revolutionnow
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 41
Madman or truth seeker
I actually think that he has a fairly narrow focus of what he talks about. He seems to deliberately only make the points that can be backed up by research, and doesn't like to go beyond that. There was another video on here somewhere of him being interviewed by a female who kept trying to bait him by making broad accusations, but he kept pointing out that he had not said that. He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.I think he might have gotten in over his head. He started filming all his lectures a long time ago, and put them up on YouTube and was asking for donations via patreon. Then one thing led to another and now he's more famous than I think he ever thought he'd be. Most of the stuff he says regarding sosuave type stuff is common sense. I think he leans a little too heavily on the Jungian archetype stuff, sometimes confusing metaphor for reality.
I think that sticks to him because of christianity. Otherwise, you could always learn sth from listening to him, I think.he is blue pill
brilliant.... but ultimately blue pill
That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.
Well, maybe I haven't seen those videos. The videos that I have seen with him, most of them are very repetitive, and the things he said in them didn't strike me as being esoteric or controversial. Seems to me he just sort of stuck to what he knew.That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.
Rolla says the same thing. That he likes him/his views but a lot of what he says his steeped in blue pill idealization. Rollo did the opposite of you: he wrote a 500 page essay to explain why (I think there's a two hour video interview with him and two other "red pillers" where they basically talk about Jordan Peterson. No time or desire to read/listen to that much chatter about why they disagree with the man/think he's blue pill. Where as you don't really expand or express adequately why you think he's blue pill.no.
its because his philosphies are too idealistic.
if you pay close enough attention, he doesnt nearly address reality as much as it seems.
his ideas remind me more of the beta kid who promised himself to "never be like his father"