Intellectual Dark Web
- Started
- Last post
- 199 Responses
- Morning_star-6
"...There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him [Peterson] on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson."
- There's no reason to be drawn into and perpetuate the Peterson wars at all. It's so boring.Fax_Benson
- Sorry Fax, I find it fascinating. Not him particularly, but the polarised reaction he (and others) attract.Morning_star
- I'm not sure many sensible people on 'the left' pay him that much attention anymore do they? He's getting paid and that's all that matters to him.fadein11
- the fringes are always irrational and incoherent.Gnash
- I’m reading between the lines here Fadein11 but your comment seems to suggest he’s an irrational profiteer. Why?Morning_star
- lol at expecting any thoughtful insight form fadein. just look it up vox or guardian if you want his opinion.Gnash
- Write more books, less overpriced echochamber speaking tours, academics produce work don't they, when it becomes about the man not the ideas warningfadein11
- bells go off, no? I may be wrong of course. Off on a tangent but like Set said recently, why trust someone who you have never seen smilefadein11
- oh gnash, why are you so triggered by me lol, did I hit a nerve. Off to the transgender outrage thread with you lol!fadein11
- Morning_star you seem to be coming from the perspective that all this stuff is incredibly challenging and mind blowing for the "left" to absorb. When in fact...yuekit
- ^ played yourselfGnash
- just speaking for myself here...I find someone like Peterson to be really tedious and overrated. There are good and interesting conservative thinkers out there,yuekit
- but Peterson's not one of them IMO. Sure he's popular but there are lots of popular things and fads out there that are really mediocre.yuekit
- ^ agreed, yuekit.Gnash
- yuekit is often the voice of reason on herefadein11
- you're the conversational equivalent of a sand-flea.Gnash
- I don't disagree Yuekit but peppering yours and Fadeins responses are inaccuracies left over from the initial hullabaloo that brought him to prominence. He's...Morning_star
- ...not a conservative and he's only written two books. The things i like about him and the other IDW characters is that they are popularising long-form public..Morning_star
- ...discussion that challenges the lazy, soundbite, factless announcements that are the currency of the latest generation of communicators/influe...Morning_star
- ...influencers. I agree with some of his views, i disagree with others. Yet, the discussions with S Harris I thought were fantasitic. You just never see this...Morning_star
- ...type of public discussion/thinking. I think its healthy and should be encourages. Even Ted is limited to twenty minutes.Morning_star
- what was the initial hullabaloo that brought him to prominence out of interest?fadein11
- His opposition to the Canadian Bill C16.Morning_star
- Which if we look at it closely was misinterpreted nonsensical outrage no?fadein11
- Not sure I understand. Petersons opposition was valid. And the reaction from those he was criticising was one of nonsensical outrage. Is that what you meant?Morning_star
- No, I thought this was prett clear at the time, he had misinterpreted the law/bill (excuse my I am not a legal professional) as prosecution could only applyfadein11
- when in conjunction with a hate crime. This or similar is what I have read numerous times since. Excuse me if my terminology is wrong though, as I say I am notfadein11
- a legal professional. He sure rode the wave of it though, that I can agree on. Nothing like PC issues to stir the pot.fadein11
- pretty* me*fadein11
- JPs stance was overly principled. However, his argument (i think) was valid. The Canadian Gov was legislating on compelled speech. Speech you MUST use...Morning_star
- ...not words you MUST NOT say. He felt they overstepped the mark under the influence of a Social Justice agenda.Morning_star
- I get it was about the precedent it set but in reality it didn't really did it, a bit of a storm in a teacup in the scheme of things.fadein11
- you've no idea what you're talking about fadein. you're just regurgitating what you've read from your 3rd hand, triggered sources.Gnash
- once again, expressing not a single original opinion. that's why you can't quite explain it. not because you're not a legal expert,Gnash
- but because you're just aping anothers opinion without quite understanding it.Gnash
- I must have been brainwashed by the liberal media too because I heard the same thing :) What was the net impact of this law? How many people have been chargedyuekit
- for using the wrong pronoun in the years since it's been in effect?yuekit
- If the answers are "nothing" and "no one", then surely it is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.yuekit
- What is written into Canadian law is compelled speech - a fundamental erosion of the principle of freedom of speech. If you don't think that is worth...Morning_star
