Thoughts?

>>24510464 (OP)
he can't keep doing that, tune in is his worst nightmare

>>24510464 (OP)
what is the symbolism of homer looking at him with silly eyes?

>>24510472
American man versus Canadian "man".

>clinical psychologist who spent decades personally helping hundreds of people severely afflicted by mental illness
>academic who published dozens of widely cited papers ranging in subjects varying from practical counseling, historical/philosophical roots of psychology, research paradigms in neurology...
>research scientist working on the operationalization of personality constructs as well as the neurobiological basis of addiction
>university professor who mentored dozens of grad students into academic, research, and counseling careers
>assisted in the development of software that increases the likelihood of at-risk students reaching graduation as a side project
>accidentally became internationally famous and ended up publishing 3 best selling books (so far) as well as organizing lectures in various countries throughout the world
inb4
>he's a drug addict tho!
>his office was messy once!
>er...you don't have a dad!
>er...wash your dick!
>his daughter is a slut!
>y-you're Jordan
>he likes the Jews!
>he's controlled opposition!
Still triggering trannies who don't like the truth, libtards who propagandize, racists he won't associate with, and pseuds who can't tell the difference between a media personality and real life

>>24510464 (OP)
It's not a Person interview if he doesn't cry like a bitch.

>>24510473
>Piers Morgan
>American

>>24510464 (OP)
>drinking out a Simpsons mug
o im laffin

>>24510474
>he's a drug addict tho!
>his office was messy once!
>his daughter is a slut!
>he likes the Jews!
>he's controlled opposition!
All true and more than enough to disregard him.

Does anyone else cry often when experiencing beautiful things?
I've never done drugs like Peterson has so idk why I'm like this

Why haven't any of you brought up how fucking red he is

>>24510486
True. What causes this?

Reminder that the autists stimming themselves by repeating the same nonsensical vitriol about Peterson, thread after thread for year after year, are pathetic ideologues and resentful idiots. His best feature is that he gets them to out themselves as such.

>libtard /lit/
Seethes that Peterson turns them into reactionaries by pointing out their bullshit.
>pseud /lit/
Thinks cynically dunking on mass media meant for a general audience is a sign of intelligence.
>chud /lit/
Thinks he's part of a Jewish conspiracy preventing them from having sex.
>tranny /lit/
Thinks he's a "literal nazi."

>>24510474
12 Rules for Life was so disappointing. He's not as good of a writer as he is a lecturer. It just rambles on and on, thoughts don't really connect, and I could only get through half of it before I gave up. His point about treating ourselves as if we were a family member we were responsible for stuck with me all these years though.

>>24510484
Oh yeah, as a writer contemplations of my work very regularly bring tears to my eyes. Often I have to restrain myself in public to prevent embarrassment.
Although I have done drugs.

>>24510486
board's dead
no energy

unironically one of the last few actual good guys around

>>24510491
How many shekels do they pay you to defend this fraud in every thread, Rajeesh?

>>24510486
All those talks about lobsters took their toll

>>24510499
>dines with Netanyahu
>acts as a cheerleader for genocide ("Kill em all")
>"good guy"
This fraud is an un-christian demon

>>24510478
>homer

>>24510489
Probably any number of things, one possibility is drunkenness

>>24510506
She looks healthier with Asian glow.

>>24510504
>fat
>bald
>stupid
>American
Checks out.

>>24510513
>stupid
Homer is a genius. You never watched the show.

>>24510515
>105 IQ
>Americans consider that "genius"
Lol

>>24510555
He's a secret genius in the story.

>>24510464 (OP)
Has he been blacked yet?

>>24510564
His daughter certainly has.

>>24510464 (OP)
um is this an unedited pic?

>>24510489
Liver King diet

>>24510464 (OP)
Is he crying about the fact he got fucking bodied by a bunch of undergrads?

>>24510603
qrd?

>>24510605
Jubilee video

>>24510491
Why did he get hooked on benzos if he's so based

>>24510605
College libtard to peterstein: you believe in nothing
JBP: SECURITY

>>24510622
Peterson took a doctor prescribed medication. At the time it was being handed out like candy for pretty much anything because it was seen as harmless (you can easily find celebrities on late night talk shows joking about taking them). It is now rarely prescribed due to the fact it creates physical dependancy even at low doses over short periods of time and causes extreme withdrawal symptoms (up to and including death). Having an adverse reaction to a prescribed drug doesn't make someone a drug addict. There is no evidence he abused the medication (i.e. his experience became so common that the drug is hardly prescribed now).

When he initially sought treatment in Canada they wanted to give him SSRIs and misdiagnosed him. He took the initiative to research treatment options and went to Russia where a programme specifically developed for medication withdraw was available.

Immediately after his treatment he finished and published his second worldwide bestselling book. Within months he had organized and gone on an international lecture tour. He also published multiple articles and made some media appearances. He has also set up an accredited online university that will offer free degrees, organized a think tank to combat the hegemony of shit like the WEF, created an online interview series with hundreds of episodes etc...

The narrative that there was a character defining downward spiral into drug addiction is doesn't bare up to reality. I'm honestly embaressed so many people have been holding onto it for half a decade now. Imagine being so pathetically delusional that you parrot the same easily disproved ad homs in an autistic echo chamber for years on end thinking they land; in that time Peterson has gone on to much success.

>>24510605
>do you believe in the Bible?
>the Bible is a hyperlinked library of wisdom across centuries. It’s not a book you simply “believe in.”
>so you don't take it literally?
>literalism is a modern distortion. Stories operate on multiple planes of reality.
>you're avoiding the question.
>i’m challenging its premises.
>are you saved?
>i think the idea of salvation is psychological, social, and metaphysical.
>so you're not saved?
>i'm working on aligning myself with the Logos.
>is that a yes?
>it's a process, not a status.
>do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
>we live them out psychologically. Every day.
>that’s not what the Bible says.
>well, the Bible isn’t a manual. It’s a narrative architecture of meaning.
>are you afraid of going to Hell?
>i’m more afraid of becoming the kind of person who belongs there.
>do you think atheists can be moral?
>hat depends what you mean by “moral,” and whether they're standing on borrowed ethical capital.
>borrowed from what?
>from Judeo-Christian metaphysics. From millennia of cultural evolution.
>so they’re moral, but for the wrong reasons?
>they’re moral, but they don’t know why.
>so you’re better than them?
>no, but I may be more aware of the foundations.
>so why not just say you're a Christian?
>because I’m not willing to trivialize that claim.
Fedoras mad.

>>24510611
Ah got it
>>24510660
Nice fan fic, pal.

>>24510657
He took drugs to deal with life fuck off
(And is 100 percent still on drugs)

>>24510508
>>24510506
about to feed my wife some drinks to check it out

>>24510662
May favorite part of the Jubilee arc was the one who tried to get famous off of it going on Piers Morgan, announcing he's bisexual, and getting called a "gaythiest" by a Christian.

>>24510660
I see the unemployed among us still defend Peterson.
>>24510605
Here is a more accurate account
>video about believing in God and the pros and cons of that
>Peterson, like he often is, sounds mad and is argumentative of every point the kid he is arguing against makes
>kid calls him a Christian
>Peterson has a meltdown and says he never said that
>Kid flies off the handle because it has now been minutes of a non-discussion with Peterson arguing semantics at best
>Kid asks Peterson, mockingly, if he is unaware the video is Christian vs Atheists (not the video title)
>Peterson doubles down on not admitting he is a Christian
>Kid "claps back," Peterson refuses to speak with him anymore, audience laughs at Peterson
If he had the most minimal control over his emotions would at least looked as dumb as the kid. Instead he looks as dumb as he is and emotional to top it off kek

>>24510464 (OP)
Peterson is has been taking Finasteride since he got a hair transplant. This is an anti-androgenic drug used by troons and weak men to block male hormones.

It explains a lot.

>>24510703
he got a hair transplant? really?
> to block male hormones.
no wonder he cries like a bitch all the time haha

>>24510699
>Kid "claps back"
Fag.

>>24510660
Wanna know why Islam refuses to die compared to Christianity? Because Muslims don’t play sophist semantic games like this, they just say “God is real and the Quran is His word”

>>24510714
No need to announce your sexual proclivities, friend.

>>24510473
Welcome to tardsville

>>24510716
>Wanna know why Islam refuses to die compared to Christianity?
Oil money and never having a reformation.

>>24510718
>t.

>>24510724
oh my, looks like i touched a nerve

>>24510724
This festering meme is pushing 20 years old btw.

>>24510569
what a humongous faggot jordan is

Who gives a shit about this 4th rate lolcow.
No one worth a damn has taken this guy seriously in years.

>>24510730

>literally, unironically being Peterstein's JIDF on /lit/
His faggot fan working overtime right now.

>>24510747
Christcucks never recovered from the beating they took during the New Atheism era—they just scurried into denial and started LARPing as trad warriors to hide the bruises. The trauma lives in their eyes. They watched their sacred cow gutted in front of them, its contradictions laid bare, and instead of reckoning with it, they clutched their rosaries tighter and started posting wojaks. They call it a “spiritual revival,” but it’s just a PTSD loop—cosplaying strength while flinching at shadows. They didn’t win the argument. They lost so hard they had to reinvent themselves as ironic martyrs, trying to meme away the humiliation like wounded dogs baring their teeth.

