Forced monogamy is a little nutty unless it was sarcasm but the online outcry over it suggests that was not the case. Plus he doesn't strike me as the type to joke around. The solution makes no sense but I do agree that it can linked as a cause to these types of attacks. It's why those 72 virgins are so appealing to guys on the other part of the world.

Having a lover will not change crazy though. The Las Vegas guy had a foreign wife afterall. Sex love and relationships are things most people take for granted. It's a part of being a normal human being. When you never experience it I can see why young guys lash out. It seems to happen daily in the US and tbh I'm kinda surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Or you could read what the man himself feels about the subject.  Instead of having an emotional reaction to someone who took him out of context and made a tweet or wrote a provocateur article.  The words may sound nutty.  But do you know the context of what he meant?  Do you even have his words right?  It's not forced monogamy.  It's enforced.  



jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/



such willingness to accept misrepresentation.  or accept opinion without looking into things sort of amazes me.

Still a little confused behind the regulation of monogamy.

How brothels (except Nevada) aren’t legal in the US perplexes me, isn’t it the land of the free?

May 24, 2018 13:33:14 GMT System said:

How brothels (except Nevada) aren’t legal in the US perplexes me, isn’t it the land of the free?

We are free to be arrested if we decide to do anything fun.

May 24, 2018 13:25:32 GMT @ness said:

Still a little confused behind the regulation of monogamy.

I do not mean this to be preachy or to be construed as a fact.  I think he could be referring to monogamy over the opposite or as opposed to other social structures.  As in polygamy.  If men were allowed to have as many wives as they wanted the most attractive would hoard them all.  Kind of like the 1% and wealth distribution.  Monogamy is a more even distribution that gives everyone a chance.  It makes some sense in an evolutionary way.  A lot of animal structures only allow one to mate and he may consider that not as healthy for people?

I think one of Jordan's self admitted weaknesses is that he is going to say something wrong. He knows he is. Oddly he puts himself out there in these free thought talks like a Joe Rogan show, where he is damn near spitballing ideas as many do. But people are taking his words and putting them into sound bites to drive controversy to sell papers and clicks.

It's his own fault. He is a random psychology guy that got pushed into a little fame and now is trying to monetize it the best he can while spreading a message. His pseudo-altruism in self-help gets lost with public image and trying to sell books. He is a blur. The interviews he does with non-intellectuals only add to the confusion. They get sloppy. They have agendas. They don't fit his. He may think he is using them and they are using him but it does make things more confusing. The man in an interview with a news personality is a different man than the man giving lectures. He is a different man than the guy having a conversation with some other intellectual.

And it is not only the people who oppose him that misconstrue him. His fan boys that make clip mashups on youtube of him talking to various interviewers and labeling them as Jordan Peterson destroying leftist opponents aren't helping present a clear image either.


I think this podcast really portrays some of the complexities of Jordan Peterson well.

www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/canadaland-guide-jordan-b-peterson/

He is in over his head. He knows it. He is trying to sell books and help people. But it is all getting distorted as well. Arguably, he is trying to make money. Some would say that is his sole mission. They may be right. But that is not inherently bad or evil.

May 24, 2018 13:40:50 GMT theend said:

May 24, 2018 13:25:32 GMT @ness said:

Still a little confused behind the regulation of monogamy.

I do not mean this to be preachy or to be construed as a fact.  I think he could be referring to monogamy over the opposite or as opposed to other social structures.  As in polygamy.  If men were allowed to have as many wives as they wanted the most attractive would hoard them all.  Kind of like the 1% and wealth distribution.  Monogamy is a more even distribution that gives everyone a chance.  It makes some sense in an evolutionary way.  A lot of animal structures only allow one to mate and he may consider that not as healthy for people?

That is pretty much exactly what Peterson is saying.

But it’s still dumb. We’ve lived in a society of mostly monogamy for centuries and look where it got us.

May 24, 2018 13:40:50 GMT theend said:

May 24, 2018 13:25:32 GMT @ness said:

Still a little confused behind the regulation of monogamy.

