(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
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 from maroons?