"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that >isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes >place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >>> difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
Sure it does. That's what free speech is for.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:03:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that >>>> isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes >>>> place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >>>> difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
Sure it does. That's what free speech is for.
It could be theoretically, but in practice it is not. All we get is
squeaky wheels. The most squeaky rules. Free speech would do a lot
better if we could raise average iq to 150 or so.
And by the way, if you meant jordan peterson, the middle initial is B.
On 6/27/2026 2:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:03:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that >>>>> isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes >>>>> place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >>>>> difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
Sure it does. That's what free speech is for.
It could be theoretically, but in practice it is not. All we get is
squeaky wheels. The most squeaky rules. Free speech would do a lot
better if we could raise average iq to 150 or so.
That's what someone who wants to shut down dialog would say.
--
And by the way, if you meant jordan peterson, the middle initial is B.
Yes, it was JBP.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
On 6/27/2026 2:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:03:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If
that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
Sure it does. That's what free speech is for.
It could be theoretically, but in practice it is not.-a All we get is
squeaky wheels.-a The most squeaky rules.-a Free speech would do a lot
better if we could raise average iq to 150 or so.
That's what someone who wants to shut down dialog would say.
And by the way, if you meant jordan peterson, the middle initial is B.
Yes, it was JBP.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:00:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:03:34 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that >>>>>> isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's >>>>>> think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes >>>>>> place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >>>>>> difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.
Sure it does. That's what free speech is for.
It could be theoretically, but in practice it is not. All we get is
squeaky wheels. The most squeaky rules. Free speech would do a lot
better if we could raise average iq to 150 or so.
That's what someone who wants to shut down dialog would say.
Silly, do you imagine yourself in any way shut down here? How many
decades have you been beating the same conservative libertarian drum
here?
Are you going to continue? There is no doubt. And you will want to
accuse certain objections of being attempts to shut you down. Never
mind, I object. I am not convinced. I will continue to say so.
And by the way, if you meant jordan peterson, the middle initial is B.
Yes, it was JBP.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious. Free
speech is not really free. Thought is not without biases. The pr
guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
So your prescription is by no means a panacea. Are there any--
panaceas? It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:56:28 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
When you could get him away from his following, like his rules for
living books, his advice sounded very much like stock psych advice for
the masses. Some confused guys could find it helpful. I sincerely
doubt jbp had much to say about the revolution dynamics though.
On Jun 28, 2026 at 12:07:01?PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:56:28 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
When you could get him away from his following, like his rules for
living books, his advice sounded very much like stock psych advice for
the masses. Some confused guys could find it helpful. I sincerely
doubt jbp had much to say about the revolution dynamics though.
Messiah complexes tend to backfire.
On Jun 28, 2026 at 12:07:01rC>PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:56:28 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
When you could get him away from his following, like his rules for
living books, his advice sounded very much like stock psych advice for
the masses. Some confused guys could find it helpful. I sincerely
doubt jbp had much to say about the revolution dynamics though.
Messiah complexes tend to backfire.
On 28/06/2026 17:18, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 12:07:01?PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:56:28 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do >>>>>>> you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how youjwp is who?
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always >>>>>>> done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future >>>>>>> takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP >>>>>>
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
When you could get him away from his following, like his rules for
living books, his advice sounded very much like stock psych advice for
the masses. Some confused guys could find it helpful. I sincerely
doubt jbp had much to say about the revolution dynamics though.
Messiah complexes tend to backfire.
I've already got popcorn for our local lad.
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For who?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought. There's no >>> difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free
speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr
guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not free speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone to
spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or else
suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are rather problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all of society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.
On 6/27/2026 4:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For who?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you
decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If that >>>> isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future takes >>>> place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free
speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr
guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not free
speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone to
spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or else
suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are rather
problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all of
society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
The muzzies?
The real problem is that you don't believe free speech is a human right
based on natural law. Otherwise, you have thought-police. Did Orwell
call it, or what?
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case."
- JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns
is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case."
- JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use omade up wordso as pronouns
is equivalent to ocompelled speech.o He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a--
normal person.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case."
- JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use omade up wordso as pronouns
is equivalent to ocompelled speech.o He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he
has said are less forgivable, if true.
--
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case."
- JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns
is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he
has said are less forgivable, if true.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case."
- JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns
is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he
has said are less forgivable, if true.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
On 6/28/26 4:16 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/27/2026 4:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If
that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's
think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free
speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr
guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not free
speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone to
spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or else
suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are rather
problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all
of society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
who? The muzzies?
The real problem is that you don't believe free speech is a human right
i'm not really sure where ur coming up with that
based on natural law. Otherwise, you have thought-police. Did Orwell
call it, or what?
i'm a deontologist and see that we have a moral duty to not only allow
free speech, but actually listen to it. and we have that duty regardless
of whether we are in a public or private operation.
i view ethics thru the lens of the duty and obligations of moral agents, instead of the "rights" they have
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should
we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new
idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation.
You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns is
equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the notion of >> the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and the gender pay
gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn off.
those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a normal
person.
