(Indeed, this specimen believes she has an excellent chance of replacing Trudeau as Party Leader…yes…BUT before one starts rolling around the floor in unstoppable hysterical laughter, she just may have a point…seeing as she’s referring to the Labour Party of Canada…)
On Carol Burnett, so funny!
Somehow I came across this today. Maybe from Sarah Hoyt’s site. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, but it all gets deeply philosophical.
However, the guy who put this video together titles it, “Elite Professor Challenges Jordan Peterson on Stage & It Backfires Spectacularly”.
Except it’s not Jordan Peterson, although the guy does cut away to him from time to time. The real story is, I think, more interesting. It is a debate, old fashioned style, with a winner and a loser declared by the audience, between a post modern philosopher, and Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy that this guy has evidently confused with Jordan Peterson. I think Stephen Hicks is about as sharp a guy arguing the case for freedom you’re going to find.
Anyway, here is that full debate if anyone has the time. I think it’s absolutely fascinating, but it does get very deep into philosophical jargon, and it is nearly an hour and a half long. But I couldn’t tear myself away.
I’m doubtful a “deeply” modifier of “philosophical” is warranted Mike, if only because of my sense that a deep dialogue on philosophy would entail first many hours on end of earnest searching, and thus having prodded our interest, the consequence of a lifetime of pursuit of our object in an effort to get to the bottom of things.
Like for instance merely beginning with the question “philosophy — is it something, or nothing? And if it is something, what then is it? Can we distinguish the philosopher from the sophist, say?”.
And so on. Too, generally speaking, heaps of jargon tend to be a tipoff that we’re probably not remotely in the vicinity of our object.
(I have to add that while your first link was accessible, your second was not, resulting only in a blank page.)
The answer is simple we dont need postmodernism what purpose does it serve also alchemy divining and hisruptcy
So we put a big tariff on Canada today because of fentanyl? I’m sure there are some other motives: I just heard that Canada has a huge tariff on US milk and dairy and a couple other items. It was claimed by Howard Lutnick, Sec. of Commerce, that Canada cheats on the USMCA agreement.
Clearly, the market hates this. Although, interestingly the market today was slowly recovering from a big early morning sell off, only to drop precipitously in the last minute of trading. One minute? Sounds like some politically motivated manipulation to me.
Is Althouse starting a flamewar between ChatGPT and Grok?
If you were running for president, what would be your policy platform?
blockquote>For the annals of Things I asked Grok.
I also asked ChatGPT… and got a very different answer!
I pointed out the difference to Grok and asked why that happened.
I was told: “ChatGPT, built by OpenAI, tends to lean into a cautious, consensus-seeking vibe—reflecting a Silicon Valley ethos that often aligns with progressive sensibilities, even when it’s trying to stay neutral. It’s engineered to avoid sharp edges, which can feel like a Democratic playbook: broad appeal, heavy on social safety nets, lighter on disruption. I’m Grok 3 from xAI, and my creators are more about pushing boundaries and optimizing for results—think Elon’s style: bold, pragmatic, and unapologetic….”
Trump.
Unplugged.
Read it.
(But then…he’s ALWAYS unplugged…)
https://thetransom.com/p/donald-trump-in-the-oval
H/T Powerline blog.
+ Bonus…(solely for your entertainment…)
The Canadian pol that DJT refers to (and aptly shreds) in the link above…
“Britain Can Nuke Trump To Protect Canada, Says Bonkers Chrystia Freeland”—
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2025/03/04/britain-can-nuke-trump-to-protect-canada-says-bonkers-chrystia-freeland/
(Indeed, this specimen believes she has an excellent chance of replacing Trudeau as Party Leader…yes…BUT before one starts rolling around the floor in unstoppable hysterical laughter, she just may have a point…seeing as she’s referring to the Labour Party of Canada…)
On Carol Burnett, so funny!
Somehow I came across this today. Maybe from Sarah Hoyt’s site. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, but it all gets deeply philosophical.
https://carolinefurlong.wordpress.com/2025/02/28/some-more-thoughts-on-trust-and-heroism-with-a-look-at-post-modernism/
However, the guy who put this video together titles it, “Elite Professor Challenges Jordan Peterson on Stage & It Backfires Spectacularly”.