- ...resisting then so be it. I think his principled approach is justified, if a little too ernest.Morning_star
- "Compelled speech" is just a term Peterson himself came up with, isn't it? It's not anywhere in the law itself to my knowledge.yuekit
- Laws are often written vaguely enough that they can be subject to different interpretations. Peterson's critics always maintained that he was exaggerating andyuekit
- misleading people about what this particular law actually meant. Based on what I can tell, the lack of any realworld impact would seem to vindicate his critics.yuekit
- Compelled Speech: - https://en.wikipedia…Morning_star
- If that's the case Yuekit, what is the point of the law? other than to placate the idealogical social justice types and make Trudeaux look lovely. It's not...Morning_star
- ...a trivial thing to build compelled speech legislation in to law.Morning_star
- Morning_star did you not read your own link? It talks about how Jordan Peterson invented and popularized the term.yuekit
- According to its proponents, this law was simply adding gender identity into existing hate crime laws.yuekit
- You can agree or disagree with that goal but the idea that it was some kind of terrible blow against free speech isn't supported by the results AFAIK.yuekit
- I have read the link and nowhere does it sate that JP invented the term. I'm not sure what your point is? He made his argument from a position of principle,..Morning_star
- ...i'm not sure that the results are relevant. If anything they support his assertion that the law was necessary.Morning_star
- ..*UNnecessaryMorning_star
- He didn't just say unnecessary, he claimed it would force him to use certain words, which wasn't true.yuekit
- No comment, I don't have an original thought lolfadein11
- about time.Gnash
- I'll get into this if you want Yuekit. But you seem to have done some research so you must be aware that his objections were multi faceted and not just an...Morning_star
- ..opposition to the compelled speech element. He had objections regarding the accuracy of the claim that gender is fluid plus he disagreed with the president...Morning_star
- ...it would set for future legislation amongst other things. One of his arguments is that language evolves to accommodate the 'new' and therefore the law...Morning_star
- ...would be unnecessary.Morning_star
- I watched this controversy transform from a slow-news-day local story (i live in toronto) to the epic nonsense it's become.Gnash
- even legal experts that support c-16 do not defend the law, they simply downplay it's effects. which is, yet again, what's going on hereGnash
- the same old, oft aped trope.Gnash
- it became a controversy because the histrionic meltdowns offered newsworthy footage for our networksGnash
- Much like Channel 4s meltdown after the Cathy Newman interview. I still think that most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of him and feel they...Morning_star
- ...can catch him out with a few 'difficult' questions.Morning_star
- The Cathy Newman interview isn't half as bad when you watch the whole uncut interview but admittedly she didn't deal well with his inability to answer simplefadein11
- questions (deflect, deflect, deflect) very well. She's a good girl and became a hate figure for his disciples, which kind of sums up my opinion of him.fadein11
- lol at "your" opinionGnash
- @morning, I never seem to see him distance himself from his more extreme supporters/fans. I may be wrong but does he ever?fadein11
- Yes. All the time. He tends to package it with his descent for the extreme Left too.
With regard to your comments about 'his inability to answer simple...Morning_star - ...questions' - whilst he isn't succinct he answered all her question. They may not have been the answers she wanted but they absolutely addressed her ...Morning_star
- ...questions.Morning_star
- Fair enough. I follow his Twitter, which can be a little erratic to say the least.
The best interview/talk I ever saw with him was with his daughter talkingfadein11 - his families long history of depression, father, grandfather, himself and now his daughter. He came across a lot better in that I felt but it was quite old. Hefadein11
- seemed quite different back then.fadein11
- talking about*fadein11
- what a fucking hypocrite you are, fadie. You've waxed on often about what a nazi he is and how abhorrent you find all his views.Gnash
- lol at following him. now you actually read some of his words and realize he's not exactly what you were told to thinkGnash
- perhaps there's some potential after allGnash
- que? I have never called him a Nazi haha. Wtf are you on about? I disagree with a lot of what he says but a Nazi haha.fadein11
- I followed him from when you started bangin on about him, good to see he has soured a little on you also.fadein11
- I dislike him for many reasons but a Nazi. I have also said he makes some interesting points occasionally. You're brainwashing yourself dude.fadein11
- PhanLo-1
Oscar specials without Billy Crystal is a one way ticket to the Devil himself...