Their hatred of “Reddit atheism” isn’t superiority—it’s a cry for help from people who got mentally dismembered and now cope by pretending they’re above it all. They’re still stuck in 2012, trembling under the weight of questions they still can’t answer, except now they wear suits and post cathedrals to cover the smell of fear. Every smug Latin phrase, every chest-puffed crusader meme is just a shield to block the memory of how easily their entire worldview was torn open. They aren’t healed. They’re just louder about their denial. Christcuckery is what happens when you lose the debate and decide to turn your defeat into a lifestyle.

>>24510486
Isn't it just photoshop?

Jordan ``Crying Crayfish'' Peterson.

>>24510820
No. His skin is that red sometimes, hence the, Red Skull comic.

>>24510472
well... that's a blood complicated question, isn't it! homer... he's a FAT MAN isn't he? i mean he is LARGE! look at his gut, but he's also a father, he has three kids homer does, this makes him a patriarch, homer also of course is the name of the greek poet, so there's kind of an ironic juxtaposistion there. we know that poets are the one's who give us our meanings, poets determine the values of the pardigrams they live in, but homer the cartoon character, he's a very different animal. he's the end result of those values. his society is so well ordered that even a fat man, not particularly intelligent man can have alarge house and three children, and let's look at those children, why don't we? you've got BART, which is an anagram for "brat" by the way, in case you hadn't noticed. bart is, he's a very rambunctius child. he's often depicted with a slingshot or riding a skateboard through pedestrians. he's chaos. he's an avatar of chaos let loose onto spring field. and let's look at lisa. lisa is th perfect embodyment of the postmodernist liberal. together bart and lisa represent the downfall of a society that has done too well. it suffers from it's success. so what homer is is... he's a patriarch OF CHAOS. he's the fat bubble of order ready to BURST with chaos. and on the otherside we have jordan peterson, and he's sort of a quixotic sort, at least that may be a useful way to understand him. he tries to impose order on the postmodern chaotic mess that has sprung from homers loins, so when you get the two of them together, homer and peterson, the partriarch of chaos and the hero doomed to struggle against it, what you get is a laugh. homer laughs at the tears of the hero... but the thing is he's trapled too! and he knows it, he bloody knows it! homer is always yelling at his kids, in fact we see him even go so far as to choke- to literally WRAP HIS HANDS around the neck of his child bart, trying to MASTER chaos which does NOT and well for him. NEVER works out. so when he laughs at person, he isn't laughing from a place of exemption, his right there in the pit with him. he's saying "yeah buddy, you see what i'm dealing with". it's powerful stuff. bloody tragic, really.

>>24510829
kek, kino if not AI

>>24510864
you're an indoctrinated NPC

>>24510891
kek valid

>>24510817
>New atheism won and I think Christians are coping.

There ya go, summarized two paragraphs of silver-flossed, self-fellating prattle. Brevity.

>>24510464 (OP)
I think it's not literature. Kindly fuck off.

>>24510864
i would have made fewer typos if i used a.i.

>>24510464 (OP)
so boys showing their emotions is bad now?

>>24510929
maps of meaning is literature
jung is literature

>>24510959
You can prompt it to make typos. You can also prompt it to write in any slang you want.

>>24510569
lolmao. this is irrecoverable.

what do you mean by latest what do you mean by crying what do you mean by interview?

fuck you, get a life you sniveling chaos-worshipping parasites. also, wamen don't find you attractive.

>>24510569
she looks fun to be around

>>24510464 (OP)
he's the crying man

the guy is so red, if he had lived in the 50s senator mccarthy would bust his ass

>>24510474
I'm not even sure anymore if there's an actual peterson fan here who keeps spamming this pasta or if it's just bait.

why do people listen to this pseud?

>>24511243
recognized psychologist is a pseud?

>>24511246
>recognized psychologist is a pseud?

>>24511246
Psychology is complete quackery, all psychologists are pseuds.

>>24510464 (OP)
To be fair, Piers Morgan does do that to people.

>>24510569
This guy's head is so utterly fucking goofy.

>>24511246
so? that doesn't mean he knows anything about anything outside his field

Philosophy is fucking doomed, lmao. It's what... this guy and Zizek? Kek.

>>24511272
>N-no! You can't diagnose me with autism!!! Y-you're a QUACK!

>>24511272
People who actually have minds find them quite interesting and worthy of study.
I can see why this wouldn't appeal to you.

>>24511280
Don't forget stefan molyneux

>>24511288
>>24511289
>you've been making great progress over the past five years anon! You should start seeing tangible results any day now! Unfortunately there's still a lot to uncover, that'll be four hundred dollars, same time next week?

There's a sucker born every minute lol

>>24511299
Who?

>>24510474
>>y-you're Jordan
I swear I came across Peterson on /pol/ a couple years ago. Canadian poster taking the defense of Peterson with long, articulate replies. That was him, no doubt

>>24510484
>>24510494
Yes. Ekstasis.

>contemplations of my work very regularly bring tears to my eyes

This happens only when I realize there's more to "my" "work" than I thought I had put into it.

>>24511315
Could have been one of his students, they all speak very highly of him and get really defensive of him.

>>24510486
>>24510501

My first cannabis-induced uncontrollable laughter was about a guy who was so red that "he looks like a damn lobster" said my cousin.

>>24510569
>>24511107
What's funny to me is that in the timeline of events, this image came out about the right time to actually be in the running for catalyst.

>>24510464 (OP)
What, AGAIN?

>>24510968
But this thread isn't. :)

>>24510464 (OP)

>>24510569
She look utterly FILTH

you cowardly trumpet trolls are going too far

>>24510964
>boys
That's a almost a geriatric man.
Also, if you cry in nearly all public appearances, then yes, something is wrong with you.

>>24510929
Normally I'd agree with you but shitting on Memerson is always fun

chat, is there a link to the interview?

>>24510964
he cries every other day in public, that's not normal. it if had just happened once, that'd be another topic.

>>24510474
>he likes the Jews!
Yeah, duh. He is a hardcore zionist.

>>24510464 (OP)
Why is this shit getting spammed when it was recorded like 3 months ago? Is the algorithm pulling your strings again? Everything is so fucking fake and gay. At least post fresh memes for fucks sake.

>>24510829
Kino

>>24510912
Actually, both lost. New atheism turned into wokism. Humans need their cope.

>>24511817
>New atheism turned into wokism
Richard Dawkins at least is very much opposed to that shit

>>24511830
Too late. He set the brakeless train in motion. Now he wants to go back to "Christian values" despite fighting all his public life against them.

>>24511855
Rapid spread of Islam and leftism will do that to a man
No atheists in foxholes

>>24511855
Well, he wanted a secular conservative movement. Both the right and the left didn't like that.

>>24511830
>Richard Dawkins at least is very much opposed to that shit

>>24511119
>Defines worship
>Is asked to confirm that is how he defines worship
>He confirms it
>Is asked if that means Catholics worship Mary
>Instantly backtracks on his definition
The dude is a straight up snake. He uses different definitions of words when he applies them to different groups. Dishonest little charlatan.

>>24511817
>>24512301
Dawkins stood up against Feminism and Transgender ideology and loudly affirmed the cultural superiority of the West over other cultures. You simply cannot twist that into any semblance of "wokeness".

>>24510484
> Does anyone else cry often when experiencing beautiful things?
4chan superstar Eric Butts is driven to tears by every capeshit trailer in existence. Jordan has a lot in common with him. It’s called an emotional regulation disorder.

>>24512345
Yes, Dawkins and his friends are alright and it was the last time smart people were heard publicly. But the movement got infiltrated by the woke people which ruined it.

Pierced Morgan

I legit think he cries so much because he needs more sleep

>>24512350
"New Atheism" only really makes sense in reference to Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, and they all remained un-woke. All of them maintained the uniquely distasteful character of Islam, they all opposed the transgender hysteria, they all championed fundamental Western values such as free speech and the primacy of the individual rather than group identity. I don't really see how you can claim something is "their movement" when it shares none of the values which they spoke about. In fact, in reference to Dawkins, he spoke explicitly against the radical ideological Feminism being fomented on university campuses as a bad thing, it would be the height of dishonesty to then attribute to him the movement of people he vocally disavowed.

>>24512345
>You simply cannot twist that into any semblance of "wokeness"
He enabled it by promoting the idea that the fruits of the West are divorced from tradition and responsibility, moron.

>>24512370
>All of them maintained the uniquely distasteful character of Islam, they all opposed the transgender hysteria, they all championed fundamental Western values such as free speech and the primacy of the individual rather than group identity.
And they failed to see the negative consequences of forming an identity around hyper individualism, because they're morons.

>>24512370
You are just using semantics now, what really constitutes the new atheism movement. Yes, Hitchens, Dawkins etc. had ideals which were not so bad and were definitely not woke.
But look at what became of the internet movement that called themselves formerly brights. They went woke and threw these ideals away.

>>24512345
>affirmed the cultural superiority of the West over other cultures.
he was against all religions including christianity

>>24512393
What's your point? He's saying that Dawkins is an anglo supremacist (which he is, indisputably).