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be >>>>>>>>> dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the
future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." >>>>>>>>> - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist.
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns >>>>> is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the
notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he
has said are less forgivable, if true.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
Give the guy a break. When this happened, he was under tremendous stress because of his health/depression, and he was triggered. He didnrCOt plan it but I think he should have been aware that it could happen and not done the interview.
On 6/28/2026 5:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:16 PM, Dude wrote:Shut the fuck up because muzzies!
On 6/27/2026 4:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If >>>>>> that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's >>>>>> think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future >>>>>> takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free
speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr >>>>> guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not free
speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone
to spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or
else suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are
rather problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all
of society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
who? The muzzies?
The real problem is that you don't believe free speech is a human right
i'm not really sure where ur coming up with that
based on natural law. Otherwise, you have thought-police. Did Orwell
call it, or what?
i'm a deontologist and see that we have a moral duty to not only allow
free speech, but actually listen to it. and we have that duty
regardless of whether we are in a public or private operation.
i view ethics thru the lens of the duty and obligations of moralDid Orwell call it or what!?
agents, instead of the "rights" they have
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
On 6/28/2026 5:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:16 PM, Dude wrote:Shut the fuck up because muzzies!
On 6/27/2026 4:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you negotiate >>>>>> that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do something >>>>>> new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. If >>>>>> that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's >>>>>> think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future >>>>>> takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to say >>>>>> what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free
speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr >>>>> guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not free
speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone
to spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or
else suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are
rather problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all
of society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
who? The muzzies?
The real problem is that you don't believe free speech is a human right
i'm not really sure where ur coming up with that
based on natural law. Otherwise, you have thought-police. Did Orwell
call it, or what?
i'm a deontologist and see that we have a moral duty to not only allow
free speech, but actually listen to it. and we have that duty
regardless of whether we are in a public or private operation.
i view ethics thru the lens of the duty and obligations of moralDid Orwell call it or what!?
agents, instead of the "rights" they have
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to
think you have one.
On 6/29/2026 10:18 AM, Tara wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:President Obama cried in public on TV. I wonder what triggered him?
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary.
How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has
always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be >>>>>>>>>> dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the >>>>>>>>>> future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and >>>>>>>>>> thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." >>>>>>>>>> - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist. >>>>>>
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns >>>>>> is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the >>>>>> notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and
the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he
has said are less forgivable, if true.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
Give the guy a break. When this happened, he was under tremendous stress
because of his health/depression, and he was triggered. He didnrCOt plan it >> but I think he should have been aware that it could happen and not done the >> interview.
On 6/29/26 8:11 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 5:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:16 PM, Dude wrote:Shut the fuck up because muzzies!
On 6/27/2026 4:36 PM, dart200 wrote:i'm not really sure where ur coming up with that
On 6/27/26 10:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:cheering the muzzies. Now, you're advocating for "free speech"? For
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:14:01 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do you >>>>>>> decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you
negotiate
that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should we do
something
new? If you can do what everyone else has always done, do that. >>>>>>> If that
isn't working, maybe it's time for a new idea. Carefully. And let's >>>>>>> think it through. But it has to be dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future >>>>>>> takes
place. There's no difference between free speech and thought.
There's no
difference between thought and simulation. You have to be able to >>>>>>> say
what you believe to be the case." - JWP
That's very nice jordan, but it does not take into account the
influence of influencers or the ambitions of the ambitious.-a Free >>>>>> speech is not really free.-a Thought is not without biases.-a The pr >>>>>> guys, the perception managers hide in the wings and chuckle as we
speak.
actually the real problem is that
a) social media platforms are largely censored and therefor not
free speech
b) paid speech is also not truly free speech. when you pay someone
to spread speech you are binding them by contract to say speech or
else suffer the retribution of breaking the contract
neither of these are problems with actual free speech, but are
rather problems of a facade of free speech
if/when people embrace actual free speech more genuinely across all >>>>> of society, only then may we still it's true power manifest
What about the muzzie Koran shut the fuck up? Yesterday, you were
who? The muzzies?
The real problem is that you don't believe free speech is a human right >>>
based on natural law. Otherwise, you have thought-police. Did Orwell
call it, or what?
i'm a deontologist and see that we have a moral duty to not only
allow free speech, but actually listen to it. and we have that duty
regardless of whether we are in a public or private operation.
Did Orwell call it or what!?
i view ethics thru the lens of the duty and obligations of moral
agents, instead of the "rights" they have
no just basic empathy dud
Get some smarts, Nick. You came to the right place to get enlightened.Good work!
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2not someone u talk to very much>>>>>>
So your prescription is by no means a panacea.-a Are there any
panaceas?-a It is marginally possible, but resist the temptation to >>>>>> think you have one.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:52:59 +0100, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>.
wrote:
On 28/06/2026 17:18, Tara wrote:
On Jun 28, 2026 at 12:07:01?PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote: >>>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:56:28 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Wilson wrote:jbp. Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. How do >>>>>>>> you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has always >>>>>>>> done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to bejwp is who?
dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the future >>>>>>>> takes place. There's no difference between free speech and
thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." - JWP >>>>>>>
you know his crying was really a turn off, but he has said some
decent things.. i dont remember though.
