I am going to try to go over this slowly but no matter what I say if you don't want to see it you won't unfortunately.
I should ask first if you have ever been diagnosed as socially challenged, not picking up on body language or situational context, etc, Asperger’s Syndrome etc. I am at times amazed by how much I think you miss. Just saying. it's not that I'm looking to put you down, but to change how I talk with you if you have those kinds of issues. I break a lot of social rules to illustrate the behaviors I witness in myself and other people, stuff people with such conditions would likely have more than the usual problem navigating.
This statement of yours is where it began:
“The VIce conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically the purpose of makeup segment. Jordan was rapid-firing statements and questions to disrupt his interlocutor, repeatedly interrupting him, posing rhetorical questions he immediately answered himself, then asking a question and waiting until his interlocutor gets out a partial response and pouncing before he's finished speaking. It was very manipulative and designed to put his counterpart off balance and keep him there. Jordan hates it when someone tries to do it to him.”
This statement of yours was already debunked as horse shit and here you go repeating the same claim. To assassinate Petersons character the way that you did after having been told contradicting information is rather nasty and evil. Your characterization of him in this way can therefore be seen as morally corrupt and deserving of the same level of character assassionation you so blithely engaged in and why, because you can’t alter your viewpoint even with countervailing evidence. Shame on you. Such rejection and ignoring of points of view that lay bare the shallowness of your reasoning are for a liberal brain, painfully disgusting and profoundly contemptuous. What I did was to show you how your behavior would look in your very own eyes were you capable of seeing what you really did. You treated Peterson to the same contemptuousness as you would treat yourself if you could actually see what you did.
Here I reminded you for the second time of the context you failed to account for:
“Peterson was thrown into a confusing and irritating situation where he and the students were lied to by the assholes that set up the debate. They told him he would be debating Atheists and they were told they would be debating Christians and what happened in the debate was the intended absurdity that followed. What you saw was a person unknowingly set up, facing endless questions and badgering on a subject irrelevant to the reason he agreed to and expected would ensue.
Your moral outrage, were you to see those facts, should be directed at the swine who set him and those students up like that. You have so far shown no comprehension at all of your continued misapprehension of Peterson’s behavior. As a human being you should tone down the ease with which you deal out your righteous indignation.
And that is why I said:
“How many times do we have to go over the fact he was told he would be debating atheists and they were told they would be debating a Christian.”
And here comes the sarcasm, mine not yours:
“I am now so profoundly offended with your endless stupidity and inability to understand context that I am experiencing all kinds of urges to beat you to death, you obnoxious brain dead twit.” This is the behavior you implied was behind Peterson’s assault on those poor rationally minded students because they kept asking him to debate something completely off topic and having nothing to do with the topic of Atheism. You did what you accused him of doing so I did it to you so you might experience what it can be like to be judged as a worth piece of shit and with irrational moral outrage.
Don’t deal what you can’t take on rebound. So my coarse words to you were not delivered out of a state of real exasperation or rage. They were there to show you what lack of charity to others looks like first hand. This is a request to wake up.
Here I attempted to tell you the real intention behind my words and so far you are having none of it:
“Naturally, of course I know you can’t help yourself. You have become profoundly offended by your own imagination thinking that Peterson isn’t human and unlike me too enlightened to ever really feel such confused impatience.”
I am saying that I am not reacting to you out of the level of confusion Peterson’s and those students were put through. I find you to be irritatingly obtuse in so far as I am also by temperament irritated by the irrational, but all of that is moderated in me by the apperception that that kind of ability to be triggered is no less insane and irrational.
I am of the opinion that people are asleep, that they are motivated by unconscious forces they could not have survived this vicious world without, but can’t consciously control. In a state of sleep nobody can be classically guilty of anything. There is no way on earth that I could ever actually wish you to be beaten, much less to death.
I tried to explain that here:
“You probably thought I was being serious in my attack on you because you actually feel like a twit and imagine I can see right through you. Rest assured, I am fully aware you just can’t help yourself because you do not know how you really feel. You are actually quite normally blind and unaware. Don't get stressed over it. Self awareness isn’t easy and requires gentle patience I feel.”
“You are really lousy at sarcasm as well as reading comprehension. Try to be aware of that.”
Here I try to explain to you that the sarcasm was all mine and not you being lousy at doing it. I put you down not out of real contempt but to do to you what you really did to Peterson.”
More of the same:
“All I did was show you what a gentle loving Moonbeam would look like if he were the Jordan Peterson you tried to make out him as being. Imagine you had been invited before the world to debate what you say as the problems with Atheistic belief and the questions you got were all about how you think monkey shit smells because the other side of the debate was told that's what you came to discuss. Have some compassion for people who were manipulated and lied to about what the debate was about and you had no idea the other side was told something different than you in order to generate a debate in which you would inevitable be asked things that had nothing whatsoever with why you came. Your words murder Peterson and your motivation sucks. I showed you what you look like to me. The only difference is that I don't care you think that way because your inner rage was inevitable as a result of having been murdered as a child.”
So, if you can comprehend what I say above and see any truth to it perhaps you will listen again to this:
“My advice, be nicer to others because how you treat them is how you treat the them that is really only a projection of how you unconsciously feel about yourself. My aim is to help you see. What you do with what I say is not something I have any ability to control. I will do my best for you even if it's not much. I am not plagued by any uncertainty that life is good and that God is a projection of what you can become. To be a real potential the result has to be real. This is a mystical fact that is seen with the onset of an altered conscious state, as I see it.”
Facebook
Twitter