>>24512342
Blah blah blah, all of those atheist zoomers never actually addressed any of the topics Jordan Peterson wanted to discuss and were just interested in proposing hypotheticals and counterfactuals.

>>24512370
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things on which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to the literalism they parrot]
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weak point is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of Nu Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons

>>24512370
>No true Scotsman

>>24512345
His personal opinions on the matter is irrelevant; he successfully managed to poison the well for future discourse, and that's all that matters.

>>24511866
>secular conservative
oxymoron

>>24511739
he's emo tho

>>24512412
The Nu Atheists also destroyed online discourse by morphing it into "OWNED BY FACTS AND LOGIC" bullshit while encouraging midwits to bloviate nonsense and ignore whichever side of a debate made them feel intellectually insecure.

>>24510703
>This is an anti-androgenic drug used by troons and weak men to block male hormones
It's used literally by everyone with the hair transplant including Trump. Also, no, it does not block male hormones, DHT is just pure poison that makes males into hideous bald goblins.

>>24510747
>*tips le fedora*

>>24512576
>t.

>>24510912
it was written by ai retard

>>24510569
No wonder he's crashing out

>>24510484
It can happen to me, but I actively fight it so it doesn't. Sometimes I'm envious of guys that just let it out. I keep it all in then wait until a dog or cat dies and just explode in that moment instead.

>>24510474
>t.publicist

>>24512382
>>24512384
>>24512392
>>24512393
>>24512404
>>24512406
>>24512411
>>24512412
Look at all these anons admitting my point but just insisting on blaming them anyway for a movement they had nothing to do with. This is motivated reasoning in action.

>>24512429
I had no idea Ben Shapiro was part of the New Atheists.

>>24512629
I know. The guy has AI tools and still produces meaningless slop. Lots of words to say very little like a string of Stephen Fry alliterations.

>>24510464 (OP)
>he's actually turning into a lobster
What dedication by Dr. Jordan Peterson, I kneel.

>>24510464 (OP)
Why cant this generation just die off already

>>24510474
>>clinical psychologist who spent decades personally helping hundreds of people severely afflicted by mental illness
He just wrote scripts for drugs lmao
This is the same guy who got his 11yo daughter on meds because she was scared to sleep

>>24510464 (OP)
haven't read the rest of the thread but i would cry too if i was reduced to being interviewed by piers morgan
piers fucking morgan. fucks sake. how desperate would you have to be to agree to talking to that vile turd. jeremy clarkson had the right idea

>>24510464 (OP)
So so far he has cried for
>Jesus
>jews
>incels
Now why did he cry?

>>24510474
The addictive properties of benzodiazepines have been known about since at least the eighties (1)(2). The fact that Peterson, a Harvard educated clinical psychologist, claims to have not known the pills his doctor was giving him are addictive is thus troubling.

Either (a) Peterson really didn't know the pills were addictive, in which case he's incompetent or (b) he knew they were addictive but lied about it because he was ashamed. Either option disqualifies him from giving life advice to vulnerable young men. If your own house isn't in order, you have no right to instruct others.

(1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0740547291900278#:~:text=Normal%2Ddose%20physical%20dependence%20was%20first%20suspected%20in,the%20complex%20nature%20of%20the%20withdrawal%20syndrome.

(2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1675692/

>>24510657
>because it was seen as harmless
Completely false. See >>24514236

Why are you telling such obvious lies?

>>24510474
Whatever he may have done right gets outweighed by the fact that he is a shameless grifter and liar and a pseudo intellectual hack.

The scary thing, he might actually be acting and putting on a persona.

Who insulted the jews this time

>>24510772
>>literally, unironically being Peterstein's JIDF on /lit/

>>24512500
>DHT is just pure poison that makes males into hideous bald goblins.

You’re a fucking moron who doesn’t understand how hormones work. Testosterone that passes through 5-alpha reductase in order to counteract the effects of estradiol in men. High estrogen is the culprit.

>>24514005
Clinical psychologists don't prescribe drugs, dummy.

>>24514236
>>24514242
>Completely false.
The side effect Peterson suffered from wasn't listed on the medication until 2019.

>>24510501
hahaha

>>24515281
I have no interest in denigrating the man. Suffice to say, while you're right about the FDA not requiring labelling until 2020, the potential for addiction was well documented in the literature and thus amongst clinicians and psychologists from the eighties on.

I don't blame Peterson for becoming addicted to potent perscription drugs at a time when his wife was at death's door, regardless.

>>24510464 (OP)

>>24515475
> don't blame Peterson for becoming addicted to potent perscription drugs at a time when his wife was at death's door,
I do. Psychology is not psychiatry and the fundamental difference lies precisely in the belief in medication. Knowing about the dangers of addiction is in his job description as is treating those who suffer from it. Being so unable to firstly make the judgement call to not take benzos and get hooked, and secondly unable to treat yourself or seek psychological treatment - he surrenders to an experimental coma protocol that risks death instead of actually using psychological techniques - betrays his own skill and faith in the discipline. It’s like an oncologist who rejects cancer treatments and does holistic healing ceremonies and eats fruit (Steve Jobs cemented his legacy as a moron by doing this though at least he wasn’t a doctor).

Peterson should have handed in his license. I guess in some ways he did since he’s a social media clown now.

>>24515475
>the FDA not requiring labelling until 2020
No, it wasn't a recorded side effect. There was a massive surge in benzodiazepine prescriptions in the early 2010s which lead to a large population of people experiencing harmful side effects. The incidence of such side effects was greater than previously recorded so shifting the goalposts from "Peterson was a drug addict" to "alright, physical dependency to a doctor prescribed medication isn't the same but he should have known" is a misnomer.

Peterson experienced a rare side effect that wasn't even recorded on the label until a year after he had to go through treatment for it. What's more, go ahead and research when the lion's share of research started coming out about the harms of benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome was known in the 90s but its incidence of occurence is now known to be much higher and the research papers didn't start pouring in until the drug began being massively over prescribed in the late 00s and early 10s.

>>24515582
>Psychology is not psychiatry and the fundamental difference lies precisely in the belief in medication
No, dummy. The fundamental difference is that psychologists are scientists (inb4 "psychology isn't a science") and psychiatrists are medical doctors. Clinical psychologists don't prescribe medication not because they "don't believe in it" but because tight regulations restrict who can distribute drugs and the umbrella of clinical psychology covers a much larger purview than physiology. Medical doctors are basically engineers that have to study the basics of a wide variety of scientific disciplines whereas only a hyper specialized clinical psychologist would ever study biochemistry.

>>24510464 (OP)
I watched a JP video in like 2016 and it got me to read crime and punishment by dostoevsky so the man had positive impact on my life, didnt care much for his own work but thats mostly cause im a contrarian and he totally blew up at that time

>>24510721
Afghanistan BTFO'd the mutts without oil money.

>>24510464 (OP)
an ai bot thought Peterson was a rabbi lmao which reminded me of :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeAWbUl22FU

full circle

>>24510660
>Judeo-Christian

>>24515709
Lol, did you actually believe that the coalition was going to turn Afghanistan into a functioning modern state? You honestly believed it when they said that's what they were doing even though a midwit like yourself could figure out parroting that it was impossible was a logical choice? Lol!

>>24516019
No, I always knew the mutts were going to lose.

>>24515883
You believe in Jewish mythology. It's inseparable from Christianity. Seethe.

>>24515883
Is it somewhere in the nail etchings?

>>24516023
>WHOOSH
Retard confirmed.

>>24516126
Keep coping.

>>24516053
Low IQ and you've never read the Bible and you're Jewish

>>24516141
What was the actual goal of the war in Afghanistan, anon? You said you knew it wasn't actually to establish a modern democratic state so what was it?

>>24510492
>He's not as good of a writer as he is a lecturer.
>[Cries in every lecture]
Damn, imagine how his book is then

>>24516151
Officially to get Osama, although he was in Pakistan and yet the mutts never declared war on Pakistan the way they did it to Afghanistan.
Unofficially it was probably a huge mess of colliding interests, from the spooks growing their heroin to sell so they can fund their black projects, to various governments trying to get local allies to run things but lacking any actual knowledge of the country's social structure and culture.

It was a failure all throughout and while the CIA might've made some profit, the US overall lost trillions and got humiliated.

>>24512348
This dude at least knows that crying is his entire schtick and makes reasonable money out of that.
I actually believe he just acts very well, his only genuine crying was in that Star Wars trailer and then he capitalized on that on later videos

>>24516164
>Officially to get Osama
No, that wasn't the primary goal at all. Their stated goal was to destroy the governing apparatus (i.e. the Taliban) of Afghanistan because it actively sponsored and provided refuge for jihadists.
>Unofficially it was probably a huge mess of colliding interests
The war was prolonged because a) it was constrained (like what you see in Russia v. Ukraine) and b) the military industrial complex immensely benefited from it (i.e. there was no incentive to end the war).

So, did the US fail in Afghanistan? Well, Al Qaeda has pretty much been eradicated as a threat and it's unlikely the Taliban in its present form will sponsor or shelter Jihadists. Basically, the US dragged the war on and on until geopolitical conditions had changed to such an extent that Afghanistan was no longer an important focal point for global jihadists. Same deal with Vietnam--after the cracks in the Sino-Soviet alliance became obvious there was no more reason to waste resources toward containment.

