MILO VS. JORDAN PETERSON

I can't stand that fucking cum guzzling faggot. Not a huge fan of Milo either but he makes a good point.

Yeah I wasn't being ironic. So many white men are so pathetic. Peterson tells them to clean their room so they can be good little boys, while all the other men are out there taking over.

...

He has named the Jew, idiot. He's a fellow philosemite like me. We admire their intelligence and appreciate their contributions to art and science. We also know you pretty much only need two factors to explain their treatment throughout history:
1. They're a religious minority.
2. They have a high average IQ (which means they'll inevitably accumulate wealth and influence disproportionately).

Attached: 1510939203952.webm (480x480, 2.94M)

The Vox Complex: Lying about a Lie---Session 01

It’s only the Foreword to the book- and there is already a headache and a half to unpack. The context of the Foreword’s author is important enough to start with. Milo- who’s relationship with Vox I’m not privy to aside from knowing they are friends that are both related to Gamer Gate. Milo- who is English, in an interracial gay marriage, half Jewish, and Catholic. That alone is something to consider about Vox- who is a hardline Christian.

Questions that may crop up, as you consider why Milo has written the foreword:

I If Beale is as adherent to Christianity as he claims, why associate with Milo to this extent?
2.
With Beale’s fixation on the ‘Jewish Question’. Why is he willing to have a half-Jew do the forward to his book?
3.
With Beale’s association with the Alt Right- why is he collaborating with the antithesis of the Alt Right?
4.
The constant question: What is Beale really aiming at?

I’ve taken brief notes on each paragraph, and in some cases- specific sentences, word choice, and structure. I’ll now express what I think about this introduction- on the basis of Paragraph, implications, and conclusions.

P1- Right off the bat, Milo is implying that Peterson is a Bullshitter- and a liar, keep in mind how the very first words are how smart Milo is.

P2- Dr. Peterson expresses praise for Milo, concern, and an offer to talk with him. Which Milo did not follow up on.

P3- “Weiss is talking about a professor who paired me with Hitler and gave us as examples of Very Bad Things. She alleges that I, the interracially married man, am indeed a racist.” - Milo

This is where Milo begins to formulate a lie about Dr. Peterson- by taking this out of context and implying that the interviewer was the one who brought up Milo. But it’ll take a few paragraphs to see the lie fully, and explain it.

P5- 5: Milo claims Peterson “listening to his audience and adjusting their response accordingly…. Suddenly going along with something he knew wasn’t true and rewriting history” (What history?)

Context:

youtube.com/watch?v=v6H2HmKDbZA

At 29 minutes in, Milo has lied- Dr. Peterson brought up Milo before being asked about him- and says that Milo is a “provocateur trickster” who’s “stirring things up” “in a relatively nonproblematic way”. Which is in line with what he’s said in several interviews prior, consistent.

Almost an hour later- the interviewer calls Milo a racist- Peterson replies:

Int: Well that’s Milo, who you mentioned before
Pet: Well I didn’t say I was a fan of Milo
I: No, but you called him a prankster
P: Well he is a prankster, mostly
I: Yeah but he’s also a racist
P: Well, possibly. I haven’t followed Milo that carefully. You know, and it’s possible that he is, it’s hard to tell what Milo is exactly, he’s very complicated and contradictory person, destined to implode- which is exactly what happened. Well there’s no way you can be that contradictory of a person and not manage it, it’s just not possible. He was just too many things at the same time for anyone to ever manage.

Interpretation:

Milo cut out the earlier statement made by Peterson who mentioned Milo first (the opposite of denying to know him), and later it’s probable enough that Peterson, who’s always busy, always under attack, wasn’t “a fan” following Milo’s day to day happenings- as Milo has indeed imploded and not been a big deal for a while. He’s not claiming ignorance, he’s saying the interviewer’s statement isn’t relevant to the conversation because of his constant contradictions which makes him impossible to nail down.

Context:
While talking about how you define and discern exactly who and what is radical left and right- the interviewer interrupts to say Milo is a racist. Peterson aimed to, and immediately continued the real conversation- about what is/how you find out what is Radical Left/Right.

