a promoter of racism. Good on Sam Harris for figuring it out quickly.


Look you guy want to talk about your hatred of Stef and how he doesn't do things the way you would like him too go for it I don't care but don't lie about things.....promoter of racism???  Are you kidding me??  All he does is promote facts, evidence and statistics.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it racism.

Stef never just promotes facts, evidence, and statistics, everything he says is drenched in his ideology and accordingly distorted. And his current ideological narrative does promote prejudice against people based on their race, the elevation of his own 'race', and apocalyptic fears of the unprecedented threat white (Christian) civilization now faces.

Countdown till Kronze proves Stef isn't racist by bringing up the Ashkenazi Jews and East Asian canards...

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2017, 05:34:18 PM »
0
There is someone more on the ball than Joe Rogan.  I really admire Sam Harris for seeing Molyneux for what he is right away, and making a point to not have anything to do with him. Harris figured out the dynamic with how Molyneux used association as a trick to gain status.

...Anyway: it is around 41 min. in this YT podcast. 
Listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/q2-G7E5BfGQ?t=40m

Thank you! That was a great find!


Quote from: money detonator
...At that point, Murray confessed he didn't know much about Molyneux, and just went on there to promote himself, and he didn't want to argue with him about IQ because he just wanted Molyneux to shut up so he can get back to talking about his own stuff.  LOL

This is what I was trying to get at. Up to this point, at least, it has been difficult to overstate how the reputation dynamic flips outside of Molyneux's fanbase. In other words, to his followers, he is hobnobbing with his peers in these interviews. Outside of the fanbase (and to the interviewee) he is person of little consequence.

I can understand why few of his subjects would research, know, or care the slightest bit about him. He's just another interviewer who claims to have a big audience and they're just trying to sell their books or whatever.  (I wonder how hard it is for him to interview authors who actually have publishers?)

So far, the few who do know are those who have been proactively sought out and informed--they wouldn't do the research on their own.

We may be noticing a change now, as Molyneux becomes more known as a promoter of racism. Good on Sam Harris for figuring it out quickly.


Look you guy want to talk about your hatred of Stef and how he doesn't do things the way you would like him too go for it I don't care but don't lie about things.....promoter of racism???  Are you kidding me??  All he does is promote facts, evidence and statistics.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it racism.

Stef never just promotes facts, evidence, and statistics, everything he says is drenched in his ideology and accordingly distorted. And his current ideological narrative does promote prejudice against people based on their race, the elevation of his own 'race', and apocalyptic fears of the unprecedented threat white (Christian) civilization now faces.

Countdown till Kronze proves Stef isn't racist by bringing up the Ashkenazi Jews and East Asian canards...

His ideological narrative is based on the facts my friend. Whether it promotes prejudge towards another race is irreverent.  If it's a fact that some races have higher IQ's and others higher crime rates.  What people do with those facts is up to them but people should know what the reality of things is.

I"m not going to bring that up at all because facts aren't racist.  Although those statistics certainly blow white supremacy out of the water don't they?? Not to mention it proves Hitler wrong.  You know if I didn't know better I'd think maybe you where a white supremacist simply butt hurt that IQ rates and crime statistics don't go your way.  Those pesky Asians and Jews ruining your idea of white supremacy huh??  Would make a lot of sense in why you hate these facts and information so much.  Looks like you can't say whites are superior boo hoo!!  That really digs at you doesn't it?? LMAO

Megafauna

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +42
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2017, 08:44:56 PM »
0
His ideological narrative is based on the facts my friend. Whether it promotes prejudge towards another race is irreverent.  If it's a fact that some races have higher IQ's and others higher crime rates.  What people do with those facts is up to them but people should know what the reality of things is.

You are not my friend Kronze. You are just another typical example of Stefan's target audience; a dissatisfied young man with an unjustified level of confidence in their intellectual ability and level of knowledge. I would wager good money that you have next to no real research into the topic of IQ and race, beyond watching YouTube videos, reading skewed online think pieces, and maybe flicking through a few abstracts. If you care about 'reality' and facts then I strongly recommend consulting the research literature, not Stefan's spin, and not the distortion of it offered by Molyneux's guests. There is much that does not accord with liberal political correctness in the literature, but equally there much that undercuts Stefan's simplistic narratives.