-
- PhanLo-1
- _niko-4
SJW's arguments fall apart when taken to task quite easily.
So if someone self identifies as "insert whatever here" it's our job to refer to them with the pronoun of their choosing or else we're bigots.
But, if I decide that i feel black, or native, and I demand that you refer to me as chief, how many of these SJW would respect my wishes?
- Morning_star-6
@BonSelf
Why?
The briefest of checks shows a tweet in the last few hours from Shapiro denouncing this racist prick. Your assumption of guilt by association is just plain lazy.
- why was he there in the first place? this "denouncing" thing is pretty stupid in my view. he seems happy in the picture.renderedred
- the briefest of checks could've told shapiro NOT to hug it out with that guy ;)renderedred
- Actually Shapiro wrote several articles defending him, saying the left made up him being racist etc...when it was obviousyuekit
- ^ even better LOLrenderedred
- https://www.dailywir…yuekit
- This racist prick has always been a racist prick. This isn't breaking news.BonSeff
- It is to me. I’m not in the US so his political ideals are new to me. What is troubling is that a majority of his state must have voted for him.Morning_star
- @yuekit. could you point to an article in which Shapiro defends him because in that one you posted he doesn’t.Morning_star
- But you are quick to pile on me and defend these jackasses.BonSeff
- I’ve never defended Shapiro. He comes across as a winery entitle arse.Morning_star
- Reread your post! Jesus Christ.BonSeff
- Morning_star the entire article I posted is him defending Steve King. Maybe try reading instead of just Googling and skimming things.yuekit
- He only posted the update at the top once it became completely untenable to defend him anymore.yuekit
- @yuekit. 'several articles'... I have read, very carefully, the article. He doesn't defend King he merely offers a more charitable interpretation of his..Morning_star
- ...uterrences. He has updated the article today with an statement agreeing that the guys a racist fuck. So where are the articles defending Kings racism?Morning_star
- @ BonSelf. I f you want to call that a defence so-be-it. All i did was a quick search on the article and found a very recent tweet denouncing his...Morning_star
- ...interpretation as you must have too, but decided to ignore.Morning_star
- What I said is that Shapiro repeatedly defended Steve King against charges of racism, when it was obvious the whole time that he actually is a virulent racist.yuekit
- He's been using the same rhetoric and buzzwords as white nationalists for quite a while now.yuekit
- If you don't see how that's a problem fair enough, but the whole "he didn't say exactly that" schtick isn't that convincing.yuekit
- I guess Shapiro has a lot of practice pretending people aren't racist considering he used to work for Steve Bannon.yuekit
- yea, I absolutely chose to ignore. He is backpedaling hard. Now throwing King under the bus because it no longer suits his grift.BonSeff
- @Yuekit & BonSelf. We could go round the houses here forever doing the 'he said, she said' bullshit, which is why, where possible i've tried to focus on the...Morning_star
- ...ideas being promoted and not the characters that promote them. If you want to criticise the ideas we can have a productive conversation. It just seems...Morning_star
- @BonSelf. Agreed. He is a 'backpedlar' extraordinaire. FWIW i don't like the dick, at all.Morning_star
- Wasn't race (and Marxism, or something) one of the ideas you wanted to discuss originally?yuekit
- Not really interested in discussing race. There is more diversity within racial grouping than between them. And so discussing differences is largely..Morning_star
- ...unproductive. If you want to chuck an idea out there i'd gladly discuss what ever you want.Morning_star
- Not sure why it's off limits to talk about the people involved in this movement given that a lot of time they are expressing their views and influencing people.yuekit
- If they are arguing in bad faith or acting as apologists for far right then surely that's worth noting.yuekit
- agreed, yuekit.BonSeff
- Once this administration collapses on itself, a lot of people are going to have a trail of regrettable positions. I hope they never recover from it either.BonSeff
- It's not off limits to talk about the people, it's just not helpful because the diversity of opinion within the IDW is huge. And as this thread is about the...Morning_star
- ...the IDW i thought to discuss the ideas would be more productive. I'm not a fan of talking about the people because, as we've just seen with Shapiro, you...Morning_star
- ..imply that if you stand next to a person in a picture you must necessarily share their ideologies. Also, taking snippets and soundbites out of context just...Morning_star
- ...leads to bickering and subjective judgements about what the person 'actually' means. As they aren't here to defend themselves it seems that...Morning_star