When you could get him away from his following, like his rules for
living books, his advice sounded very much like stock psych advice for >>>> the masses. Some confused guys could find it helpful. I sincerely
doubt jbp had much to say about the revolution dynamics though.
Messiah complexes tend to backfire.
I've already got popcorn for our local lad.
Popcorn for yourself? Nah, julian you might as well go ahead and eat
it. You aren't that cool.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 10:18 AM, Tara wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:President Obama cried in public on TV. I wonder what triggered him?
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. >>>>>>>>>>> How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has >>>>>>>>>>> always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be >>>>>>>>>>> dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the >>>>>>>>>>> future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and >>>>>>>>>>> thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." >>>>>>>>>>> - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill
Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though.Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist. >>>>>>>
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns >>>>>>> is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the >>>>>>> notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and >>>>>>> the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure.
Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he >>>>> has said are less forgivable, if true.
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
Give the guy a break. When this happened, he was under tremendous stress >>> because of his health/depression, and he was triggered. He didnrCOt plan it >>> but I think he should have been aware that it could happen and not done the >>> interview.
Mysteries. Funny how that happens. I doubt he knew what it was.
On 6/30/2026 9:31 AM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obama wept openly during a 2016 White House address on gun control while discussing the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where
On 6/29/2026 10:18 AM, Tara wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:President Obama cried in public on TV. I wonder what triggered him?
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he >>>>>> has said are less forgivable, if true.
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>> How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has >>>>>>>>>>>> always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be >>>>>>>>>>>> dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the >>>>>>>>>>>> future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and >>>>>>>>>>>> thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." >>>>>>>>>>>> - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill >>>>>>>> Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though. >>>>>>>>>Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist. >>>>>>>>
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns >>>>>>>> is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the >>>>>>>> notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and >>>>>>>> the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure. >>>>>>
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn
off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
Give the guy a break. When this happened, he was under tremendous stress >>>> because of his health/depression, and he was triggered. He didnrCOt plan it
but I think he should have been aware that it could happen and not done the
interview.
Mysteries. Funny how that happens. I doubt he knew what it was.
20 young children were killed.
Jojo thinkscrying is turn off, apparently, if he even saw it. YMMV.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:31 AM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obama wept openly during a 2016 White House address on gun control while
On 6/29/2026 10:18 AM, Tara wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:President Obama cried in public on TV. I wonder what triggered him?
Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:01:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dude wrote:Polarization caused by those issues can be forgiven. Other things he >>>>>>> has said are less forgivable, if true.
On 6/28/2026 8:56 AM, jojo wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:<
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:22:49 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
Wilson wrote:jbp.-a Jordan Peterson.
"Revolutions come at a cost. Sometimes they're necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do
you decide when? That's what free speech is for. That's how you >>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate that. Should we stick with what we're doing or should >>>>>>>>>>>>> we do something new? If you can do what everyone else has >>>>>>>>>>>>> always
done, do that. If that isn't working, maybe it's time for a new >>>>>>>>>>>>> idea. Carefully. And let's think it through. But it has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> dialog.
Free speech is the process by which the negotiation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> future
takes place. There's no difference between free speech and >>>>>>>>>>>>> thought. There's no difference between thought and simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to be able to say what you believe to be the case." >>>>>>>>>>>>> - JWP
jwp is who?
you know his crying was really a turn off,
More than Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, H.W. Bush, George Bush, Bill >>>>>>>>> Clinton, or Barack Obama?
but he has said some decent things.. i dont remember though. >>>>>>>>>>Peterson self-identifies as a classical liberal and traditionalist. >>>>>>>>>
He argues that the requirement to use rCLmade up wordsrCY as pronouns >>>>>>>>> is equivalent to rCLcompelled speech.rCY He has also criticized the >>>>>>>>> notion of the patriarchy, identity politics, white privilege, and >>>>>>>>> the gender pay gap. As a result, he has been a polarizing figure. >>>>>>>
any guy who is a major public figure who cries, is a HUGE turn >>>>>>>> off. those guys i dont know other than they were presidents.
It is a turn off to see evidence that a pres is human?
i dont have any pronouns in my work signature, because i am a
normal person.
they can be human in private, cant they? i dont poop in public.
Give the guy a break. When this happened, he was under tremendous stress >>>>> because of his health/depression, and he was triggered. He didnrCOt plan it
but I think he should have been aware that it could happen and not done the
interview.
Mysteries. Funny how that happens. I doubt he knew what it was.
discussing the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where
20 young children were killed.
So he knew why he was crying.
just watching America's Got Talent. YMMV.
Jojo thinkscrying is turn off, apparently, if he even saw it. YMMV.
Deliberately spewing out all over is a definite turn off. Showing unplanned
emotion and tearing up in public is a human and authentic thing that can sometimes happen when you feel deeply about something. And should never be put down! On the contrary..
it's just weird. You'd think others would start crying too. I tear up
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:38:27 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |