This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
Yeaaaaa thereโs no way Goggins would be in attendance at this table
I had him open on one tab, speaking, while writing down exactly what he said in another. How could they possibly be false? I am not getting my information from a news article.
Hey, so I looked into it, and yeah. Taken grossly out of context.
"I was interviewed in the New York Times about that, and I made a comment about how monogamous societies tend to be more stable"
"The reporter made much of that, suggesting undeserving men should be delivered women on a palatter by a state institutional function, which is not only something which I certainly don't believe but nobody who is sane has ever believed."
"This man who drove over his victims was resentful and full of hatred. And I said that. He had a hatred for God, a hatred for being. Why? Because he was rejected. I'm not excusing it. It terrible. There's no excuse for it whatsoever"
This is what I'm saying. No one who has actually listened to him actually believes he's a bad guy. The media has taken things out of context for YEARS, and Reddit as a whole put this label on him, but no one actually wants to go listen to him.
Do you remember where he was talking about that? I'll look at the interview or whatever he was doing when he said that.
I'm 24 now, I was really big into him when I was around 18. I have actually sat through and listened to hours of his speeches and interviews. Every single thing that people have said about him in a negative light that I have personally heard him speak about has been grossly taken out of context.
He doesn't, ever, advocate for violence. And he definitely doesn't give excuses for men being shitheads. Anyone would know that if they actually listened to him.
Again, if you remember where he said those things, I'll go look into it.
I found it, and I responded again. Why, though, whenever JP is the topic of discussion, the people who dislike him never send a link to him actually speaking. It's always a news article. Like, let's skip the secondary sources and go straight to the original. Then, we can have a real discussion over the things he says. Not what someone's interpretation of the things he says.
Can't wait to get shit for this, but Jordan Peterson wouldn't be at this table.
Edit: I'm now just noticing Joe Rogan is there, too. Like what?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 1 year ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- i.redd.it/l7g6b2gtachb1....
"Some would say the Nasis had a point. I disagree, but some would say that."
"Did you hear so and so say that the Nasis had a point??"
This summerises the hate for JP.
You're ignoring my entire previous comment. He, out of his own mouth, disputed the claims that you're refrencing, as those quotes, while he might have said them, were taken out of context. You can keep repeating the one sentence he said, but it is meaningless if you choose to ignore the entire context of his point. It's also completely silly to get all of your information about someone from what others have said about him.