Wars very rarely have a clear endpoint, anon. The vast majority of conflicts aren't the Napoleonic Wars or the World Wars.

>>24516231
>No, that wasn't the primary goal at all.
Yes it was. They demanded the Taliban to hand over Osama and they refused. It was Osama that caused 9/11, the US didn't care about the Taliban prior to that.
>the military industrial complex immensely benefited from it
Then why did America ever end it? If it was so profitable then mutts should still be there getting their legs blown off.

>>24510464 (OP)

>>24516234
>Yes it was.
No, it wasn't. Osama was a boogeyman used for propaganda purposes. The aim was to degrade and destroy the Taliban so as to take Afghanistan off the map as a reservoir for global jihadis.
>Then why did America ever end it?
Diminishing returns and the fact Afghanistan was no longer threat in terms of the "global war on terror". Resources would be better spent elsewhere and the US is now funding war the war in Ukraine and Israel's regional conflicts.
>If it was so profitable
By the way, it's not just about a bottomline determined in dollars spent. The MIC is a complex set of inputs and outputs that form the basis of an influential segment of the economy that has to be maintained (e.g. a 50 year old working at a weapons plant in Ohio is benefited by war...it's not just a small set of nefarious actors manipulating things, lol).

>>24516274
The Taliban was never a reservoir for global jidahis. By the time of America's intervention, the Afghan civil war was still ongoing and the Taliban didn't even control the entire country.
>Diminishing returns
In what way?
>By the way, it's not just about a bottomline determined in dollars spent.
This cope is also used to explain why America always gives money to Israel.

>>24516284
>The Taliban was never a reservoir for global jidahis
Yeah it was. If you want to get conspiratorial and blame the US look up who was funding them in the 70s/80s to fuck with the Soviet Union.
>In what way?
The geopolitical landscape had dramatically shifted and defense dollars are now justified by an arms race with China (remember all the stuff about "hypersonic missiles" a couple years ago?) and funding the Ukrainians against the Russians and Israel in its regional war.
>This cope is also used to explain why America always gives money to Israel.
It's not "cope", anon. Why do you think people criticized the MIC in the first place? It incentivizes directing the budget toward maintaining jobs based on conflict. When there's a war that's fine and dandy but when there isn't one you still need that part of the economy to be functioning (especially given how large it is). I'm not saying it's a good thing at all--its just how it is.

>>24516313
>Yeah it was.
Nope. Look at all Islamists conflicts prior to that and you'll see that international volunteers mostly came from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine or parts of the Caucus. Afghanistan was really not producing tons of jihadists. You pulled that out of your ass.
>defense dollars are now justified by an arms race with China
Seems to me like funding the MIC through a war in Afghanistan would be even more useful then.
>It's not "cope", anon.
Yes, it is. Your understanding of the economy and profits is childish. America doesn't make any profit off of paying its own companies to keep the production lines open. If America wanted to keep factories and weapon stocks full, it could directly subsidize its own industry directly. No war would be needed where you get thousands of injured (which you now have to pay for) and billions of dollars spent on things that have nothing to do with weapon manufacturing.

>>24516081
Looks like he omitted it on this one.

>>24516329
>Nope.
Anon, you're just denying facts. Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan were the central locus of global jihadism. When the Soviet Union invaded that region a call to arms took place that's comparable to the Crusades. Basically, Muslims from every surrounding country came there in the hope of repelling the invaders and establishing a caliphate (i.e. THE true geopolitical representation of the Muslim faith). After the Soviets were defeated the region became a safe haven for jihadi interests that planed more and more elaborate attacks against the West. The threat was largely ignored, even though there were attacks in the 90s, until 9-11. The US then initiated a regional conflict where the stated goal nonsense "bringing democratic freedom to the region" and the war aims were diminishing the ability of cells to organize, operate, and carry out attacks.
>Seems to me like funding the MIC through a war in Afghanistan would be even more useful then
Some decision makers thought staying in Afghanistan was a viable option, maintaining bases and funding them with mineral exports that could otherwise go to Russia/China, while others thought it was unnecessary for various reasons (e.g. India already being a buffer against China, the security costs of maintaining industry that may not be useful, consistent attacks against physical interests in the region, etc). The unnecessary camp won and MIC jobs are maintained by the arms race with China (hypersonic missiles and the plan to build the "Golden Dome") and funding wars in Ukraine/Israel.
>Yes, it is.
No it isn't. It's literally the reason the MIC has such influence on political decision making, anon.
>America doesn't make any profit off of paying its own companies to keep the production lines open
Yes they do. As I pointed out to you it isn't just a bottomline measured in dollars and cents, retard.
>No war would be needed where you get thousands of injured (which you now have to pay for) and billions of dollars spent on things that have nothing to do with weapon manufacturing
Jobs don't just magically appear in other segments of the economy, retard. The MIC is basically a vested interest make work programme that has been growing relatively unchecked since Eisenhower warned about it in his farewell address.

>>24516366
>Anon, you're just denying facts.
Denying your alternative facts, of course.
>MIC has such influence on political decision making
The MIC has no influence on political decision. Almost all American conflicts in the last 30 years were either to support the petrodollar or to support zionism. Afghanistan, military presence in Syria, Iraq, bombing Iran etc. None of these are cause bomb-makers control policy.
Look at Operation Timber Sycamore for example, a result of lobbying from Israel and Saudi Arabia, nothing to do with any American factory.

>>24515574
kek

>>24516382
>Denying your alternative facts, of course
It's literally what happened, anon. You can argue it wasn't as big of a threat as the US made it out to be or that the US failed to react in a way that could have minimized the threat or you could even say the US itself played a key role in creating the threat by funding jihadists fighting the Soviets. However, you can't argue Afghanistan wasn't a key point of organization for global jihadism because it inarguably was.
>The MIC has no influence on political decision
Lol! The military industrial complex has no influence on political decision making? I look forward to your paper establishing that as a fact because it will certainly overturn decades of established data and represent the creation of an entirely new paradigm in both politics and economics.

You're too dumb for this convo, anon. I have you a chance but you're too dumb.

>>24516409
>It's literally what happened, anon.
THIS. Except not.
>The military industrial complex has no influence on political decision making?
Yes, I'm happy to be the one to shake you out of your brainwashing. To further enlighten you, look up how many US senators are flown every year to Israel by AIPAC so they can pledge their loyalty to a foreign state.

>>24516414
>THIS. Except not
So the Soviet War in Afghanistan never took place and thereby didn't serve as an impetus for global jihadism? Islamists didn't control most of Afghanistan by the mid to late 90s and groups of Jihadis carried over from the war against the Soviets to the civil war simply didn't exist? There weren't organized attacks against the US throughout the 90s culminating in 9/11?

You're just denying facts because you know fuck all.
>To further enlighten you, look up how many US senators are flown every year to Israel by AIPAC
That has nothing to do with your claim that the military industrial complex doesn't influence political decision making, retard. I'm not arguing that the MiC is a good thing and funding Israeli wars is a good goal. The fact is that the MIC is a large and influential section of the American economy and this both passively and actively influences individual politicians, the shape and character of political institutions, and the makeup of the American economy.

Fuck you're dumb.

>>24516442
>thereby didn't serve as an impetus for global jihadism?
Correct. Osama bombed America and American embassies because he believed they shouldn't meddle in Arab politics. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan. There is no internationalist Jihadist group that originates from the Afghan conflict.
>The fact is that the MIC is a large and influential section of the American economy and this both passively and actively influences individual politicians, the shape and character of political institutions, and the makeup of the American economy.
It has an impact, it just doesn't control foreign policy. Senators care about building factories in their state, companies lobby for contracts, nepo babies get promoted to cushy jobs in the industry. Foreign policy is however not majorly influenced by it. I already explained to you how it doesn't make sense.

>>24510464 (OP)
It's painfully clear this man is suffering from mental illness and brain damage after those dubious "treatments" in Russia. What Peterson morphed into after that is simply embarrassing, Jesus Christ, what a fall from grace. The guy who had built his brand telling young men to face their fears head-on ran to Moscow for a sci-fi experimental procedure because Western doctors were too “woke” or something? Now he is reduced to shilling for Daily Wire and Twitter histrionics.

>>24516458
>It had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The US was meddling in the Afghan civil war and Osama was one of the Jihadis that went there during the war against the Soviets, retard.
>It has an impact, it just doesn't control foreign policy.
Nice goalpost shift. It has an immense influence on both foreign and domestic policy, dumb-dumb.

>>24516486
Why does a person as misinformed as you have such strong opinions about it? Afghanistan is not an Arab country, Osama hated the fact that America was meddling in the Gulf. You don't have to take up my word on it, you can look up Osama's stated motivation for committing terror attacks on American soil.
>Nice goalpost shift.
Never shifted goalposts. My stance has always been that MIC does not influence American foreign policy in any relevant way. I stand by it.

>>24516504
>>24516504
>MIC does not influence American foreign policy in any relevant way.
You're beyond retarded.

>>24516747
Keep crying like the faggot you are.

>>24510483
A lot of the best writers were drug addicts with messy desks, some of them probably liked jews and had a whore daughter as well.