Except it’s not Jordan Peterson, although the guy does cut away to him from time to time. The real story is, I think, more interesting. It is a debate, old fashioned style, with a winner and a loser declared by the audience, between a post modern philosopher, and Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy that this guy has evidently confused with Jordan Peterson. I think Stephen Hicks is about as sharp a guy arguing the case for freedom you’re going to find.
Anyway, here is that full debate if anyone has the time. I think it’s absolutely fascinating, but it does get very deep into philosophical jargon, and it is nearly an hour and a half long. But I couldn’t tear myself away.
https://www.stephenhicks.org/2024/02/18/in-case-you-missed-it-do-free-societies-need-postmodernism-a-debate/
Yes he was hilarious and unlike harvey korman probably didnt break character as often
How did a financial times columnist with dodgy antecedents rise so far in canadian politics
I know which lizard?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/04/panama-canal-ports-sale-blackrock
I’m doubtful a “deeply” modifier of “philosophical” is warranted Mike, if only because of my sense that a deep dialogue on philosophy would entail first many hours on end of earnest searching, and thus having prodded our interest, the consequence of a lifetime of pursuit of our object in an effort to get to the bottom of things.
Like for instance merely beginning with the question “philosophy — is it something, or nothing? And if it is something, what then is it? Can we distinguish the philosopher from the sophist, say?”.
And so on. Too, generally speaking, heaps of jargon tend to be a tipoff that we’re probably not remotely in the vicinity of our object.
(I have to add that while your first link was accessible, your second was not, resulting only in a blank page.)
The answer is simple we dont need postmodernism what purpose does it serve also alchemy divining and hisruptcy
Hmm…let me try this one.
https://youtu.be/Qb9Eajt0KVA
Its a record
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2025/03/04/nolte-oscar-ratings-tank-18-million-viewers-third-lowest-ever/
It was decidely meh
Lol
https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/03/04/karoline-leavitt-rips-dems-over-report-they-plan-to-protest-trumps-speech-with-noisemakers-egg-cartons-n2186264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1UMAVtF1Ew&t=29s
==
Sheer loveliness.
What game are they playing
https://x.com/DNIspox/status/1896989406315385081
miguel:
What do you expect, they are maroons after all.
So we put a big tariff on Canada today because of fentanyl? I’m sure there are some other motives: I just heard that Canada has a huge tariff on US milk and dairy and a couple other items. It was claimed by Howard Lutnick, Sec. of Commerce, that Canada cheats on the USMCA agreement.
Clearly, the market hates this. Although, interestingly the market today was slowly recovering from a big early morning sell off, only to drop precipitously in the last minute of trading. One minute? Sounds like some politically motivated manipulation to me.
Back of the book section
https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1896971081178837158
Much too late, for certain parties
Re: Tariffs
TommyJay:
Economics is not my strong suit. However, I do wonder if Trump’s new tariffs aren’t a more important story than the amount of coverage they receive.
I appreciate Trump’s motivations but tariffs are known to be blunt economic tools.
–“Trump’s trade war draws swift retaliation with new tariffs from Mexico, Canada and China”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china-643086a6dc7ff716d876b3c83e3255b0
TommyJay; huxley:
I put up a thread for discussing the new tariffs.
https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2025/03/04/karine-jean-pierre-on-the-view-n2409321
sdferr,
Cogito ergo sum.
Cul de sac, Rufus, cul de sac, heh-heh
Is Althouse starting a flamewar between ChatGPT and Grok?
If you were running for president, what would be your policy platform?
blockquote>For the annals of Things I asked Grok.
I also asked ChatGPT… and got a very different answer!
I pointed out the difference to Grok and asked why that happened.
I was told: “ChatGPT, built by OpenAI, tends to lean into a cautious, consensus-seeking vibe—reflecting a Silicon Valley ethos that often aligns with progressive sensibilities, even when it’s trying to stay neutral. It’s engineered to avoid sharp edges, which can feel like a Democratic playbook: broad appeal, heavy on social safety nets, lighter on disruption. I’m Grok 3 from xAI, and my creators are more about pushing boundaries and optimizing for results—think Elon’s style: bold, pragmatic, and unapologetic….”
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/03/if-you-were-running-for-president-what.html
karen bass’s replacment
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1897087980566884597
Carpe cerevisiam!