Quote from: Kronze21
I"m not going to bring that up at all because facts aren't racist.  Although those statistics certainly blow white supremacy out of the water don't they?? Not to mention it proves Hitler wrong.  You know if I didn't know better I'd think maybe you where a white supremacist simply butt hurt that IQ rates and crime statistics don't go your way.  Those pesky Asians and Jews ruining your idea of white supremacy huh??  Would make a lot of sense in why you hate these facts and information so much.  Looks like you can't say whites are superior boo hoo!!  That really digs at you doesn't it?? LMAO

lol... I really hope you are still very young Kronze because it would be depressing to think that this is the level of argument and debate you've reached as an adult. For a start, isn't your first sentence somewhat contradicted by the rest of your paragraph, in which you go on to trot out exactly the kind of arguments that I suggested? If you think Stef's willingness to recognise the higher IQ scores of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews makes him, or anyone else, incapable of being racist, then you've fallen for their (completely transparent) tactic. Stef is a White nationalist, he is a racist, AND he is able to praise other cultures and racial groups when it suits his purposes. None of that is contradictory. Most racists in the modern world, and throughout history, have been willing to say positive things about 'other' races when it suits their purpose.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2017, 09:23:11 PM »
0
His ideological narrative is based on the facts my friend. Whether it promotes prejudge towards another race is irreverent.  If it's a fact that some races have higher IQ's and others higher crime rates.  What people do with those facts is up to them but people should know what the reality of things is.

You are not my friend Kronze. You are just another typical example of Stefan's target audience; a dissatisfied young man with an unjustified level of confidence in their intellectual ability and level of knowledge. I would wager good money that you have next to no real research into the topic of IQ and race, beyond watching YouTube videos, reading skewed online think pieces, and maybe flicking through a few abstracts. If you care about 'reality' and facts then I strongly recommend consulting the research literature, not Stefan's spin, and not the distortion of it offered by Molyneux's guests. There is much that does not accord with liberal political correctness in the literature, but equally there much that undercuts Stefan's simplistic narratives.

Quote from: Kronze21
I"m not going to bring that up at all because facts aren't racist.  Although those statistics certainly blow white supremacy out of the water don't they?? Not to mention it proves Hitler wrong.  You know if I didn't know better I'd think maybe you where a white supremacist simply butt hurt that IQ rates and crime statistics don't go your way.  Those pesky Asians and Jews ruining your idea of white supremacy huh??  Would make a lot of sense in why you hate these facts and information so much.  Looks like you can't say whites are superior boo hoo!!  That really digs at you doesn't it?? LMAO

lol... I really hope you are still very young Kronze because it would be depressing to think that this is the level of argument and debate you've reached as an adult. For a start, isn't your first sentence somewhat contradicted by the rest of your paragraph, in which you go on to trot out exactly the kind of arguments that I suggested? If you think Stef's willingness to recognise the higher IQ scores of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews makes him, or anyone else, incapable of being racist, then you've fallen for their (completely transparent) tactic. Stef is a White nationalist, he is a racist, AND he is able to praise other cultures and racial groups when it suits his purposes. None of that is contradictory. Most racists in the modern world, and throughout history, have been willing to say positive things about 'other' races when it suits their purpose.

AWW man you hurt my feelings. I thought we really had something bruh! : (

LMAO personal attacks now okay I see how it's going to be.  when it doubt call someone unsatisfied(whatever that means.

Well wait a minute, couldn't the exact same thing be said about you??  You seem to think you're this intellectual giant yourself. 

Okay please send me this literature that you talk so highly of.  I'd love to read it.  I always like to read more about topics like this.

LMAO as opposed to your level of debate with personal attacks, projecting, making claims with no thingt to back them up.  Come on dude look in the mirror when you say these things where they belong.  Don't type them to me.

Bro that's not what I said at all and what I said was completely different then saying that Jews and Asians having higher IQ's means someone can't be racist.  Facts whether you acknowledge them or not can't be racist.  What's racist is actually being racist. Like for instance saying a specific race is the scum of the Earth and don't deserve equal rights.