It is clear that Milo has taken a sentence out of context- implying Peterson denied knowing him, and saying that sure- he’s racist- regardless of what the conversation was about.

In paragraph 5:

Milo claims that Dr. Peterson “listening to his audience and adjusting their response accordingly…. Suddenly going along with something he knew wasn’t true and rewriting history”

Context:

Peterson was in a room at a University in Aspen Colorado- hardly the place you’d find his regular audience, a crowd which sounds distinctly female. Audience feedback? From the entire time the interviewer says Milo is “also a racist” the audience is dead silent aside from a snicker or one chuckle. At the 29-minute section where Dr. Peterson brought up Milo- he made the joke. “Am I Hitler, or Milo Yiannopolous?” Which elicits a slight row of quiet laughter- because the joke clearly is a juxtaposition of Hitler- and the opposite of Hitler, whom Hitler would have killed. “Seriously those are not the same people, in case you didn’t notice. One of the is the worst barbarian in history…etc… the other is a… (what I mentioned at point 4) … they’re not the same creature, so to combine them in a single careless insult…there’s no excuse for that.”

Conclusion:

An hour before the interviewer calls Milo a racist- Peterson uses him as the definition of the opposite of everyone’s favorite example of a racist. This implies that Milo is not racist, he is not Hitler. So, an hour later, when Peterson redirects an unimportant statement which would derail the conversation- you can’t assume that Peterson was claiming Milo was:

A) A racist

B) Peterson did not know if he was racist or not

C) He had changed his mind in an hour after saying the same things of Milo for nearly 2 years.

Impression from Introduction at this point:

Milo has either lied on purpose, taken a clip out of context on purpose, made an exaggeration, didn’t do his research- or was dishonest enough to have done his research and excluded the context. Add that to the first words of the book: “I’m a smart person. Really smart, actually,

and very expensively educated!”

Possible conclusions:

Milo- needing to tell you how smart he is (and how rich) has automatically made an attempt to elevate himself above the reader- whom- if Milo is as smart as he claims- has just read an out of context statement for the purpose of trying to make Peterson out to be a liar. It would be too honest to give the exact time stamp in the interview so the reader could look it up.

In brief, Milo’s introduction is: I am smarter than you, I can lie to you. If Milo weren’t as smart as he claims, and wasn’t a drama-queen- then his lack of understanding of Peterson’s words- which he claims is because he’s so smart he can see through people’s bullshit- IS bullshit!

Or he did not understand it on purpose- as Milo is known to change his tune for his audience – the same thing he accuses (projects) Dr. Peterson of doing. Remember: Milo used to work for left leaning news sources. If I recall, Milo is (was) a huge supporter of Environmental issues. Which- sounds very in line with Peterson’s statements of Milo’s contradictions.

Note:
Earlier Milo’s only “fact” (out of context)- had no hard data or contradiction, no numbers. The loosest example he could give of a ‘lie’. He chose something ambiguous to point out that he thinks Dr. Peterson is a liar. Not the best way to do so.
To quote Milo “Ordinarily, I can listen to someone prattling on and quickly get to the heart of what they are trying to express. That’s one of the skills you pick up as a journalist: You learn to quickly identify the core of a problem, the essence of what’s being said. You learn to filter out the noise—and to identify bullshitters”

I’m filtering out some major bullshit…

P 6. non-sequitur implying everything is gay. The left is a parasite. OK.

P 7. Milo claims Peterson comes off as “asexual” What? In what way? Incorrect. “Frail” Incorrect.

So this is the power of the reactionary right.

Attached: Student assaulted for being a Trump supporter.webm (362x640, 1.95M)

Peterson was big into weightlifting and did water polo, not Arnold Schwarzenegger - but he was in shape. He sounds like Kermit the frog but he is fully capable. Asexual men avoid sporting beards.

A baseless claim asserting his audience are basically emasculated men. Which leads into him claiming Dr. Peterson would “when push comes to shove, will bend for popularity, comfort and an easy life rather than defend what they know to be true.”
Reality Check:

Peterson became famous for refusing to be compelled to use SJW language by law. This is minute enough of an argument- he will address someone by what they’d like if they were to ask him, but he would refuse to do it if it were on the grounds that it were legally required. All he had to do- was absolutely nothing- and no one would have bothered him. Now half of the people with an axe to grind hate him, and he’s been attacked constantly. Milo is not only misleading, but (purposefully) dead wrong.

