Or he doesn't agree with the conclusion you've come to, lad

I was there in New York when that guy read those passages from 200 years together and brought Peterson a translated copy

And Peterson refused to answer the guy's question about Jewish involvement in Soviet Russia

Because he doesnt wanna get framed as an anti-semite. Only democrats are allowed to talk badly about jews

So much for speaking the truth

>muh JQ
When are we going to talk about the German problem?

He's being expedient--not truthful

Peterson did address his views on all the JQ shit

People just got more butthurt

He strawmanned it

In what sense?

He claimed Jewish dominance in finance, banking, culture, etc. is due to IQ

Spicy

When in reality it's due to nepotism. If it was strictly because of IQ then East Asians would dominate more

Peterson basically wrote a blog post that confirmed all the premises of the JQ.

That's not a strawman, that's a difference in conclusion

East Asians are fucking dominating too. Harvard is now trying to exclude Asians as per diversity ruling

East Asians don't dictate the culture the way the jews do

1) debatable
2) their inclusion has been more recent

You'd also have to look at assimilation rates

Anybody can see that Jewish overrepresentation in Ivy League schools is literally screwing East Asians.

Korean and Japanese pop culture is generating weebs, and China is now seeping into our politics

So believable

Not going to address the actual topic at hand?

You mean the dominance of our major institutions by men in small hats?

>implying I care about the privilege shit
I mean the fact that you're underselling Eastern influence on Western culture, Mr Weeb

Um, just because it's influential doesn't mean it's influence is the dominant one

or the most destructive

You're going to have to provide proof of both of those, without resorting to giving Jews credit for German output as well :^)

Related to the libertarian discussions up above: I may be so bold as to say that Matt and I both likely fall under the "paleolibertarian" label, trying to balance out our desire for a conservative culture with the skepticism of government power to make that desire a reality

I'd say I'm largely on the same page as Matt, as far as I can tell

I don't know what he would make of some of my newer, growing convictions

It's a difficult balance, to be sure

Oh I mean I think universal franchise with no strings was maybe a mistake

I'd probably agree

Hell, I think Matt would too if I remember his comments correctly. The problem is that he doesn't have a good idea of what some ideal requirements would be

Ive never even heard of the expression "paleolibertarian before"
The more you know

wut

I've been trying to dismantle the Heinlein/SST requirement of serving your country and having right to serve being a central guarantee. I can't really find any reason to ditch it