How is Stef a white nationalist??  When has he called for white separatism??  You are making ridiculous assumptions and you wonder why I can't take you seriously.  Also white nationalists on their own are not racist.  They want to be separate to preserve their race or culture.  They are racial but not necessarily racist.  They can be racist though and some of them are.

When has Stef said anything not positive about another race on average that wasn't backed up by facts??

Bro you're too much you know that??  Hilarious stuff though as usual!!! : )

I think you're just butt hurt that I called you out on your closeted white supremacy.  You seemed to change course a little bit when I did that.  Have anything you'd like to come out and say?? ; )

Megafauna

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +42
Re: Jordan Peterson.
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2017, 10:06:06 AM »
0
AWW man you hurt my feelings. I thought we really had something bruh! : (

LMAO personal attacks now okay I see how it's going to be.  when it doubt call someone unsatisfied(whatever that means.


Look it up.

All of your posts here ooze with the sentiment typical of Molyneux's target audience, e.g. a massively inflated (and unjustified) self confidence in your level of knowledge/critical thinking; a preoccupation with pseudoscientific psychological theories related to sex/being more successful with women; a personal devotion and defensive attitude to any and all criticisms of Stefan, etc. If you don't recognise any of this traits then I recommend listening to more of Stef's call in shows.

Well wait a minute, couldn't the exact same thing be said about you??  You seem to think you're this intellectual giant yourself.


That I am an unsatisfied young male who follows Stefan Molyneux uncritically and demonstrates no ability to think critically about his content? No, the same thing doesn't really apply (unfortunately in the case of being young). As for being an 'intellectual giant', it might seem that way when compared against your hollow parroting of Molyneux's patter, but it really doesn't require some great intellect to see through Stefan or to read actual research. Stefan is not a philosopher, he is about on par with Ann Coulter.

Okay please send me this literature that you talk so highly of.  I'd love to read it.  I always like to read more about topics like this.


You do know what 'literature' means right? I can't send you a literature, but google scholar is your friend. I could however point you to some relevant examples, so ok... giving you the benefit of the doubt, here are two articles to get you started:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1439
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/nisbett2012int.pdf

LMAO as opposed to your level of debate with personal attacks, projecting, making claims with no thingt to back them up.  Come on dude look in the mirror when you say these things where they belong.  Don't type them to me.


Ok, I'm looking in the mirror but the thing is the guy I'm looking at doesn't buy into pseudo-scientific theories designed to pander to the desires of dissatisfied young males, or parrot the lines of a narcissistic YouTube minor cult leader, in fact pretty much all of the criticisms I level at you don't apply. That doesn't make me perfect, it just makes me not a follower of ye olde Irish-Canadian bobble head.

Quote from: Kronze21
How is Stef a white nationalist??  When has he called for white separatism??  You are making ridiculous assumptions and you wonder why I can't take you seriously.  Also white nationalists on their own are not racist.  They want to be separate to preserve their race or culture.  They are racial but not necessarily racist.  They can be racist though and some of them are.


You seem to be under the impression I care if you take me seriously. So let me set your mind at ease, I don't. If you can't recognise Stef's rhetoric for what it is that's your problem. Various statements you've made here reflect a more ambiguous attitude to racist ideologies than your repeated declarations suggest. And Stef has repeatedly on his shows, often in the wake of some tragic event, made calls that, at absolute best, represent pandering to racists. Again, if you can't see that, the problem lies with you.

Quote from: Kronze21
When has Stef said anything not positive about another race on average that wasn't backed up by facts??


In almost every video where he has discussed the topic.

Quote from: Kronze21
I think you're just butt hurt that I called you out on your closeted white supremacy.  You seemed to change course a little bit when I did that.  Have anything you'd like to come out and say?? ; )


Emmm... yeah, you are defending a racist narcissist who peddles bipartisan rants on YouTube and calls it philosophy. If you ever dig yourself out of that depressing hole, remember to come back and let others know. Phew, glad I got that off my chest.