You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just to confirm? Does no mean…
a) no
b) yes
Do you even need to ask?
That's the kind of thing Donald trump does. Posts false information taken from other people without checking and passing it off as fact.
Zero credibility.
I'm amused by Peterson, he's very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended who need to spend more time listening and less time with their gobs open.
All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like "black people commit more crime" and then rides the wave of carnage.
I’m amused by Peterson
I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.
I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.
Thank you, I'm here all night.
An Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar...
All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like “black people commit more crime” and then rides the wave of carnage.
So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?
he’s very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended
don't forget the professional offenders and misogynists who love his work too, gives them a feeling of security that the clever man (not an expert we don't like them) says it's ok.
So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?
I'm not sure if he's aware of it or not. He's definitely "on the spectrum".
the clever man says it’s ok
Except he doesn't, does he? I've not listened to everything he's published but most of people's problems with him seem to boil down to people's inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
There is such a circle of knee-jerking that I believe a new form of the can-can has been invented.
Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth. Its a total distortion to suit his audience of hapless inadequate men who want to blame others for their own inadequacies.
Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth.
What isn't? Without specifics there is no discourse.
audience of hapless inadequate men
Oxford union?
I’ve not listened to everything he’s published but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
Yes, and the way he lets that happen over and over again, as if somebody so intelligent would have spotted that and thought about changing his approach a little to stop that happening.....
audience of hapless inadequate men
Oxford union?
Well I don't think you will find a higher concentration of entitled white men who's grip on power is being reduced by equality and progress every day. Sounds like a perfect place for him
they do invite some interesting people there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union#Retractions_of_speaker_invitations
What isn’t? Without specifics there is no discourse.
We tried discussing it last time.
You just keep posting ambiguous toss, winky emoticons and refusing to tell us what you actually think - the Surrey Defence?
but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
Sadly not. He seems intent on dressing his justification up as explanation. Thereby allowing people to feel empowered to engage in morally objectional behaviour.
This explains everything:
<div class="bbp-reply-author">mikewsmith
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?
An expensive troll.
</div>
I dont know if Peterson said that but catcalling is clearly not assault. It might well be harassment but it’s the kind of low level harassment that a lot of people endure everyday. It’s called life. I don’t think it’s ok but it’s not remotely a problem unique to women.
"Catcalling" in this situation means unwanted sexual remarks directed at people in a public setting. Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by "it's not remotely a problem unique to women"?
Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by “it’s not remotely a problem unique to women”?
He means it's happened to a man at least once so you can't call it an issue for women, it's a technique to dilute an argument and to deflect the attention away from an issue.
It completely ignores the historic position where men hold the power in society and how men have historically got away with sexual assaults and inappropriate behaviour #LockerRoomTalk #Banter etc. Things like #MeToo are rattling the cages of a lot of powerful people at the moment. They are threatened and scared.
This explains everything:
I think there he’s just poking fun at a ridiculous non sensical t-shirt (check out the engrish.com logo) and probably poking fun at his own image as a misogynist.
but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
TBH my problem with the OP's video was that it was crap. I admit I only managed to stomach 10 minutes of it, but god it was awful.
"All living creatures want to move forward". "Forward" is a lovely word, nice and positive. But meaningless. WTF is "forward" to an amoeba? What does it mean to a cat? As far as I can tell it just means they want to survive.
"In my scientific writings" - an appeal from authority, nicely dropped in there, but even JP has to admit it mostly comes from his book.
"People evaluate their options" means that "people value different choices" means that "there's no human life without value". That's changing the meaning of value quite radically.
.. and that's the first proposition. A meaningless waffle, he's worse than Russell Brand.
Then we move on to hierarchies. No acknowledgement of starting points, just the idea that competence is the only reason we get people at the top and others at the bottom. A bit of waffle generalising conservatives and liberals. And at that point I gave up.
He means it’s happened to a man at least once so you can’t call it an issue for women
I really wanted to hear the original poster explain his comment.
There you go again Tj spouting some bollox that you’ve been fed by the guardian
I’ve never heard him say the stuff you say he’s said and I’ve never seen him give a lecture to an audience that fits that description there’s always women in attendance and the audience seems full of academics that are happy to be there and challenge him on some of his flaky nonsense
I really wanted to hear the original poster explain his comment.
Yeah, sorry for jumping in, but he probably won't in any kind of meaningful way.
Nonk - can't attack the message attack the messenger?
You only have to skim the surface of what he says to see the vile misogyny in his "thesis" and the total lack of validity and rigour.
