The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Gunny]

Here's the basic problem I have with JP, which, although I don't know much about him, I have seen a few of his videos (admittedly here on SD):

Specifically, his whole 'cultural Marxism' shtick seems incredibly disingenuous, as if he is pandering to his crowd with buzzwords just to gain views.

-He completely rejects Marxist theory *as a whole*, but idolizes Nietzsche, whose ideas could be just as easily pressed into dubious ends.

-Nietzsche is a principle component in postmodernism, the same postmodernism that he says leads to death camps.

In other words, he can take inspiration where he finds it in Nietzsche, but makes Marxism out to be some huge ongoing conspiracy theory, despite the fact that Marx's ideas have been bastardized significantly.

Lastly, awhile ago I did some half-hearted reading on his whole tirade about 'regulation of pronouns - you will be sent to jail if you call Jim a she', which, if you actually read Bill C-16, says nothing of the sort. It simply adds gender to discrimination law, meaning you cannot deny someone a job, or an apartment, etc., if you think they look like a man, but they call themselves Mary.

It has nothing to do with 'being jailed for calling someone the wrong pronoun', which was Peterson's battle cry for a very long time, anymore than you can be jailed for walking down the street and saying a 50yo looks like they are 70. It's total hyperbole.

In fact, I agree with you that “cultural Marxist” is poor (or at least, incomplete) descriptor for the SJW left though I imagine it might be on different grounds than you. My stance is that the movement he’s describing is populated by middle-upper class individuals who hold tenured positions in academia or work in government and are thus perfectly insulated from the lives and concerns of the populace at large. As such, they far closer resemble the bourgeoisie that Marx was set against than Marx himself.

 

[Bullitt68]

In other words, he can take inspiration where he finds it in Nietzsche, but makes Marxism out to be some huge ongoing conspiracy theory, despite the fact that Marx's ideas have been bastardized significantly.

I'm with you 100% on his Nietzsche love. I'm a fan of Peterson, but I'm no fan of Nietzsche and I always cringe when he starts raving about Nietzsche. However, I'm not with you at all on the postmodernism/Marxism stuff. On that, I'm with Peterson 100%. That shit is poisonous nonsense.

Lastly, awhile ago I did some half-hearted reading on his whole tirade about 'regulation of pronouns - you will be sent to jail if you call Jim a she', which, if you actually read Bill C-16, says nothing of the sort [...] It's total hyperbole.

I guess you didn't follow the Lindsay Shepherd case...

He was using it to explain wealth inequality, which is just a simple mistake--a guy not being able to resist opining about a subject he knows nothing about.

I'm assuming you're referring to something like 1:31:54 - 1:36:36 here (my apologies, but I'm going to do that thing you love and reference a video):



If you've got a critique of this articulation/application of the Pareto distribution - and helltoupee, they're specifically talking about Marx here, so this is open to you, as well - I'd love to hear it.

That does help. Might check it out just to see what the fuss is about.

Based on what a great public speaker he is, I was actually half-expecting his ideas in written form to lose a lot of their power and to be either poorly or dryly formulated, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that, beyond being exhaustively researched, the book is very clear without sacrificing complexity and fun to read without sacrificing intellectual rigor.

In fact, I agree with you that “cultural Marxist” is poor (or at least, incomplete) descriptor for the postmodern left though I imagine it might be on different grounds than you. My stance is that the movement he’s describing is populated by middle-upper class individuals who hold tenured positions in academia or work in government and are thus perfectly insulated from the lives and concerns of the populace at large. As such, they far closer resemble the bourgeoisie that Marx was set against than Marx himself.

One of the many great ironies they're too dense to recognize.

 

[21 Savage]

 

[Bald1]

Just a point of interest - Peterson never (or not that I recall) says "cultural marxism", but rather neo-marxism. Probably means the same thing, but thought I'd point that out.

 

[helltoupee]

In fact, I agree with you that “cultural Marxist” is poor (or at least, incomplete) descriptor for the SJW left though I imagine it might be on different grounds than you. My stance is that the movement he’s describing is populated by middle-upper class individuals who hold tenured positions in academia or work in government and are thus perfectly insulated from the lives and concerns of the populace at large. As such, they far closer resemble the bourgeoisie that Marx was set against than Marx himself.