- ...the ideas are a far better target for discussion. It also means that we eject some of the media manipulations and personal bias.Morning_star
- hard to separate the free exchange of ideas from the personas.BonSeff
- People like Shapiro and Rubin spend all day attacking their "enemies" (i.e., Democrats and the left) on social media. Seems like fair game to me.yuekit
- @yeukit. If you look at Rubins YouTube channel and the content your claim about him attacking 'demoncrats' and the left is just not accurate. The fact that...Morning_star
- ...the iDW spans both left and right idealogies is testament to that. You seem to have this compulsion to simplify the issue to left vs right. It's puzzling.Morning_star
- I'm amazed that anyone could watch Rubin's show and not pick up on the fact that it promotes conservatism. Why do think it's funded by Republican donors?yuekit
- Or just read his Twitter feed. It's almost all criticizing one side.yuekit
- He's gay, he's married, he describes himself as Libertarian. His guests are an incredibly broad mix subject specialists. His last 20 tweets show no promotion...Morning_star
- ...of the right. He is measured in his opinion and interview style. Lets assume that your observations are not inaccurate (which they are)...so what? Why is...Morning_star
- ...it a problem if he promotes views from the right as well as views from the left. Can you describe why that is a problem?Morning_star
- I dunno, to me the show seems to exist to convert people to a conservative viewpoint. Which would explain the partnership with conservatives like Dennis Prageryuekit
- who is basically a George Bush style religious conservative, and the Koch brothers who are the biggest Republican donors.yuekit
- Sure they have people "from the left" on but it's mostly in the context of critiquing the left, whereas far right and even alt right guys like Stefan Molyneuxyuekit
- goes largely unchallenged. Of course if he wants to be conservative that's fine. What a lot of people find problematic is the dishonest framing of him being ayuekit
- centrist or even a liberal.yuekit
- @ Yuekiu. hope you don;t mind but I'm gonna reply to you in the thread as this sidebar discussion limits content.Morning_star
- Morning_star-6
[-5]
@Yuekit
What puzzles me most is how you are certain you know more about what Dave Rubins political position is than he does. In the video below Rubin explains, in no uncertain terms, what he thinks and how he is Libertarian at heart but has some ideas that run contrary to that position, like a more social approach to Healthcare and Education.
Could you explain why you are so focussed on portraying anybody with a political opinion in the centre or to the right of that, as far right, even when they explain, at length, where they sit politically. Or similar assumptions of far right tendencies because they appear in a photo with someone with questionable ideals. It's not reasonable or logical. That to me is the definition of ‘dishonest framing’.
It may be because the left has moved so far left that it can only operate in polarised terms, in the echo chamber of irrationality, misinformation and ad hominem attacks. The left is continually edging closer to extreme ideals (equality of outcome for fucks sake), whilst closing it’s mind to the insanity and horror of what those ideals mean to a country, community, family and individual. Just because the left isn’t down with the individual it doesn’t mean it can eject it’s responsibilities as a group.
- * let's add some art in the background in order to appeal liberals.... lolSalarrue
- So within two years this guy went from being a liberal talk show host to a "libertarian" pundit to praising people like Trump and Bolsonaro.yuekit
- Amazing that you would take him seriously. Of course the whole reason he felt the need to make this video is because so many people figured out his nonsense.yuekit
- all Dave Rubin does is complain about the left. boring af. oh, and advertise guns.inteliboy
- Anyone aligning with Dennis Prager can suckit.BonSeff
- b_a_b_y_d_i_c_k-3
"We locked everything down for Covid. How much face to face communication was there between the West and Vladimir Putin? How about none? How about that was the wrong amount, especially given that Europe was completely dependent on Putin for its energy supplies... Well, not completely, but you know what I mean. Materially and significantly. So, maybe had to go talk to him once every six months? Maybe he's in a bit in a bubble? Probably."
An excerpt from Jordan Peterson: Life, Death, Power, Fame, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #313
- Morning_star-3
Jonathan Haidt (moral psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership) talks to Ezra Klein (Editor-at-large at Vox)
Insight and explanation into the seeming fragility of teenagers and students.