Tj I agree to some degree but I’m saying that your evaluation of the man and is audience is a million miles from being accurate and I would expect that to matter to you to be honest
There you go again Tj spouting some bollox that you’ve been fed by the guardian
[Nonk – can’t attack the message attack the messenger?
Tp be fair TJ you have played right into the hands of his disciples with cut and paste of stuff he didn’t even say to justify your dislike of him.
I can’t see a credibility recovery from that gaff tbh. 👍
TBH my problem with the OP’s video was that it was crap. I admit I only managed to stomach 10 minutes of it, but god it was awful.
Yep, think I made it just past 10 minutes with the same conclusions as you have made. Why anyone thinks what he says is anything other than a mixture of stating the obvious but with a particular bias is lost on me. Maybe I am too clever for him...
Maybe I am too clever for him…
I think you need to pay for some private consults with him. I think he is using the Scientology approach there 😉
Yep, think I made it just past 10 minutes with the same conclusions as you have made. Why anyone thinks what he says is anything other than a mixture of stating the obvious but with a particular bias is lost on me.
I only made the first 15 minutes, nothing he said made me think he had anything notably intellectual about his viewpoint. Although maybe that’s intentional. He seemed very much to be setting the scene to justify his position more than setting the scene for an honest debate.
Just seemed like a lot of old ****!
There are two audiences though, the ones in the room and the ones online. The people in the room may have been there to challenge his ideas not support them. Though it is unlikely that many people will have the stamina to listen to more than 15 mins. He knows who his target audience is.
He’s a clever bloke in that he knows exactly what his target market is and he’s making a packet out of telling them exactly what they want to hear. With the added bonus of getting to troll liberals, which obviously amuses him no end
Indeed neal. Honest mistake from being lazy. Other stuff I posted is direct quotes tho
The Oxford Union is not affiliated with Oxford University and uses the name "Oxford" to try to imply some connection and, by extension, respectability. Lots of businesses do the same in Oxford, especially the language schools.
Membership is limited to students at Oxford University, Oxford Brookes and other academic institutions in the city.
The main point is, that no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously. It's well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.
It seems apt that Peterson spoke here. He'd never get a gig addressing one of the college's common room, or a lecture at the University itself.
There is no Student Union at Oxford Uni. All the services the Student Union offers at other Unis are organised by the colleges.
(Oxford DPhil., postdoc for 8 years, now doing something else.)
no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously. It’s well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.
What type ?
(Genuine question, I haven’t got a clue)
Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts. It inflames extremists left and right no end. On having bubbles burst they resort to falsely labeling him, misquoting and calling for him to be censored.
Bought his book after stumbling on to the Cathy Newman interview based purely on how he handled himself.
TBO the book is a little hard going, none of the sensationalism he is apparently famous for. Would rate Sapiens as a better read so far.
He winds me up but I think his description of the way the extremist left respond to him in a completely knee jerk way trashing his name and his audience is fairly spot on and it’s been displayed perfectly in this here thread
he may be way off the mark on many things but he’s right about that
if you want to trash someone’s name in public at least try and be accurate otherwise your opinion is worth nothing
if you want to trash someone’s name in public at least try and be accurate otherwise your opinion is worth nothing
Do you dispute he is very calculated with what he says and makes sure he can have a get out for most of his controversy.
Is he deliberately appealing to the alt right
Or is all of this just an accident and coincidence?
Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts.
Dunno, it's hard to tie him down to anything solid, if he waffled a bit less and actually said something interesting you might be right. So far all I can really say about him is that he's happy to ignore poverty, lack of opportunity and birth when it comes to his wonderful "hierarchy" view of society.
Nope don’t dispute that at all it’s obvious but I’m not sure he’s trying to appeal to the alt right I think he’s trying very hard to keep people talking about him and I agree with Sam Harris in that he really needs to spill the beans on his god stance
All im saying is that in his various lectures and what have you his audience base just seems to be nothing more than a normal audience, men, women and different types of students from all over the world
I watched something he did with Steven fry where they appeared to me to be friends how does that fit?
I watched something he did with Steven fry where they appeared to me to be friends how does that fit
Acting? Sounds basically like being a consultant too.
Nope don’t dispute that at all it’s obvious but I’m not sure he’s trying to appeal to the alt right
It would be a little more moral to distance yourself a little more from that though.