I could certainly understand the argument that college professors, or anyone actually, are often insulated from many of the things they purport to stand for, as everyone operates from their own perspective. I don't even deny that there are professors out there who may espouse what Peterson warns against - I just question the scope of the problem, and how significant of an impact it actually has on things.

 

[helltoupee]

I'm with you 100% on his Nietzsche love. I'm a fan of Peterson, but I'm no fan of Nietzsche and I always cringe when he starts raving about Nietzsche. However, I'm not with you at all on the postmodernism/Marxism stuff. On that, I'm with Peterson 100%. That shit is poisonous nonsense.

Well, I guess we agree to disagree. I personally feel that the whole cultural Marxism thing is simply a topic that has more to do with profit motive than actually believing you need to check under your bed for commies every night. To me, Jordan seems to have transitioned to being less of an academic, and more of a media personality. Media is a capitalistic endeavor.

I guess you didn't follow the Lindsay Shepherd case...

No, I don't know anything about it, and readily admit that my knowledge in this area was pretty much based on my reading of C-16, after Peterson seemed to imply that people would be arrested in the streets for using the wrong pronoun if the aforementioned bill passed. Maybe I'm way off base, but my impression at the time was that he was too much of a 'the sky is falling' guy, albeit done in a calm and intellectual manner.

 

[Bullitt68]

I personally feel that the whole cultural Marxism thing is simply a topic that has more to do with profit motive than actually believing you need to check under your bed for commies every night. To me, Jordan seems to have transitioned to being less of an academic, and more of a media personality. Media is a capitalistic endeavor.

I'd flip this around and say that making money from your ideas isn't proof that your ideas aren't genuine/valid. There's also a distinction to be made between profit maximization and profit prioritization. Peterson is maximizing profit but he's not prioritizing it. His priority is getting these ideas out. And I'd say that's the academic part of him. So basically I disagree with everything you said here

Also, it's usually the case that the people who have the hardest time understanding the scope of the problem with "postmodern neo-Marxism," as Peterson most often refers to it, are the people at the farthest remove from academia and the university system. If I talk to my near-60-year-old parents about some of this goofy shit, they just laugh. It's nonsense to them. It's too ridiculous to be believed, much less taken seriously. So it becomes as laughable as checking under your bed for commies. And that's worrisome to people like Peterson, who is trying to explain to people, particularly those far removed from current academic life, why this shit matters and in a very real and very big way.

No, I don't know anything about it, and readily admit that my knowledge in this area was pretty much based on my reading of C-16, after Peterson seemed to imply that people would be arrested in the streets for using the wrong pronoun if the aforementioned bill passed. Maybe I'm way off base, but my impression at the time was that he was too much of a 'the sky is falling' guy, albeit done in a calm and intellectual manner.

If you're interested, this is a good watch on this front:

 

[helltoupee]

I'd flip this around and say that making money from your ideas isn't proof that your ideas aren't genuine/valid. There's also a distinction to be made between profit maximization and profit prioritization. Peterson is maximizing profit but he's not prioritizing it. His priority is getting these ideas out. And I'd say that's the academic part of him. So basically I disagree with everything you said here

Also, it's usually the case that the people who have the hardest time understanding the scope of the problem with "postmodern neo-Marxism," as Peterson most often refers to it, are the people at the farthest remove from academia and the university system. If I talk to my near-60-year-old parents about some of this goofy shit, they just laugh. It's nonsense to them. It's too ridiculous to be believed, much less taken seriously. So it becomes as laughable as checking under your bed for commies. And that's worrisome to people like Peterson, who is trying to explain to people, particularly those far removed from current academic life, why this shit matters and in a very real and very big way.



If you're interested, this is a good watch on this front:

You make some good points about prioritizing profit vs. maximization - I understand we all have to make a living and have different motives for doing so, and I don't know enough about JP to really speak on him in depth.

As to the cultural Marxism, I'm still not convinced it's some elaborate plot born of Jews from The Frankfurt school to spread Marxism throughout the Western world. Too often we link the motivations of previously ostracized groups of people (ie gays, transgenders, whatever) seeking equality as a link to said conspiracy that has supposedly infiltrated academia. Societies progressively have become more and more liberal over time, it's only natural that certain peoples will start to step out of the shadows when they feel more safe.

Certainly, the whole cultural Marxism slippery slope could be applied to when women wanted to become something more than 2nd class citizens. It's the same exact thing. Fear of change.

I will watch the video - thanks.

 

[Brazilian HKD]

Well, to be fair , the Frankfurt School is considered a form of Marxism that relies more in idealism than materialism.
Of course there are stupid people connecting it with conspiracy theories about jews and whatsoever, but is in the school itself that we can see that they were spreading bullshit. I used to love Adorno, now I think he was a pseudo intelectual.

BTW when I was in college, classic marxists and idealistic-social marxists used to HATE each other.
Is kinda like of one the biggest critics of PC bullshit and post modernism is actually Zizek.

 

[all caps]

@Miabetes
Figure you might appreciate this thread

 

[meauneau]

Even so, it was a good faith question that I don't think warranted your level of aggression.

But it wasn't a question, it was an assertion. He asserted that JP's detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 classes, SJW leftists or Sam Harris atheists. It was reasonable for me to assume that he included me in 1 of the 2 camps of JP's detractors. I asked him to clarify this but he didn't.

Actually, he said Peterson detractors tend to belong to one of those two camps; he very clearly left open the possibility of there being detractors who did not fall into one of those two camps. And, as you presented yourself as one such detractor, he was intrigued enough to try to start a conversation with you. Unfortunately, all he got was hostility and aggression.

He didn't intend to start a conversation with me. If he did he could have asked me a question directly rather than assert that detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 camps. This is why I asked him what makes me a detractor when I agree with his political ideology and also agree that Freudian and Jungian theories are not scientific? In fact, there is pretty much nothing as far as I know that I disagree with JP about. I asked him this but he never replied. You replied for him. I wonder why.

First off, he's not my friend. I know him but I honestly can't recall any previous interactions with him (my apologies, @Gunny, if it turns out we've had dozens of conversations over the years or something ). Second, I'd have no problem admitting that he was wrong about something. He'd first have to be wrong about something, though.

You do appear to hasten to defend him. You can't let him do it himself.

Actually, I do have to be pedantic all the time. Case in point: Eristic/eristical is spelled with one "r," not two.

Good for you for googling what it is. I realised my mistake but didn't correct it. And English is not my first language (I speak 4).

 

[Bullitt68]

As to the cultural Marxism, I'm still not convinced it's some elaborate plot born of Jews from The Frankfurt school to spread Marxism throughout the Western world. Too often we link the motivations of previously ostracized groups of people (ie gays, transgenders, whatever) seeking equality as a link to said conspiracy that has supposedly infiltrated academia. Societies progressively have become more and more liberal over time, it's only natural that certain peoples will start to step out of the shadows when they feel more safe.

Certainly, the whole cultural Marxism slippery slope could be applied to when women wanted to become something more than 2nd class citizens. It's the same exact thing. Fear of change.

The problem with speaking of cultural Marxism or postmodern neo-Marxism as a conspiracy theory is that that presupposes intent - and nefarious intent, at that. That's not Peterson's position (nor, for the record, is it my position). For Peterson, it's not so much that what he's identifying in academia, which has seeped into ordinary life at an alarmingly rapid rate and in alarming fashion, is a perfect, unbroken line of thinking engineered by evil villains. It's more about the persistence of certain arguments and positions, which are taken up by all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds for all sorts of purposes.

For Peterson, he has been trying to identify tendencies and trends, not conspiracy theory plots to rule the world.

I will watch the video - thanks.

Well, to be fair , the Frankfurt School is considered a form of Marxism that relies more in idealism than materialism.
Of course there are stupid people connecting it with conspiracy theories about jews and whatsoever, but is in the school itself that we can see that they were spreading bullshit. I used to love Adorno, now I think he was a pseudo intelectual.

Another thing that I think is worth mentioning, and something that I think I've mentioned in here before (helltoupee, this might speak to some of your concerns, as well), is that it's a mistake to impute to the people Peterson talks about as postmodern neo-Marxists a concern with internal logical consistency. In a lot of important ways, the Frankfurt School and postmodernism are very different. However, that hasn't stopped people from mashing them together in total disregard of the messy contradictions that result.

This is something that Peterson talks about constantly with the bizarre marriage between postmodernism and Marxism. Logically speaking, those two things are not compatible; a "postmodern Marxist" is a contradiction in terms. And yet, I could randomly go down the list of professors at my university and blindly circle ten names and at least nine of them would consider themselves postmodern Marxists.

For a quick and concise example of Peterson discussing this painfully oblivious position:

But it wasn't a question, it was an assertion. He asserted that JP's detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 classes, SJW leftists or Sam Harris atheists. It was reasonable for me to assume that he included me in 1 of the 2 camps of JP's detractors. I asked him to clarify this but he didn't.

For the last time: He made a tangential comment based on something that I said where he wasn't referring to you but which you took offense to anyway.

He didn't intend to start a conversation with me.

I know. That's what I've been saying. That's why he neither quoted you nor mentioned you. He was neither talking to you nor about you. Yet you somehow managed to be offended as if he was speaking directly to you and about you. You worked yourself up into a frenzy over something that had nothing to do with you.

This is why I asked him what makes me a detractor when I agree with his political ideology and also agree that Freudian and Jungian theories are not scientific? In fact, there is pretty much nothing as far as I know that I disagree with JP about. I asked him this but he never replied. You replied for him. I wonder why.

You don't have to wonder why. I can tell you. I jumped in because you bit his head off as soon as he responded directly to you with his request for clarification, whereas you seemed to be a bit more responsive to me. Clearly, though, the net effect of my efforts have been equivalent to banging my head against a wall, so I'll leave it to @Gunny now assuming he has the inclination/patience.

Good for you for googling what it is. I realised my mistake but didn't correct it. And English is not my first language (I speak 4).

That was a joke. Hence the gif. You've got to lighten up, dude.

 

[meauneau]

For the last time: He made a tangential comment based on something that I said where he wasn't referring to you but which you took offense to anyway.

He was referring to me albeit indirectly. Even you affirmed it when you said: "as you presented yourself as one such detractor, he was intrigued enough to try to start a conversation with you. Unfortunately, all he got was hostility and aggression." Let us see, he was referring to detractors. You affirm that I present my self as a detractor. Therefore He was referring to me. You are being very dishonest and disingenuous.

I know. That's what I've been saying. That's why he neither quoted you nor mentioned you. He was neither talking to you nor about you. Yet you somehow managed to be offended as if he was speaking directly to you and about you. You worked yourself up into a frenzy over something that had nothing to do with you.

I can't tell if you are being serious or facetious or a liar. I already established that he referred to me indirectly and you affirmed it. He did label me a JP detractor, and asserted that JP's detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 classes. He clearly sees me as a detractor. Even you affirmed this here: "as you presented yourself as one such detractor, he was intrigued enough to try to start a conversation with you. Unfortunately, all he got was hostility and aggression." You are being dishonest now and disingenuous.

You don't have to wonder why. I can tell you. I jumped in because you bit his head off as soon as he responded directly to you with his request for clarification, whereas you seemed to be a bit more responsive to me. Clearly, though, the net effect of my efforts have been equivalent to banging my head against a wall, so I'll leave it to @Gunny now assuming he has the inclination/patience.

I didn't bite his head off, he labelled me a detractor, as you yourself affirmed, and I asked questions which neither of you have responded to. One shouldn't assume that one is a detractor based on one basic disagreement that turns out to be an agreement.

I also admitted that there was nothing so far as I know that I disagree about with JP. You clarified that the mythology, bible and Freud/Jung are not pushed as science. So I am not a detractor.

 

[Gunny]

But it wasn't a question, it was an assertion. He asserted that JP's detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 classes, SJW leftists or Sam Harris atheists. It was reasonable for me to assume that he included me in 1 of the 2 camps of JP's detractors. I asked him to clarify this but he didn't.



He didn't intend to start a conversation with me. If he did he could have asked me a question directly rather than assert that detractors tend to fall into 1 of 2 camps. This is why I asked him what makes me a detractor when I agree with his political ideology and also agree that Freudian and Jungian theories are not scientific? In fact, there is pretty much nothing as far as I know that I disagree with JP about. I asked him this but he never replied. You replied for him. I wonder why.



You do appear to hasten to defend him. You can't let him do it himself.



Good for you for googling what it is. I realised my mistake but didn't correct it. And English is not my first language (I speak 4).

Let me explain something that is opaque to you but maybe Bullitt can confirm. Hopefully then we can finally chillax and put this to rest. The reason I didn’t immediately respond to your initial post was that it was a topic that required some thorough reasoning and I was posting between other things. Firing off a distracted sentence or two wouldn’t cut it. Then when I came back to the thread I saw Bullitt had covered most the things I would have said, saving me the trouble so I quickly fired off a good job. A few minutes later I had a separate though about what he had written so I came back and edited my post to include the bit about the two camps. It was within the timeframe where posts don’t show as edited but was a completely separate thought as I had moved on from your post entirely. Understand?

 

[Bullitt68]

He was referring to me albeit indirectly.

His exact words to you:

I wasn’t necessarily even putting you in that camp - was just making an observation on two camps that exist.

For further clarification:

I had a separate though about what he had written so I came back and edited my post to include the bit about the two camps.

Note the word "separate." He had a separate, more general observation that he wanted to make that had nothing to do with you.

Even you affirmed it when you said: "as you presented yourself as one such detractor, he was intrigued enough to try to start a conversation with you. Unfortunately, all he got was hostility and aggression." Let us see, he was referring to detractors. You affirm that I present my self as a detractor. Therefore He was referring to me. You are being very dishonest and disingenuous.

He was referring to two distinct camps of detractors. You presented yourself as a type of detractor to which he was not referring - though it seems that you had no reason to as you're claiming that you don't even consider yourself a detractor - so he followed up his original post, which had nothing to do with you, by attempting to engage you in a new, different conversation.

And you immediately bit his head off:

I don’t follow what you’re asking

That is because what you posted there was nonsense, an unthought reaction.

All you had to do there was say something like, "I'm not in either one of those two camps you mentioned. Where I'm coming from is [insert your own thoughts]. How would you respond to that?" Instead, you called the valid observation that he made - which you plainly didn't understand and mistakenly assumed was an insult directed at you - nonsense and then went on to claim that the existence of a single person who didn't fit into one of the two camps Gunny said Peterson's detractors tend to fall into entirely refutes the observation the way some knucklehead would reject the thesis that fans of MMA tend to be men by pointing out that they're a woman who likes MMA.

On top of demonstrating poor logic, you also demonstrated poor character. Any time you want to take a step back, take a deep breath, and reset for a new conversation, I'm sure we'd all enjoy taking another crack at discussing actual points of Peterson's rather than continuing this eristic quibbling.

I asked questions which neither of you have responded to.

I actually did respond to your questions. And you yourself responded to my response with a "fair enough," which indicated to me that you were satisfied with my response. Is there something else that you'd like to discuss?

One shouldn't assume that one is a detractor based on one basic disagreement that turns out to be an agreement.

As I've mentioned to you several times, nobody assumed you were a detractor. Gunny's point about the tendency of detractors to fall into one of two camps was a general observation in response to a general point that I'd made. Hence, once again, his response to you:

I wasn’t necessarily even putting you in that camp - was just making an observation on two camps that exist.

I also admitted that there was nothing so far as I know that I disagree about with JP. You clarified that the mythology, bible and Freud/Jung are not pushed as science. So I am not a detractor.

Ok, so if you don't even consider yourself a detractor, why continue quibbling over which detractor camp best fits you? How about we move on to something else? Is there anything else about Peterson's ideas you'd like to discuss?

 

[meauneau]

His exact words to you:



For further clarification:



Note the word "separate." He had a separate, more general observation that he wanted to make that had nothing to do with you.



He was referring to two distinct camps of detractors. You presented yourself as a type of detractor to which he was not referring - though it seems that you had no reason to as you're claiming that you don't even consider yourself a detractor - so he followed up his original post, which had nothing to do with you, by attempting to engage you in a new, different conversation.

And you immediately bit his head off:




All you had to do there was say something like, "I'm not in either one of those two camps you mentioned. Where I'm coming from is [insert your own thoughts]. How would you respond to that?" Instead, you called the valid observation that he made - which you plainly didn't understand and mistakenly assumed was an insult directed at you - nonsense and then went on to claim that the existence of a single person who didn't fit into one of the two camps Gunny said Peterson's detractors tend to fall into entirely refutes the observation the way some knucklehead would reject the thesis that fans of MMA tend to be men by pointing out that they're a woman who likes MMA.

On top of demonstrating poor logic, you also demonstrated poor character. Any time you want to take a step back, take a deep breath, and reset for a new conversation, I'm sure we'd all enjoy taking another crack at discussing actual points of Peterson's rather than continuing this eristic quibbling.