When did Milo change his mind? Noted in late 2016 on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Milo brushed over Joe’s reference to a ‘guy in Toronto’ being attacked for his positions to talk about his own (Milo) book. As early as January 2018 Milo spent 11 minutes praising Dr. Peterson “they’ll never let him on tv again because he destroyed them” or that he “obliterated them” or Peterson “intellectually outclassed her”. That is not the same as not being able to understand what Dr. Peterson is saying. The interviewer he describes was using tactics to make Peterson sound “absolutely nuts”.

Implication:

You wouldn’t say ‘to make him sound nuts’ if you thought he (Dr. Peterson) was nuts. You would say ‘to show he was nuts’ or ‘make him show how nuts he is’.

Implication: At this point in time- Milo did not think Peterson was nuts.

Milo goes on to talk about journalist’s methods saying about ‘critics say’ “It’s a slight of hand that… enables the

enables the journalist to say about you what they secretly themselves want to say without having to site anybody else saying it. Without having to find out if… etc. .. anyone believes that.” Hmmm. Milo urges his listeners to go and watch the interview- not exactly what you’d do if you hated the guy who “obliterated” the interviewer.

Milo criticizes Cathy Newman- who chose a few key words to try and summarize things in her own viewpoint- and in a similar interview Milo goes on to say all of his (Peterson’s) 12 rules boil down to ‘being nice’. Hmmm.

Milo - “When he emerges into coherence, I find little to disagree with… but so much is very little different from (French Philosophers)” --- the same French Philosophers Peterson has derided several times. In this interview- Milo contradicts himself, by the end of 2018-his view of Dr. Peterson is 100 percent negative. Opportunistic much?

youtube.com/watch?v=6OWu1usSCBY

“What Milo's criticism of Jordan Peterson teaches us” from 1791 - a Youtuber who breaks down the interview. “The apex of smug hubris” is how 1791 describes Milo’s statements. Further- the crux of Milo’s argument- not understanding Peterson- does not translate to a universal misunderstanding.

youtube.com/watch?v=SCtCOt-CHQY

[Joe Rogan on the rise and fall of Milo (with Steven Crowder)]

Ask him about how (((they))) were overwhelmingly involved in Marxist movements that he "condemns" around the globe. Watch him squirm about the pure (((coincidence))) and be called an (((evil coward))).

Attached: Chad.png (500x300, 63K)

In all seriousness, ask him if he thinks he’s over reliant on a few examples to make broad points
Then ask to smell his daughters armpits

Milo is faggot Jew just like everyone posting in this thread.

>t. faggot jew

Super Fag VS Super Cuck
I dont care who wins...

Attached: 1520926891069.jpg (306x306, 15K)

This is Milo acting like Peterson is Moore directly engaged in politics than he actually is. Kind of a shame.

Milo is not pro-white, so why take sides in a cuck-fight?

Attached: Coulter.gif (304x404, 48K)

>What should I say to him on behalf of Jow Forums?
Just say. Dear mister Juden Peterstein, why do you shill for the jews?

Attached: ben garrison zion.jpg (1023x838, 256K)

Hopefully the kike faggot can infect the cannuk kike with aids so we will be rid of both.

Milo was /ourguy/, he hit the mainstream, and we could've saved him from falling into irrelevance. No idea why pol went fuggity fuck against him. He was probably secretly anti-Israel. Based Milo

>No idea why pol went fuggity fuck against him.
Jow Forums is mostly contrarian little boys, that's why

They’re both a waste of your time. Ignore manufactured controversy from Israel First celebrities.

>Milo

Attached: skunk-Dead-.jpg (300x276, 32K)

>when you get new veneers to hide your methmouth and it totally changes your voice

lmao at milo. probbaly popping meth and getting fisted right this second

Milo is not pro-white, so fuck him and his oh so edgy love of big black cock.

Attached: meanwhile iin ptg.jpg (890x1212, 257K)