>>24510483
How is his daughter being a slut his fault, though? No matter whether you're draconian, an actual good father figure or a super liberal hip cool dad, it's sadly likely your daughter will end up a slut. In America, at least.

>>24510817
New pasta just dropped

>>24510464 (OP)
WHEN PETERSON CRYS HES CRYING FOR ME DAMNIT

>>24510483
I saw this Twitter thread once where this guy was telling Jonathan Blow he's a loser for only releasing 2 games in 10 years. If you went into the guy's github profile he had one "rts game in rust" project with shitty pixel graphics. These days when I see these "opinion disgarded" type of comments I just immediatly assume the writer is a completely hypocritical loser that hates successful people with some difference of opinion on some subject.

>>24517538
>How is his daughter being a slut his fault, though?
He raised her as a liberal.

>>24517811
All his disgusting actions either go against what he preached or against the well-being of Western civilization. He IS the hypocrite, that's why he's being called out, dumbo. Your comparison about some videogayme maker is neither here nor there.

He's loosing his grip

>>24510464 (OP)
I watched this. It was powerful. He's right about how we only need a little change, a little gesture to save each other from the evil libtard's ideology and cowardliness. He's right and fuck anyone who disses him, you're probably a libtard if you do.

>>24510483
I agree. Hemmingway should have killed himself sooner.

>>24518031
Hemingay's son became a tranny. Slut daughter vs tranny son. What's worse? The great debate.

>>24516748
>REEEEEEEEEE
Saying the MIC doesn't influence foreign policy in any meaningful way is easily in the top 10 most retarded things I've ever read on this website.

/pol/ was on top form when it called this fucker out as juden peterstein

>>24518038
Ok.

>>24515618
You're dancing around the issue. A Harvard educated clinical psychologist, especially one involved in research, should have known the basic facts surrounding the psychotropic drugs he was taking. The high potential for dependence has been known about since the eighties. Actually read the articles I posted.

>>24518120
>should have known the basic facts
The side effect he suffered from wasn't on the warning label until more than a year after he underwent treatment for it.

>>24518129
Regardless of what side effects he was experiencing, he became dependent. That's the central issue. He took significant amounts of a highly addictive drug over a short period of time. As a clinical psychologist, he should have been aware of benzos' historically well established likelihood of inducing dependence.

He then presumed to continue to give advice and instruction to vulnerable young men while remaining unrepentant. If you don't have your own house in order, you have no right to teach others. It's difficult to see this as anyting other than narcissism on his part.

>>24518195
Jordan Peterson took a doctor prescribed medication. There is no evidence he was abusing it or taking it in a higher dosage than directed by his physician. He experienced a severe side effect from said medication culminating in his seeking treatment in 2018. This side effect and symptoms related to it were not listed on the medication until 2019--after Peterson had gone public about his symptoms.

In a nutshell, Jordan Peterson sustained a neurological injury from his medication. This affected his immune system and his body began reacting to random foods he normally had no problem consuming. For example, people who experience the same side effect will have histamine responses to food and drink they were not allergic to in the past. Basically, their body has seemingly random immunological responses that vary in severity and degree. On top of this there are also adverse to the regulation of the parasympathetic nervous system. As far as the later is concerned psychological symptoms arise (e.g. a sense of dread/terror, lack of impulse control, sleep regulation, appetite regulation, etc).

When Peterson stopped taking his medication due to the above he experienced severe withdrawal symptoms. This is not due to an "addiction" but rather a physical dependency that commonly arises from wide range of medications. Akathisia is one of the worst of such symptoms as it creates an insatiable sense of restlessness. This is not simple anxiety although anxiety may arise due to akathisia which is itself a motor disorder. The reason this symptom is labelled "subjective" is because it is qualitative and patient reported. The pain one has during a migraine or a cluster headache is also "subjective"--this doesn't mean the pain doesn't exist.

Peterson sought treatment in Canada but was given a poor diagnosis and thereby sought treatment at a specialized facility that developed an experimental treatment regimen specific to the symptoms he was experiencing. He was put into a comatose state so as to negate extreme withdrawal symptoms and to avoid further neurological damage. The treatment was a success and in the years since he has continued with him life and found success in multiple endeavors.

People who want to attack Peterson try to label him as a drug addict. In so doing, they wish to bring in the connotations associated with addiction as a way to defame him. In realty, Peterson had a physical dependency on medication, as many people do, AND had a server side effect, unknown at the time, that compounded the dangers of simply tapering off the drug. No loaded language is needed to describe what actually happened; an appeal to the facts at hand alongside information relating to such experiences themselves suffice.

Here's a medical doctor who specializes in the treatment of medication withdrawal explaining exactly what Peterson went through:

https://youtu.be/C_32icvWpIg

>>24518212
>it's not about the side effect, it's about the fact that he allowed himself to become dependent when he should have known better
>*proceeds to post a wall of text about the side effect*

>Peterson had a physical dependency on medication, as many people do
He became dependent on a medication with a well known propensity for inducing dependence. He became dependent and then claimed ignorance of the facts despite belonging to a profession where this sort of thing has to be common knowledge as a basic matter of competence.

>>24518319
Peterson took a doctor prescribed medication as directed by a physician. There is no evidence of abuse and no evidence of "addiction". He suffered an extreme neurological side effect that was unknown at the time and when he tried to stop taking the drug his symptoms became worse because of physical dependency. He could not taper off of the medication because it was doing damage to his body and changes in dosage aggravated the side effects he was experiencing. Thereby, Peterson sought out treatment at a specialized clinic that had developed a specific regime of treatment for what he was experiencing.

The main problem Peterson experienced was the side effect, damage to his nervous system, caused by the medication. Secondary side effects were caused by cessation of the medication and these included further damage to his nervous system. This is why Peterson's treatment included being put into a comatose state: he could not simply stop taking the medication or even taper down his dose; changing the dosage caused further damage in relation to the initial side effect as well as an entirely new set of side effects, themselves further aggravated by the initial side effect.

From the above it's obvious that physical dependency wasn't even the primary concern. The neurological injury, a side effect unknown at the time Peterson went through his ordeal, is the main element. Although physical dependency did serve as an aggregating factor this hardly merits the false narrative that Peterson had a downward spiral into drug addiction, lol.

>>24518443
You're just repeating yourself. You've done nothing to refute the point I am making.
>a downward spiral into drug addiction
Please re-read my initial post. You keep subtly misframing my argument in an effort to detract from the facts:

Despite being a mental health professional with years of experience in research, Peterson regularly took a drug with a known dependence profile and proceeded to become chemically reliant upon that drug. He then claimed ignorance of that drug's potential. This makes him either (a) a liar, or (b) an incompetent psychologist who has no business whatsoever instructing others.

>>24518471
>You've done nothing to refute the point I am making
Anon, there was no drug addiction, the side effect Peterson suffered from wasn't on the label until a year after he experienced it, and physical dependency wasn't the primary concern. Your argument is entirely based on hindsight when the fact is Peterson took medication as prescribed by his doctor and experienced what was an unknown side effect.

You backtracked from "drug addict" to the idea that taking medication is bad. Your argument that he should have known makes no sense as the side effect he experienced was literally unknown. You want to ignore the fact that the dangers of benzodiazepines were largely unknown and don't even realize the vast majority of research came out in the last 10 years. Why do you think an article from 1991 is the first thing you find and not a trail of literature snaking through the 90s, 00s and 10s? It's because the likelihood of sever side effects wasn't known until the drug was over prescribed and a large number of people thereby began experiencing them.

You have no argument, anon. You're a retard trying to smear a media figure over something that happened 7 years ago and you can't even get your facts straight.

>>24518501
>and experienced what was an unknown side effect
Again, chemical dependence was not an unknown side effect at the time. The way you constantly dance around this point is insane.

>>24518501
>an article from 1991
If you had actually read the study, you'd know the reality of physical dependency was demonstrated and reported on in the early 1980s.

>>24518501
>physical dependency wasn't the primary concern
>*uh... it's OK that I became chemically dependent on a psychotropic drug despite my background and prior knowledge in the field because, um, it was SECONDARY
lol

>>24518530
The side effect Peterson experienced wasn't due to physical dependency AND said side effect was unknown when Peterson experienced it. Physical dependency was an aggravating factor for the side effect he experienced by the fact is THE SIDE EFFECT ITSELF WAS UNKNOWN.

Every medication you will ever take has side effects; a doctor and his/her patient discuss risks associated with the medication and the benefits associated with such. Shifting the goalposts from "he was a drug addict" to "durr, he shouldn't have taken the medication because of side effects" is especially stupid given the side effect Peterson suffered from was unknown, your argument is based entirely on hindsight, and the fact Peterson fit the profile suited to the medication.
>>24518549
>If you had actually read the study
If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd address the fact that the side effect was unknown at the time and physical dependency was an aggravating factor (not the main factor you need it to be in order to service the idea your argument isn't based on hindsight).

>>24518610
>he was a drug addict
Where did I say this?
>he shouldn't have taken the medication because of side effects
You keep going on and on about the side effects. I am talking about chemical dependency for reasons already outlined here >>24518471
and here >>24518553

>>24517846
And if he were raising her conservative and she ended up being a slut?