For sure it would and you are right he should but it doesn’t justify the aggressive vilification he receives from the left especially if it’s not accurate
Jordan Peterson has an annoying habit of winning arguments with facts.
tinribs, just because I’m slightly curious, could you provide an example of this please?
If he has a habit of doing it, it should be fairly easy to find a crystal clear example.
The reason I ask, is because I’ve never really seen him as a person who deals in “facts” more that he makes a statement that he proffers to be true, and then waffles around it for a while until people forget that they may need to fact check his original statement.
Curious to see him being concise and factual that’s all.
Cheers.
For sure it would and you are right he should but it doesn’t justify the aggressive vilification he receives from the left especially if it’s not accurate
Hang on, it's part of the plan to pander to the alt right and we don't get to ask some questions there....
The reason I ask, is because I’ve never really seen him as a person who deals in “facts” more that he makes a statement that he proffers to be true, and then waffles around it for a while until people forget that they may need to fact check his original statement.
Pfft. Lobsters. Obvs.
Actually you might have a point. Surely there must be something?
Well the make up at work thing for example. It is a fact that it's a sexual trigger for men isn't it?
As already hinted at not sure he actually has much of a narrative of his own, he just jumps on inconsitancies in other people's. Which makes him a difficult target.
who’s saying you can’t question it ? I’m not
I just don’t see the reason that you have to be either a dedicated follower or come down on him like a ton of bricks with some bollox that’s been made up
Hang on, it’s part of the plan to pander to the alt right and we don’t get to ask some questions there….
But the left isn't really asking questions, just vilifying.......mostly. The bits I've heard from him as others have said is just stating the obvious, how things are really (at least how many see it). I suppose his appeal is that many people haven't given much thought to the way of the world so it seems like a revelation. I'm not sure why some people get so wound up about him !! He's just another talking head flogging books. The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing. Do people really go through life so angry, it must make things so hard 🙁
We are the left ! Until we don’t agree with you and then we go all batshit mental on you
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing. Do people really go through life so angry, it must make things so hard
Hate or just angry at his apologist nature for some shitty people, that somebody who can obviously see what he is doing carries on and claims unintended consequences that he has no control over.
Bit like Borris and his carefully crafted piece in the telegraph, just enough to get onside with is followers and just enough to give him room to claim he is the target of the liberals... it's admirable in terms of the skill to do it. Just not the outcomes.
What’s the alternative though ?
Would you rather he wasn’t allowed to speak? If someone is a nob I’d prefer to know I think
What’s the alternative though ?
Would you rather he wasn’t allowed to speak?
People are allowed to criticise him, point out his failings. He is welcome to defend himself at any time though, he does appear to be able to speak for himself.
Is he deliberately appealing to the alt right
I don't believe he is. He's appealing to disenfranchised males, some of whom may be on the alt right, but I think if he was deliberately going after the alt right audience, there would be a racial element to his views, and I don't believe I've ever heard him say anything controversial there, unless it gets drowned out by the misogyny noise.
I do think his haters tend to cherry pick things to bash him with, or as happened earlier they attribute things hes never actually said. Chinese whispers etc.
The forced monogamy thing is interesting. With the snippets quoted earlier it sounds horrific. Here's his own full words on the subject
<p class="ui_qtext_para">Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.</p>
<p class="ui_qtext_para">That’s all.</p>
<p class="ui_qtext_para">No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).</p>
<p class="ui_qtext_para">No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.</p>
<p class="ui_qtext_para">Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)</p>
<p class="ui_qtext_para">Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.</p>
I read that as society as a whole benefits if people form monogamous relationships. He's not talking about forced marriage or sexual slavery etc. It seems like a clunky way of saying we'll all get along better if we form nice relationships (and I'm assuming he wouldn't just limit that to normal male:female coupling)
Ive watched him a few times on Joe Rogan. I wouldn't say I'm a fan. He says some things I agree with, he says a lot of things I don't agree with. I do think his haters tend to get their knickers in a twist unnecessarily and he and his fans feed off that. If you don't like him, it would be better to ignore him
Of course !
It just needs to actually be true
I read that as society as a whole benefits if people form monogamous relationships. He’s not talking about forced marriage or sexual slavery etc. It seems like a clunky way of saying we’ll all get along better if we form nice relationships (and I’m assuming he wouldn’t just limit that to normal male:female coupling)
Relationships yeah
Domestic abuse:
-
Will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime
-
Leads to, on average, two women being murdered each week and 30 men per year
-
Accounts for 16% of all violent crime (Source: Crime in England and Wales 04/05 report), however it is still the violent crime least likely to be reported to the police
-
Has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police)
-
Is the single most quoted reason for becoming homeless (Shelter, 2002)
-
In 2010 the Forced Marriage Unit responded to 1735 reports of possible Forced Marriages.
https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm
It could be said that all that does is give those with a tendency for violence a handy victim?
