Leaderboard

You can call them whatever you want. But they might not answer you.

You are far from typical, Loretta.

I’m shocked… Shocked! I tells ya… that someone with a username like “king of trolls” is here simply trolling. I really did NOT see that one coming. I mean… Wow… Mind = Blown

Yes, that makes sense, and is what I learnt from further research into this charecter JP. The following also sums him up nicely as well......from...https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life "The answer is that Jordan Peterson is tailor-made to our political moment. His reactionary politics and talents as a public speaker combine to be a perfect fit for YouTube and the right-wing media, where videos of conservatives “destroying” weak-minded liberals routinely go viral. Peterson’s denunciations of identity politics and political correctness are standard-issue conservative, but his academic credentials make his pronouncements feel much more authoritative than your replacement-level Fox News commentator. (I reached out to Peterson; a spokesperson turned down my interview request.) Peterson is also particularly appealing to disaffected young men. He’s become a lifestyle guru for men and boys who feel displaced by a world where white male privilege is under attack; his new best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life, is explicitly pitched as a self-help manual, and he speaks emotionally of the impact his work has had on anxious, lost young men." another extract from that article.... "What happened in the fall of 2016 is that Peterson inserted himself into a national Canadian debate over transgender rights — specifically by refusing to refer to a student by their chosen gender pronouns. At the time, the Canadian parliament was considering something called Bill C-16, a bill banning discrimination against people on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression.” In September, Peterson released a series of YouTube videos attacking the bill as a grave threat to free speech rights. He said he would refuse to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns; separating gender and biological sex was, in his view, “radically politically correct thinking.” He argued that C-16 would lead to people like him being arrested. “If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this,” Peterson said in an October 2016 TV interview. “I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.” Experts on Canadian law said that Peterson was misreading the bill — that the legal standard for “hate speech” would require something far worse, like saying transgender people should be killed, to qualify for legal punishment. This is an early example of what would become a hallmark of Peterson’s approach as a public intellectual — taking inflammatory, somewhat misinformed stances on issues of public concern outside his area of expertise. But it worked for him. Peterson’s videos on C-16 and political correctness racked up more than 400,000 views on YouTube within about a month of posting. There were rallies both for and against Peterson in Toronto; he made the rounds on Canadian television". While he obviously mis-interpreted these new changes in Canadian law, for his own benefits I have no doubt, personally in some circumstances I do see political correctness, sometimes being taken into the realms of stupidity and totally inane.eg: Before I retired I was working for our national airline, when an edict came down from top management that manhole covers were not to be called manhole covers anymore...we were to use the term access holes covers. Our union, plus first line management simply laughed at it, and ignored it totally. Nothing anymore was ever mentioned about it and whether a person called it an access hole or manhole was his choice. That apparent similarity in his and my view on politicl correctness, does not alter my overall view of this man and his politics in general, as totally abhorent to me.

Lol alright Let me tell you something swansont, before you close the thread for no reason. You are one of the worst thinkers I've encountered. I've seen you're pretty active on this forum, but all your comments are basically condemning threads for arbitrary reasons which justifies you closing them. You rarely, if ever, offer any intelligent or creative thoughts to a discussion. You seem to enjoy wielding your mod power more than having proper scientific discourse. Shameful. Scienceforums.net would be a better place without you, sadly. You have no idea how to moderate, and thus the forum suffers from your incompetence. Thanks for nothing dork I have quoted the necessary passages, and have also written my own definition and explanation of energy rate density as the complexity metric. Multiple times. I was asked for a source. I presented a source. Then I'm told I can't rely on the source for my definitions. What? As far as your above description, that is simply one perspective if the universe. Another scientifically valid perspective is complexification, which is easily observed, has been defined many times and a metric for measuring it given. You even doubted that one of the excerpts was even from the cited article! What the fuck bro, am I lying or something. You could've confirmed it in 2 seconds, but you couldn't even do that much.