"Teen anxiety, depression, and suicide rates have risen sharply in the last few years," he writes in The Coddling of the American Mind, co-authored with Greg Lukianoff. "The culture on many college campuses has become more ideologically uniform, compromising the ability of scholars to seek truth, and of students to learn from a broad range of thinkers."
- Morning_star-3
From JPs response. Link below.
P.S. I also find it interesting and deeply revealing that I know the names of the people who invited me, both informally and formally, but the names of the people who have disinvited me remain shrouded in exactly the kind of secrecy that might be expected from hidden, conspiratorial, authoritarian and cowardly bureaucrats. How many were there? No one knows. By what process did they come to the decision (since there were obviously people who wanted me there)? No one knows. On what grounds was the decision made? That has not been revealed. What role was played by pressure from, for example, the CUSU? That’s apparently no one’s business. It is on such ground that tyranny does not so much grow as positively thrive.
P.P.S. Here’s something from Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen Toope of the University of Cambridge that’s worth consideration, in the current context (the described “openness” is apparently part of the university’s declared strategic initiatives regarding (what else) equality and diversity (bold mine):
One very specific aspect of...openness is being inclusive, and open to diversity in all its forms – diversity of interests and beliefs, of gender, of religion, of sexual identity, of ethnicity, of physical ability.
- PhanLo-3
- Morning_star-5
"We may be in the throes of the discovery that the only thing worse than Religion, is it's absence. "
Peterson/Harris : Part 4
- Morning_star-6
For those that were interested.
Part 3 of the Harris/Peterson debate.- "jesus smuggling" niceGnash
- "Tripwires set across the culture" great way to put itcannonball1978
- soundofreason-6
- Post facts.
To debunk.soundofreason - Have the downvoters watched the whole video though?
The truf is out there!soundofreason - You should ax yourselfs what it is that you fear.soundofreason
- Have you considered you may be posting in the wrong thread? There is a conspiracy of the day thread.fadein11
- Why is this not true?soundofreason
- Not sure yet, It's 2.5 hours long and you only posted it half an hour ago.fadein11
- The half hour is out of context! You have to watch the 2.5hr presentation!soundofreason
- The Dr. Phil video is under 4 minutes though.soundofreason
- yep that's what I said.fadein11
- You're right. This is bullshit.soundofreason
- lol, I love these kind of vids even if I don't take them too seriously. It's cool. Just prob the wrong thread :)fadein11
- In my defense:
It's Intellectual
It's Dark
It's on the Websoundofreason - can't argue with that.fadein11
- Post facts.
- Morning_star-4
Do we care who or what controls our personal data? Have a listen to this and tell me if you sleep easier tonight.
Sam Harris interviews Roger McNamee. He has cofounded successful venture funds including Elevation with U2’s Bono. He was a former mentor to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and helped recruit COO Sheryl Sandberg to the company.
- Morning_star-8
[-6]
Happy New Year you special pirates.
The video discussion is worth a look if you want a left leaning perspective on the value and meaning of the IDW.
- pr2-20
ANY half-decent book about Marxism or Postmodernism "destroys" (if you want to use the youtube click-bait terms) any of Peterson's position on those two topics. This in itself wouldn't belittle his other points if he didn't chose himself to stake everything on this one card. It seems in his universe Marxism and Postmodernism is source of all evil. Unlike Peterson who seems to have read one book about about each subject - i have read a lot, and let me tell you one truth of life: anyone who says the problem is THIS (inserts whatever singular topic) is a charlatan.