I mean, statistics, lobsters, it's obvious, really, honestly it must be though I'm not saying you should.
He is welcome to defend himself at any time though, he does appear to be able to speak for himself.
Yeah, but he's only pointing out the obvious. Lobsters are pink, and so is a girl's favourite colour. But blue despite being the sea isn't their colour, which is why women reject hierarchies. Even though they're nature's chosen course, and only a liberal would chose to deny that, as they're busy ignoring reality. That's my first proposition, although I don't fully agree with it as women actually prefer shiny goods to pink even though society likes football. Etc.
Yep he’s forgotten the fact that the people you should be scared of are the ones in your own home
not going to argue with that
What’s the alternative though ?
Not being a shit, and not listening politely to shits.
Yep he’s forgotten the fact that the people you should be scared of are the ones in your own home
Or that monogamy doesn't seem to magically cure violent tendencies, kind of one of his central themes in that argument. If there are flaws that early on in the research how can you be drawing the conclusions he is?
No idea mate I wasn’t defending his position on that point at all
I was pointing out that you can’t expect to criticise a bloke with nonsense
not that you did mind you but it’s happened in full effect in the thread
Yep so nobody has an answer to that one then. You can see why people are criticising though, holes in his arguments you can park a bus in.
It could be said that all that does is give those with a tendency for violence a handy victim?
Show me where he says victims of domestic violence should stay in a violent relationship?
Show me where he says victims of domestic violence should stay in a violent relationship?
Show me where he addresses the domestic violence stats when suggesting monogamy is a good thing for reducing male violence. That is the point there, but well done for the deflection argument.
So you can't then. Reducing does not mean eradicating.
I mean, statistics, lobsters, it’s obvious, really, honestly it must be though I’m not saying you should.
Sorry, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his point here, but his detractors use the forced monogamy thing to say he’s suggesting women should be forced into marriages or sexual relationships which is not what he saying. He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships. It’s two different things. He’s not saying only women should accept that that they should have a partner. It equally applies to men who may think they should be shagging as many women as possible. What’s happened though is the lonely marginalised men have taken this as though they have a right to a partner, and his detractors are saying he’s supporting that which I don’t believe.
by all means argue against the point he’s actually trying to make, that’s completely the right thing to do, but people are misinterpreting what he’s saying here and whether his actual point is right or wrong is of course entirely debatable
I can yes mike absolutely but the ones who shout the loudest need to do better 👍
So you can’t then. Reducing does not mean eradicating.
Yes but if he has not even addressed that point in his talks or writing does that mean he has not considered it or chosen to ignore it completely (it is a little inconvenient for his theories)
He’s not saying only women should accept that that they should have a partner. It equally applies to men who may think they should be shagging as many women as possible.
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships.
Given we have a high divorce rate, plenty of adultery going on and breakdown of relationships why should we be forming monogamous relationships? Tradition?
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Everything and nothing.
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Theres no point in asking me. I’m not saying I agree with him. I’m merely pointing out what his actual point is. I have no interest in debating about what he’s actually saying
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Because it doesn't make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn't benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Well the make up at work thing for example. It is a fact that it’s a sexual trigger for men isn’t it?As already hinted at not sure he actually has much of a narrative of his own, he just jumps on inconsitancies in other people’s. Which makes him a difficult target.
no offence tinribz, but that isn’t quite what I had in mind when I asked for a crystal clear example of him
“having a habit of winning arguments with facts”
what was the argument, who was it with, what undeniable fact did he “win”the argument with?
If that’s the best you can come up with, then I’m just going to presume that your talking bollx about his legendary use of facts to slay his opposition 🙄
<div class="bbcode-quote">
no one at Oxford University takes the Oxford Union seriously. It’s well known for having a certain type of Oxford student as its membership.
</div>
What type ?(Genuine question, I haven’t got a clue)
I think Nerd is being a bit unfair, whilst it is certainly true that many at the university have little time for it and call people involved in it "hacks" (or did in my day), there is no doubt it has some fantastic debates and attracts some very good speakers. It appeals to those with an interest in politics and isn't particularly white or male, you only have to look at recent presidents to see that there are plenty of non Anglo saxon names.