>>24518664
>Where did I say this?
That's the argument against Peterson and you know very well you've argued such in the past (alongside the fact people are arguing ITT).
>You keep going on and on about the side effects
Because Peterson suffered what was at the time an unknown side effect of the drug. The side effect was neurological damage that caused him to have seemingly random immunological responses, at varying degrees of severity, to normal food and drink. This wasn't the result of physical dependency, which is itself quite normal for pretty much every psychoactive pharmaceutical in existence, and thereby you can't argue your point isn't based entirely on hindsight.

Again, physicians discuss the potential of negative side effects alongside the benefits of taking any medication. It's a calculated risk and you're acting like Peterson should have known about an unknown side effect because of a different side effect that was itself not known to be as prevalent at the time. You have no answer to the fact the side effect Peterson experienced was unknown, no answer to the fact the side effect you want to place at the centre isn't related to said side effect Peterson experienced, no answer to the fact that the vast majority of research related to the dangers of the drug is recent and in fact due to the he drug being over prescribed, and no answer to the fact all drugs carry the risk of side effects.

The purpose of your argument isn't to clarify the risks of psychopharmacological drugs but to smear a media figure. It's quite obvious and you don't have a leg to stand on when discussing the facts at hand. "Oh, he should have known better" is at best complete conjecture on your part and in reality a completely false narrative given even the most cursory glance at the facts with which you have been provided.

>>24518733
>you know very well you've argued such in the past
Where?
>The side effect was neurological damage that caused him to have seemingly random immunological responses, at varying degrees of severity, to normal food and drink.
Can you provide proof that this condition exists?
>which is itself quite normal
Chemical dependency is a serious condition that is in no way just par for the course medically speaking. Alcoholics are chemically dependent on alcohol, as one example. Peterson, as a mental health professional, absolutely should have known about the dangers of benzodiazepines and dependence. His claim of ignorance is remarkable given its implications for his competency in the field.
>Peterson should have known about an unknown side effect because of a different side effect that was itself not known to be as prevalent at the time.
Nowhere have I said this. You are putting words in my mouth. Also, "not known to be as prevalent at the time?" The risks around benzos and dependence were well established in the literature by the early eighties.
>You have no answer to the fact the side effect Peterson experienced was unknown
Because it sounds spurious and it isn't relevant to the fact that he allowed himself to become chemically dependent despite his professional background.
>no answer to the fact the side effect you want to place at the centre isn't related to said side effect Peterson experienced
Chemical dependence is obviously a central issue given its seriousness.
>no answer to the fact that the vast majority of research related to the dangers of the drug is recent
The reality of the dangers was established in the eighties, but, by all means, keep saying black is white.
>all drugs carry the risk of side effects
A total non sequitur that has nothing to do with Peterson's honesty and professional capacity.

https://youtu.be/d5Zx6O2N5KE?feature=shared

>>24518778
>Can you provide proof that this condition exists?
https://youtu.be/C_32icvWpIg
>Chemical dependency is a serious condition that is in no way just par for the course medically speaking
Physical dependency is par for the course with the vast majority of psychoactive pharmaceuticals so you're statement is untrue. Again: PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY WASN'T THE PRIMARY SIDE EFFECT PETERSON EXPERIENCED. It was an aggravating factor as has been explained to you multiple times.
>Nowhere have I said this
That's literally your argument, anon. For some reason (i.e. your entire argument is dependant on this) we should ignore the actual side effect Peterson experienced because physical dependency exists. On top of this you have no answer to the fact that side effects are always part of a calculated risk when taking medication (i.e. your argument is based entirely on hindsight).
>His claim of ignorance is remarkable
How was he supposed to know about an unknown side effect? Why are you ignoring the fact that all medications carry side effects and what Peterson actually experienced was exceedingly rare? Why are you acting like physical dependency is an automatic red flag when the fact is all psychoactive drugs carry such a risk and this is weighed against the benefits of taking them?
>Because it sounds spurious and it isn't relevant
The side effect Peterson actually experienced isn't relevant? Lol, retard.
>Chemical dependence is obviously a central issue
Again: physical dependency is a very common side effect. Again, the prevalence of severe physical dependency wasn't known until the drug became over prescribed. Again, you can see this for yourself by looking into when the vast majority of research about benzodiazepines came out (i.e. only in the last decade). Again: Peterson experienced a RARE side effect that was aggravated by physical dependency (i.e the central focus of his condition was neurological damage he sustained and NOT physical dependency which is itself tangential to his actual medical condition).
>The reality of the dangers was established in the eighties, but, by all means, keep saying black is white
The reality is that most of the research about benzodiazepines came out only within the last decade and you're pretending a single study from over 30 years ago has always had a vast amount of influence when the actual reality is the drug was over prescribed in the 2000s and 2010s and this, in turn, lead to a greater incidence of side effects/research.
>A total non sequitur
It's not, retard. You haven't proven that Peterson should have known about an unknown side effect because an unrelated side effect, that wasn't known to be as prevalent at the time, existed. The fact is all medications carry side effects and your argument depends on the fact we ignore this in order to pretend Peterson should have known something he couldn't have when weighing the benefit of taking the medication prescribed to him by a doctor and used as directed.

>>24518879
When he first discussed his symptoms, it seemed fairly clear he was suffering from severe withdrawals from benzodiazepines. It's difficult, if not impossible, to take this point about an autoimmune response seriously in light of that.
>Physical dependency is par for the course with the vast majority of psychoactive pharmaceuticals
You keep trying to down play the fact that he allowed himself to become chemically dependent, but I'm just not buying it. The national health service in the UK, as an example, started to significantly restrict the prescribing of Valium in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly due to concerns about its potential for misuse and dependence. This discovery of the serious potential for addiction is nowhere near as new as you're trying to make out.
>retard
calm down

>>24518912
*downplay

>>24518912
>When he first discussed his symptoms, it seemed fairly clear he was suffering from severe withdrawals from benzodiazepines. It's difficult, if not impossible, to take this point about an autoimmune response seriously in light of that
Not an argument; a statement which conveniently ignores the fact Peterson experienced what was an unknown side effect aggravated by changes in medication dosage.
>You keep trying to down play the fact that he allowed himself to become chemically dependent
Stating that physical dependency is a common side effect is a fact. Your argument depends on this not being true AND it being the primary factor given what Peterson went through. The reality is that all medications carry the risk of side effects, physical dependency being a common one, and what Peterson experienced wasn't expressly due to physical dependency.
>calm down
Stop being retarded.

>>24518938
Show me the studies that demonstrate a small amount of sodium metabisulfite from apple cider vinegar can floor a man for weeks. Show me the studies that demonstrate a man can remain awake for "25 days" in a state of near anaphylaxis without dying.
>Your argument depends on this not being true
My argument depends on the dangers of benzos and chemical dependence being widely recognised prior to his taking the medication, which they were.

>>24518972
>Show me the studies that demonstrate a small amount of sodium metabisulfite from apple cider vinegar can floor a man for weeks
I gave you a video from a medical doctor specializing in the treatment of side effects/complications from psychoactive medications stating such is the case. I'm glad you admit this is damning for the argument you were trying to make by crying "SOURCE" even after you were given one, lol.
>My argument depends on the dangers of benzos and chemical dependence being widely recognised
Again: physical dependency is a common side effect of all psychoactive medications. Again: all medications are taken based on a calculated risk that weighs the likelihood of potential harms and the benefits of the medication. Again: in regard to Peterson, physical dependency wasn't the main factor but rather neurological damage he sustained. Again: this side effect was unknown at the time but is now part of the warning label for the medication in question. Again: the prevalence of complications due to benzodiazepines was not well known and came about due to the over prescription of the drug (you can see this by the fact most research about the drug and its complications came out only in the last decade). Again: a single study from 1991 doesn't negate that last point AND the fact is the actual side effect Peterson experienced wasn't physical dependency.

Your argument has been thoroughly demolished, anon. You have no answer.

>>24519016
So no studies then. Wow. Can't say I'm surprised. You do know this guy is just one doctor right? And that he's a private professsional with his own clinic and a vested interest in telling people they're not addicted?
>physical dependency is a common side effect of all psychoactive medications.
Yes. Because 1/5 of the American population are essentially addicted to the drugs they're taking. The fact that this has been done to them doesn't make it less of an addiction. This distinction between addiction and physiological dependence is fine in polite conversation, but it is largely superfluous.
>in regard to Peterson, physical dependency wasn't the main factor but rather neurological damage he sustained.
You haven't actually provided any hard evidence for this. For all I know, the induced coma he agreed to undergo in order to avoid withdrawals could have caused the damage. If there is actual damage, that is.
>the prevalence of complications due to benzodiazepines was not well known and came about due to the over prescription of the drug
Again, the fact that they cause chemical dependence in users was first indicated in the seventies and was well established by the early eighties, that's why institutions like the NHS began severely restricting their use in the seventies and eighties.
>a single study from 1991 doesn't negate that last point
Again, if you had actually read the study, you'd see it references earlier studies.

Peterson made regular use of a highly addictive drug despite his professional expertise in a highly relevant field. He then developed all the signs of severe chemical dependence and withdrawal. He went on to claim ignorance of the drug's properties. So again: Either (a) Peterson really didn't know the pills were addictive, in which case he's incompetent or (b) he knew they were addictive but lied about it because he was ashamed. Either option disqualifies him from giving life advice to vulnerable young men. If your own house isn't in order, you have no right to instruct others.

If he does suffer from the neurological issues you describe, it would be helpful to actually see some evidence. In fairness to him, it does sound as if he was simply taking what his doctor perscribed. But, given his professional background, he absolutely should have known better. And if there is no hard evidence for this neurological disease, he should be more open to accepting the fact that it really was just severe addiction and withdrawals, and apologise to his audience accordingly.

>>24519082
>So no studies then.
I gave you a video of a medical doctor who specializes in the treatment of psychopharmacological injuries, retard. I'm glad you realize this fact means your entire argument is BTFO though, lol.
>The fact that this has been done to them doesn't make it less of an addiction
Physical dependency isn't the same thing as addiction, dummy. The fact is physical dependency is a common side effect of medications and it's not even the factor which caused Peterson's medical problems.
>You haven't actually provided any hard evidence for this
I gave you a video of a doctor specializing in injuries resulting from psychoactive medications, retard. Your entire argument is based on the fact you want to defame a public figure and has nothing to do with the dangers of psychoactive medications.
>if you had actually read the study
Why is most of the literature on the harmful side effects of benzodiazepines less than a decade old, anon? Why should I prioritize a 35 year old study that is unrelated to the actual side effect Peterson was afflicted by?

You have no arguments left, anon. Keep crying for sources that have already been provided and making up nonsense that has been thoroughly rebuked.

>>24519181
>retard! retard! retard!
>y-you've been thoroughly rebuked!!
If you have to say it, then it isn't true. The difference between what he calls addiction and physiological dependence is a matter of perspective. Obviously, addiction is physiological dependence and vice versa functionally. When an alcoholic gets the shakes, that's addiction, that's physiological dependence manifesting.
>The fact is physical dependency is a common side effect of medications
Yes. Because people are addicted to those meds without knowing it. Peterson should have had the expertise to know ahead of time.
>and it's not even the factor which caused Peterson's medical problems
You haven't shown this.
>I gave you a video of one doctor though :(
I stand by my initial assessment. You've provided no evidence and that doctor almost certainly has a financial stake.
>Why is most of the literature on the harmful side effects of benzodiazepines less than a decade old, anon?
What a weird question. Because that's how science works. It's a constantly refining process. Do you think that gravity was only discovered last year because some groundbreaking work was done on the concept in 2024?

>>24519209
>retard! retard! retard!
Lol.
>The difference between what he calls addiction and physiological dependence is a matter of perspective
No, retard. Addiction implies a set of behaviours that physiological dependence does not necessarily imply.
>Because people are addicted to those meds without knowing it.
No, retard. Physical dependency is a common side effect that is widely seen as acceptable given the benefits of a given drug. Also, I'm not arguing in favor of the psychopharmacological model of mental health treatment so don't bother sliding.
>Peterson should have had the expertise to know ahead of time.
No, retard. Peterson was afflicted by a RARE side effect that wasn't even included on the warning label until a year after he went through his ordeal. In fact, the immunocological impact of benzodiazepines is still being studied.
>You haven't shown this.
Yes I have, retard. You were given a video created by a medical professional who clearly validates everything I've told you.
>I stand by my initial assessment
Because you've been BTFO and are thereby reduced to openly ignoring evidence, retard.
>What a weird question
It's a point that has been brought up multiple times, retard. It demonstrates the fact that the side effects weren't well known AND most research has been put out within the last decade as a result of more people being afflicted by previously unknown side effects. I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure the first major longitudinal study of long-term benzodiazepine usage didn't even come out until the 2020s.
>Because that's how science works. It's a constantly refining process.
You have no clue "how science works", retard.

You're a retard.

>>24510716
Because the men kill and the women birth

>>24515883
Owning what this image represents is the ultimate passive-aggressive position. Like the only way to take the world back from the Jews is to accept that God was incarnated in a Jew who was then killed by other Jews in a magical blood sacrifice. That'll show em!!

What does Jordan even talk about these days? I was briefly a fan back when he first gained traction for his willingness to stand up to the gays, 12 rules for life was not very good. Some of his lectures online were alright, I liked the one about Pinocchio. But there is a huge vaccum of male role models, and you know what? It 's our parents fault. Blame the retard older generations.

>>24515574
I don't know about that man, the first time I saw him on the brink of tears was when he was talking about incles.
Incels made him cry.

>>24519413
When jews invent a term to wage warfare against Christians and Europeans, you better fucking use it, or else.

>>24510464 (OP)
Humiliation ritual

>>24517538
Only libshits manage to marry a determinative view on society (parents dindu nuffin, culture, socioeconomics is to blame) with a nondeterminative view on parenting. If America can turn his daughter into a whore he sure as shit can parent her to better choices. You’re arguing two opposite cases in one breath you dumb fuck.

>>24519649
I think philosemites refer to shabbos goyim like Peterson, not Jews themselves.

>>24510474
nice bait but hes a pseud

>>24519379
>No, retard. Addiction implies a set of behaviours that physiological dependence does not necessarily imply.
This is a blatant cope. "Uh, no, you see, I'm not an alcoholic because I don't have any psychological hangups and I can hold down a job!" Please.
>Physical dependency is a common side effect that is widely seen as acceptable given the benefits of a given drug.
The fact that it's socially acceptable addiction doesn't mean it isn't addiction.
>Peterson was afflicted by a RARE side effect
We've already been through this. I am talking about his chemical dependence, his addiction, specifically.
>You were given a video created by a medical professional
I've already covered why one doctor shilling an experimental hermeneutic isn't a sufficient replacement for real data. Where's the data that shows that this condition exists and that Peterson has it?
>Because you've been BTFO
You sound like a seething twelve year old trying to defend the existence of the Easter Bunny.
> It demonstrates the fact that the side effects weren't well known
I've already listed the studies that show that they were. This is just pathetic. You keep screaming that black is white.
>You have no clue "how science works", retard.
I can guarantee that you are not a scientist; I can likewise guarantee that you either didn't take science APs, or, if you did, that you didn't do well.
>You're a retard.
The fact you feel the need to keep typing this reeks of desperation on your part. I didn't insult you once. Act like a man for once in your life and show some common courtesy.

>>24519472
He's doing the Frankfurt school thing of calling people who disagree with him psychologically damaged individuals. I seen him recently saying he had a "new theory" of "far right psychopathology", basically calling people who are white nationalists evil dangerous psychopaths.

He's being lead around like a puppet by the jews at the Daily Wire.

>>24519917
>"Uh, no, you see, I'm not an alcoholic because I don't have any psychological hangups and I can hold down a job!"
That's not the same thing, retard. An alcoholic displays the behaviors alluded to in the previous post (e.g. pleasure seeking and substance abuse) whereas physical dependency simply means you experience withdrawal symptoms steaming from cessation of a given medication. This is why it's disingenuous to label Peterson a drug addict due to a know side effect (you claimed earlier you were trying to attach such a label, liar).
>The fact that it's socially acceptable addiction
It's not a "socially acceptable addiction" because physical dependency doesn't carry the same hallmarks of addiction, retard. Almost all psychoactive drugs have the side effect of physical dependency. However, this doesn't mean you become a drug addict merely by taking them. For example, I had a friend who fell 3 stories onto concrete and miraculously survived. He had to take various painkillers that created a physical dependency. However, he never abused them and took them as directed by his doctor. Coming off of them wasn't a fun experience for him but it's not like he had to check into a rehab center for opiate addiction. He was never an "addict", he was physically dependant on a medication he needed to help subdue the pain he experienced from breaking his body in an accident.
>We've already been through this. I am talking about his chemical dependence, his addiction, specifically.
Yes, we have. You lied and said you weren't trying to construe Peterson as a drug addict and now you're doing exactly that. Again: THE PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY ON THE DRUG WAS NOT THE PRIMARY SIDE EFFECT WHICH CAUSED PETERSON'S MEDICAL ORDEAL. The FACT is that he experienced neurological damage that impacted his immune system: he had random moderate to sever allergic reactions to foodstuffs (including anaphylactic shock). Adjusting the dosage of his medication, up or down, increased this symptom. However, maintaining his dosage wasn't an option because damage was being done to his nervous system. Therefore, he had to have specialized treatment to remove the drug from his system.

The fact is PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY WASN'T THE CENTRAL SIDE EFFECT. This has been proven and yet you keep repeated it because you're both stupid and a liar.
>I've already covered why one doctor shilling an experimental hermeneutic isn't a sufficient replacement for real data.
No you haven't, retard. You've handwaved the testimonial of a medical doctor who specializes in the treatment of injuries caused by psychoactive medications BECAUSE you have no actual counterargument to it. It literally destroys every claim you've tried to make while underscoring why I am correct.
>more cope
You're BTFO, anon. You know fuck all about this and have 0 science background.

You're a retard

>>24519943
I think I will burn my copy of Maps of Meaning.