I actually did respond to your questions. And you yourself responded to my response with a "fair enough," which indicated to me that you were satisfied with my response. Is there something else that you'd like to discuss?



As I've mentioned to you several times, nobody assumed you were a detractor. Gunny's point about the tendency of detractors to fall into one of two camps was a general observation in response to a general point that I'd made. Hence, once again, his response to you:





Ok, so if you don't even consider yourself a detractor, why continue quibbling over which detractor camp best fits you? How about we move on to something else? Is there anything else about Peterson's ideas you'd like to discuss?

My first post was a conjecture as to why someone would reject JP, I thought it could be the fact that he uses material from pseudoscience to teach. You clarified that he knows it is pseudoscience and only uses it as a pedagogical tool. But then you wanted to keep going, why I don't know, so you started to respond for Gunny. You could have ended it a long time ago but maybe you felt you needed to practice your eristical skills and exercise your pedantry, so you kept going. The conversation about JP and his pseudoscience was ended a long time ago. All this is you arguing for Gunny.

I explained that I wasn't a detractor in the very beginning, but apparently Gunny didn't get it, you did but it took you a while. Finally Gunny understood that I am not a detractor of JP. You were thinking and replying for Gunny as if he were incapable of thinking for himself. So he only said that he didn't refer to me after the fact that I stated I wasn't a detractor. Had you let him think and reply himself this wouldn't have gotten this far. But then you wouldn't have gotten to exercise you padantry and eristics.

He said that detractors tend to be members of the 2 biggest groups of detractors which are SJW leftists and Sam Harris atheists (he could have just said new atheists). Since he thought I was a detractor (even after I explained I wasn't), it is reasonable to assume that he placed me in 1 of the 2 groups, which makes sense because if for instance 1 out of 10 people tend to fall into 1 of 2 groups then there is a high probability that I would be from 1 of the 2 groups rather than a 3rd or 4th smaller group. So it is a valid assumption on my part.

 

[Gunny]

My first post was a conjecture as to why someone would reject JP, I thought it could be the fact that he uses material from pseudoscience to teach. You clarified that he knows it is pseudoscience and only uses it as a pedagogical tool. But then you wanted to keep going, why I don't know, so you started to respond for Gunny. You could have ended it a long time ago but maybe you felt you needed to practice your eristical skills and exercise your pedantry, so you kept going. The conversation about JP and his pseudoscience was ended a long time ago. All this is you arguing for Gunny.

I explained that I wasn't a detractor in the very beginning, but apparently Gunny didn't get it, you did but it took you a while. Finally Gunny understood that I am not a detractor of JP. You were thinking and replying for Gunny as if he were incapable of thinking for himself. So he only said that he didn't refer to me after the fact that I stated I wasn't a detractor. Had you let him think and reply himself this wouldn't have gotten this far. But then you wouldn't have gotten to exercise you padantry and eristics.

He said that detractors tend to be members of the 2 biggest groups of detractors which are SJW leftists and Sam Harris atheists (he could have just said new atheists). Since he thought I was a detractor (even after I explained I wasn't), it is reasonable to assume that he placed me in 1 of the 2 groups, which makes sense because if for instance 1 out of 10 people tend to fall into 1 of 2 groups then there is a high probability that I would be from 1 of the 2 groups rather than a 3rd or 4th smaller group. So it is a valid assumption on my part.

It seems like you didn’t even read my last response to you and have now taken to dueling with strawmen

 

[meauneau]

It seems like you didn’t even read my last response to you and have now taken to dueling with strawmen

I forgot to read it because Bullit thinks and responds for you. He probably thinks that he can do it better than you or that you are incapable.

OK, I just read it. There was some confusion, with bullit taking your place and responding for you and all. It should have been you and me discussing this. I would have asked you how it is that 1 of 2 biggest groups of JP's detractors is a brand you call "Sam Harris atheists/materialists" You could have explained how you know that this is 1 of 2 largest groups and so on. But bullit had to exercise his pedantry and eristical skills.

 

[Metusalemi]

 

[Spoken]

I still cant understand, is he religious or not??? Seriously asking.

Yes. And no. He certainly draws from theological categories... but he's in no way an orthodox Christian. But he's very sympathetic