Nerd is also wrong about the absence of a student union, there is one OUSU but it is not a major focus as it is in many universities as you tend to look to your college first and foremost as Nerd suggested.
Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm
In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage. That is a key finding of a new study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
Because it doesn’t make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn’t benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
It many do many things but it doesn't seem to address his violence issues.
Currently divorce is at 42%
https://www.rainscourt.com/interesting-statistics/
Which doesn't even cover those who are not married but in relationships.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Are all stable relationships loving? How many are? How many people are unhappy in theirs?
So far way more questions than simplistic answers. Again it's topics I'd expect to see covered in a serious discussion on the topic
but people are misinterpreting what he’s saying here and whether his actual point is right or wrong is of course entirely debatable
Misinterpretation is part of the game here, how else could someone like Peterson distance themselves from the actions of others who may have acted under the influence of his book selling tours?
Even people with half a brain can see that.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">taxi25
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
In fairness what is wrong with a man or woman shagging as many people as possible?
Because it doesn’t make for stable relationships. Do you honestly believe that a society doesn’t benefit from the majority living in good relationships ?
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have the right to choose how they live, only that a rejection of stable loving relationships is pure nonsense.
Shagging lots of people =/ rejecting stable loving relationships, far from it. Exclusivity isn't a requirement for a stable or loving relationship, or "good" one. In fact relationships with more flexibility can be more durable, even in a social climate that mostly assumes that exclusivity is at the heart of a relationship.
Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
and as this one has come up before... which cultures is he referring to? (good headline rather than a good example)
and as this one has come up before… which cultures is he referring to?
He'll be reffering to Muslim cultures. As that's what would be most relivant to problems affecting western society. But you knew that didn't you. Again it's an observation, Google the subject. You'll mostly find articles by Muslim writers discussing the "negative" affects of polygamy in the modern world.
This again?
Let's get some facts in order:
1. Do we know was Alek Minassian's motive to commit mass murder? *
2. What was his background?*
3. What would 'enforced monogamy' look like and how would it have 'cured' him?
and
*4. Do you think it important to know these things before deciding if (or which aspects of) Canadian society is to blame for 'creating' Minassian?
You just keep posting ambiguous toss
You accuse me of being ambiguous whilst quoting me asking someone to be more specific?
What ****ing more do you want? My first born?
winky emoticons
Yeah, it seems to have escaped the attention of most that I made a rape joke...
and refusing to tell us what you actually think
I haven't been asked you bell end. Seriously! With the exception of mikewsmith, who I answered.
I 'm comfortable that you are enshrined in your views, but don't tell tales.
Well the make up at work thing for example. It is a fact that it’s a sexual trigger for men isn’t it?
Is it? In some circumstances it may have an impact on some men, but don't clothes, words, smiling also all have an effect, some women women who're sexually attracted to a man might chose food or just conversation instead. But that doesn't prove anything, as you have to "prove" that the same man wouldn't be attracted to the same woman without make-up, and I don't think that experiment has been done. Plus All make up? All men? All women? what d'you mean, be specific. Be, in fact, factual...
It's this sort of "Not actually a fact, but just an opinion, fact" that JP specialises in, (See also: Lobsters)
He’s saying collectively society should form monogamous relationships
But he says that because he believes in a society based around Christian teaching/beliefs, and fits his "facts" around that belief, which obviously is anathema to the scientific method, and why both the left and the right find his statements confusing, annoying and in bad faith (excuse the pun) , and why I think he chooses to obfuscate all the time.
Plus All make up? All men? All women?
That's quite a high acceptance criteria. Including all men and women in a study may push the budget. But there have been plenty of studies done and the criteria for each is quite clear. Just Google for them.
some women women who’re sexually attracted to a man might chose food or just conversation instead.
What's this food thing, am I missing a trick?
The level of hate on here and from other places is more than a bit odd and sumwhat disturbing. Do people really go through life so angry, it must make things so hard
Not hate at all. I just feel that every time JP is presented on STW as the new messiah by Geetee, I feel, in the interests of balance, that I ought to point out that he spends his time spouting some very unpleasant misogynistic views (mainly surrounded by drivel dressed up as science to give them an air of credibility). He's a very slick operator (JP), one of the highest earners on Patreon website (into millions), and he know exactly what he's doing - pandering to a rich vein of disaffected white males who can't relate to women as anything other than sex objects (which has a big cross over with Alt-Right demographic).