>>24519992
>That's not the same thing, retard. An alcoholic displays the behaviors alluded to in the previous post (e.g. pleasure seeking and substance abuse) whereas physical dependency simply means you experience withdrawal symptoms steaming from cessation of a given medication.
This is such fuzzy nonsense. You don't think someone who has become chemically reliant on antidepressants is pleasure seeking? "Substance abuse" is a previously clear term that used to mean that someone had taken a substance to the point they couldn't live without it. It's now changed to: "If we feel certain of your behaviours indicate a pattern of gratification and self destruction, then we *might* call it substance abuse, unless you don't want us to." It's ridiculous. Everyone on drugs, legal or otherwise, is seeking pleasure from those drugs. And whether or not a behaviour is "self destructive" will vary wildly depending on the observer.
>This is why it's disingenuous to label Peterson a drug addict
I didn't label him a "drug addict" because that's too loaded a term. It implies that he took more of the substance than was perscribed. I said he became addicted, which he did.
>However, this doesn't mean you become a drug addict merely by taking them.
Physical dependency is synonymous with "becoming addicted" because physical dependency is the functional expression of addiction. You're arguing the semantics of an issue that is actually clear cut.
>The FACT is that he experienced neurological damage
If it's a fact then provide the data. Go on.
>This has been proven
Where? The doctor video? The man with the private clinic? I've already covered that.
>You've handwaved the testimonial of a medical doctor who specializes in the treatment of injuries caused by psychoactive medications
The testimony of one professional who has a vested financial stake isn't a sufficient replacement for the scientific method. SHOW ME THE DATA. If you cannot prove that this condition exists and that he has it, then keep silent.
>You know fuck all about this and have 0 science background.
Right, so as I thought, you either bungled your science APs or weren't smart enough to take them in the first place.

>>24520018
>This is such fuzzy nonsense
It's not "fuzzy nonsense", dumbass. There is a clear and distinct difference between what constitutes addiction and physical dependency. Addiction involves a set of behaviours related to euphoria seeking and substance abuse. Physical dependency involves changes to your body that make it hard to stop taking a given drug. Take a homeless person who smokes crack because it gives him feelings of euphoria and allows his life to fall apart around him so he can chase his high and abuse said substance. That's an addict. Now, take the example I gave you about my friend who was on opiates for several months because he fell 3 stories onto concrete (shattering his ribs on one side, disintegrating his wrist, collapsing his lungs, dislocating and breaking his elbow, tearing muscle all around his should blade, and severing his ACLs and tearing his ICL in his knee). He developed physical dependence on opioids as a side effect of his treatment with them but he was never an "addict." He accept the risk of physical dependency in order to manage the pain of several surgeries and rehab and went through a tapering of the drug when it was time to come off of them. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between drug addiction and physical dependency on medication AND the medical nomenclature relating to such exists for a reason.

You said you weren't arguing that Peterson was an "addict" earlier so you've now been caught in a lie.
>I didn't label him a "drug addict" because that's too loaded a term
You're saying he was addicted to drugs because you finally realized everything you were saying is complete bullshit. It's obvious you had no idea as to the difference between addiction and physical dependency so now you're trying to make a side argument that allows for loaded terminology because you've been thoroughly refuted in everything you've said.
>Physical dependency is synonymous with "becoming addicted"
No, it isn't. This have been clearly explained to you multiple times. You're wrong.
>If it's a fact then provide the data
The video of a medical doctor who specializes in injuries caused by psychoactive medication clearly explains the points I've made. Stop crying for more sources like a disingenuous faggot and research it for yourself. Look up immunocological damage caused by benzodiazepines. You'll see they know they react with cells relevant to such and current research is trying to figure out what exactly causes disruptions in the immune system Peterson experienced (i.e. they didn't know the severity of likelihood of such side effects and they're trying to figure out the mechanism of action for them...I think the most recent research, only a couple years old and ongoing, is concerned with how benzodiazepines affect cytokines).
>I've already covered that
Lol, no you haven't. Hand-waving because something proves you wrong is an admission you have no real argument anymore.

>>24520057
>Therefore, there is a clear distinction between drug addiction and physical dependency on medication AND the medical nomenclature relating to such exists for a reason.
This is a word salad. "Uh, my friend became addicted, but it, uh, wasn't addiction... it was only physical dependence, because, he wasn't, um, *seeking feelings of euphoria*, even though, uh, he was seeking relief." Relief is a type of pleasure, obviously. The crack addict in your example smokes crack to relieve himself temporarily of his psychological hangups, just as Peterson took Valium to relieve himself of his anxiety. We say Peterson became addicted because he became chemically dependent; but he wasn't an addict because he was presumably following the advice of his doctor. He should still have known better given his professional background.
>You're saying he was addicted to drugs because you finally realized everything you were saying is complete bullshit.
I've said he was addicted from the outset. I never referred to him as a "drug addict" because that term doesn't fit in this instance given the above.
>This have been clearly explained to you multiple times.
Beyond nebulous mumbo jumbo about *seeking euphoria* you haven't been able to explain a thing. The distinction you're trying to draw is arbitrary.
>The video of a medical doctor who specializes in injuries caused by psychoactive medication clearly explains the points I've made.
So provide the data that shows this is more than just the opinion of one professional with a vested interest in holding that opinion.
>r-research it for yourself
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - and there it its. No real evidence to be found.
>they react with cells relevant to such and current research is trying to figure out what exactly causes disruptions in the immune system
That benzos might interact negatively with parts of the immune system does not demonstrate that Peterson's response was primarily immunological. He displayed all the hallmarks of addiction and severe withdrawal. Until you can show that his immune system was actually compromised, that this did indeed cause brain damage, and that this damage conclusively caused the symptoms described, your position is tenuous.
>Hand-waving because something
It isn't "hand-waving" to point out that the opinion of one, potentially biased, doctor isn't sufficient.

>>24520081
To be clear, I am not particularly interested in going for his throat. He's a public figure who continues to insist on instructing others on how they should live, but I have no real interest in continuing to discuss his drug habits.

From what I can tell, he took a doctor perscribed medication and experienced significant negative outcomes as a result of that. Should he have known better? I believe, given his position and his claimed expertise, it's hard not to conclude that, yes, he really should have known better. But it was a time of major difficulty given what was happening to his wife.

I don't think he has sufficient evidence to claim that he absolutely experienced an immunological response. All of his symptoms fit with addiction and withdrawal. On that basis alone, he should at least remain open to the possibility that he really was addicted; and he should be honest towards those he presumed to teach both on that basis and on the basis of his lack of foresight.

>>24510474
>clinical psychologist
>academic who published dozens of widely cited papers
>his daughter is a slut

That alone should disqualify him from giving advice and therapy to anyone. If you're a psychologist who failed so hard that your own daughter turned out to be a slut who fucked Andrew Tate and got pregnant by a Stalinist, of what possible value is your advice?

>>24520284
>we argued about stalin all night
Which one of them defended him?

>>24520284
>got pregnant by a Stalinist
Daddy is disappointed... it should've been a Leninist.

I remember liking his performance with that British feminist and thought he was a cool guy. So sad to see he became just another zio-whore after his benzo fiasco.

>>24520649
Zizek fucked her

>>24520081
>This is a word salad
No it's not, retard. Addiction entails a different set of behaviours than does physical dependency, these are further demarcated by the idea of street drugs versus using a medication as directed by a doctor, and medical nomenclature accounts for this. What don't you understand about that, dummy?
>I've said he was addicted from the outset
Liar.
>Beyond nebulous mumbo jumbo
Maybe you're just too retarded to be having this conversation and should admit that to yourself instead of spreading nonsense.
>nebulous mumbo jumbo
Not an argument. Go ahead and point to the exact sentence you think doesn't make sense and I'll clarify if for you. The fact is you're an idiot who can't admit he was wrong about something and would thereby rather derail a conversation than suffer a blow to his narcissism.
>So provide the data that shows this is more than just the opinion
A medical expert who specializes in the treatment of drug induced injuries confirming everything I've said to you is a valid source, retard. What's more, I guided you to Google: benzodiazepines +"immune system" for yourself AND gave you the keyword "cytokines" to look into.

The fact you can't refute what you were told by an expert doesn't mean the onus is on me to teach you how benzos interact with the immune system you complete and total idiot.
>No real evidence to be found.
We both know you lost the argument, retard.
>That benzos might interact negatively with parts of the immune system
They do, retard.
>does not demonstrate that Peterson's response was primarily immunological
That's literally the side effect from which he suffered, idiot. He describes it in videos from that time and a doctor who literally specializes in drug induced injuries, whose livelihood is tied to him providing sound information, laid it out for you.

You're a retard.

>>24520284
>a girl in her early 20s overshares on social media
SCANDALOUS! Lol

>>24510464 (OP)
I used to think this guy gave good advice but you guys have turned him into a lolcow for me. I can't stop laughing while watching him cry.

>>24510829
very based

>>24510699
>Kid asks Peterson, mockingly, if he is unaware the video is Christian vs Atheists (not the video title)
It WAS the video title, they changed it.

>>24523408
>It WAS the video title, they changed it.
To get retards like yourself to boost engagement, lol.

>>24510464 (OP)
Is there anything Jordan Peterson wrote--a book or an article--that is actually worth reading?

>>24524733
According to his h-score, even before he became famous, there certainly was.

>>24524742
Such as?

>>24524745
Do you not know how to use the internet?