- I think what he's saying is basically, don't look only at theory. Look at evidence. There's an emergent property in Marxism that frequently leads to mass murdermonNom
- marxism is the source of all evil.hotroddy
- it impoverishes society and rules with authoritarianismhotroddy
- Evidence detached from theory is empty talk.pr2
- how much more evidence do you need than last 70 years of failed marxists states?hotroddy
- Forget about Marxism in terms of economics. Peterson's issue is that he is one of those people pushing the idea of "cultural Marxism" which is ridiculous.yuekit
- Also he equates post-modernism with identity politics which is a huge dumbing down of a complex philosophical and artistic movement.yuekit
- what yuekit said. hotroddy have you ever read a serious book about Marxism?pr2
- That ideology destroyed my country. I have no interest in reading a book about Marxism.hotroddy
- I've read milton freedman in college. It made a lot of sense to me at the timehotroddy
- Identity politics is exactly how the next Socialist president of USA will be elected.hotroddy
- have you ever met a black republican?hotroddy
- today and more so in the future - political affiliation will be determined by ethnicity rather than economic class.hotroddy
- marxissm was created before the first car factory line. That single event changes everything in human history. We do need to change but with fresh ideasmugwart
- " I have no interest in reading a book about it" - that pretty much ends the discussion right there. I have no interest debating your feelings.pr2
- one doesn't need to be well versed in the frankfort school in order to have an opinion on the subject that's valid.Gnash
- and not all criticism of cultural marxism goes down the kooky rabbit hole of some conspiracy involving the jewsGnash
- it's totally legitimate to apply marxist theory along cultural lines rather than just economic.Gnash
- marxism is the way of the moron.severian
- @pr2 why debate whats in a book instead of real world examples of last 70 yrs. NK, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, Eastern Europehotroddy
- but only this time in USA it will work... right?hotroddy
- we just haven't read the book carefully enoughhotroddy
- @gnash, how do you apply along cultural lines?hotroddy
- I was referring to the suggestion above that the idea of "cultural marxism" is ridiculous one.Gnash
- the term may not conform to it's academic origin, but I don't think it's application in the current discussion is inappropriateGnash
- (barring the crazy conspiracy theories some tie to the term)Gnash
- relocate to Venezuela and experience it for yourself!ernexbcn
- Cultural Marxism makes it sound like social change and womens/gay rights is some sort of plot to destroy society...yuekit
- engineered by secret communists or Jews (depending on who you ask), as opposed to simply the natural evolution of peoples' attitudes over time.yuekit
- ^ those are the kooky theories I was referring to (the nefarious social plot nonsense).Gnash
- But I don't think that the rest can be reduced to a simple consequence of natural evolution. That's where the discussion liesGnash
- I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. Cultural Marxism will not destroy society. If anything, it will make society more empathetic.hotroddy
- not sure I'd go that far, hotroddy :)Gnash
- you talking without research about a topic (yes, reading) = we are dealing with your feelings or diarrhea coming out of your ass.pr2
- i'm not interested in neither. this shouldn't (as it clearly isn't) stopping you from forming an opinion but a value of this opinion to others is close to zero.pr2
- pr2-20
For some reason vast majority of people today somehow end up on extreme Right or Left with moderate centrists like myself in surprising minority. Neither side realizes how much they long for religious certainty. Neither side is interested in search for Truth, but rather in embracing more data that proves how their side is right (thus proliferation of those videos showing the current "heroes" of either side in "debates"). Political correctness on one side and complete embrace of biology on another as if we were some sort of ghosts detached from either mind or body (depending on which side of the barricade one chooses to stand). Both sides - including all the Petersonians of the world - fail to notice complexity of the human interactions. Sometimes our biology dominates and other times it's our mind (notice, i didn't necessarily said our intellect) and yet in their pursuit for simplistic truisms, both sides try to claim that it's one or the other.
Needless to say, there is very little "intellectual" there - rather pursuit on representatives of both side of close-minded ideology.
- You point about religious certainty is spot on. I think it was Douglas Murray the said "We may be in the throes of the discovery that the only thing worse....Morning_star
- ...than Religion, is it's absence.
It's telling that you highlight that fact that the Right and Left are always polarised yet you talk about them in exactly...Morning_star - ...those terms. It seems that you describe neither 'side' accurately by using such simple, black & white termsMorning_star
- think the problem is psychological. There has to be ONE over arching truth not millions of wee ones. Having ONE only benifits the minority in power and reasonmugwart
- we are in this state. Also we dont analyses were are thinking comes from. Tihs is another major concern. We are shaped by friends, family, community, 'Power'mugwart
- us working class has been used to fuel the machine for so long. We now have a medium to commutate throughmugwart
- I think we have been educated not to be able to agree to disagree. Work through each others points.mugwart
- How I see it 99.999999% have been in a 'tunnel' and had shit thrown into the fan.
Instead of trying to work out whom throw the shit- we are agruing whom hasmugwart - the most shit on them.
We are all unique - act it or just become some virus mindless dronemugwart - I think tribalism is a big element here...very easy on social media to fall into an echo chamber where your side is right about everything, while "they" areyoungdesigner
- wrong, evil, racist, etc.youngdesigner
- lol...how did this get to -18?yuekit