I do not mean this to be preachy or to be construed as a fact.  I think he could be referring to monogamy over the opposite or as opposed to other social structures.  As in polygamy.  If men were allowed to have as many wives as they wanted the most attractive would hoard them all.  Kind of like the 1% and wealth distribution.  Monogamy is a more even distribution that gives everyone a chance.  It makes some sense in an evolutionary way.  A lot of animal structures only allow one to mate and he may consider that not as healthy for people?

I do agree that it gives men more incentive to contribute to society. Men who have a wife and family are more willing to play ball than a solo man with no ties to a community. There was a study that suggested a married man makes more than his single counter. I assume that benefits society since you're more likely to contribute if you got skin in the game.

The incels tend to not have ties due to social isolation and what have you. The world has changed so these types have less of a chance to get someone. Less men are dying due to war so competition is there. Women are earning just as much if not more so they have zero reason to settle with someone they aren't attracted to. These men are isolated and lonely but what can be done to give them a reason to want to be part of society that openly hates them?

Prostitutes aren't the fix because often it's not the act of sex they are seeking. Is this just the way of life?

Well, prostitution can provide more than sex. At least according to many who say that it is often not about sex but about companionship and a near girlfriend like experience. I am not totally convinced that prostitution is any type of answer or cure. Or that there is or should be one.

I do tend to look at some of the Asian prostitution or even ladyboy cultures and see all sorts of different dimensions to the companionship roles. From Larry Hillblom the creator of DHL to others. I honestly think that even the most companion / paid girlfriend type experience is hollow. That's just my feeling on it. It can't be as fulfilling as a mutually consensual, arguably normal relationship.

Someone feeling radically outcast and hyperfocused on it I don't believe would be satiated by a prostitute.

Arguably to RT, 's point. We did live in a more monogamous culture until divorce was fully embraced by most societies. Now we have a new dimension of single parenthood and some would say that divorce arguably favors women and hurts men. Some of this may lead to more fatherless homes and not the image of a traditional monogamous culture.

Men have beat their wives since pretty much the dawn of time ... monogamy doesn't curb violence.

May 23, 2018 2:28:42 GMT RT said:

Given I had barely paid attention to the guy since his transgender thing and hadn’t read his recent interview, I decided to do a little digging before I made up my mind.

I’m with KJ. Guy’s a whack job and a terrible voice for young men.

Here he is implying that if men had the underlying threat of physical violence when dealing with “crazy women” they might resolve issues better, much like when men get in an argument (which isn’t true, many men I know, myself included, don’t “know” a conversation could end in a fight)



I read he did a book tour with Ben Shapiro. So fuck him for that.

He believes white privilege is a lie and that all women’s studies and various ethnic studies should all be scrapped.

And I read the NY Times article and you all should too. There’s no defending him after this: mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.amp.html

Highlights:
-I was not surprised to learn he is from northern Alberta, and that the prairies are where many of his fans are. For those of you that don’t know, northern Alberta is Canada’s Mississippi.

-our patriarchal society exists because men are more competent than women (has nothing to with literal millennia of oppression)

-violent attacks happen because men don’t have partners, referring to the Toronto van attack (and this was before the Texas shooting but it counts too, I imagine). Like no married man has ever violently attacked anyone. Hitler was married!

-witches are real

-so are dragons? He’s trying to be metaphorical but fails.

-the reporter laughs at his absurdity and he blames that on her being a woman.

-“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’”

LOL...never met a self-conscious woman in my entire life! Nope, never!

I stopped here because I got fed up. Go ahead and read it though. The man is terrible.

RT I love you, but this post is infuriating, I don't know Jordan Peterson and neither am I widely read up on his views, but that NYT article is a hatchet piece and about the worst level of journalism that anyone could put forward.
I have no time for such writing when the sneer is evident from the beginning of the article to the end, this is not how we win people to your side, it's petty preaching to the choir and it's tiring.
One of my guilty pleasures is the Dilbert comic strip, and I have no particular love for the author, but they wrote a great post on hatchet pieces after he was torn to shreds for correctly predicting a Trump victory: blog.dilbert.com/2017/03/22/some-fake-news-about-me-from-bloomberg/

It's so tiring on both sides.

May 24, 2018 15:10:33 GMT KJ said:

Men have beat their wives since pretty much the dawn of time ... monogamy doesn't curb violence.

That's not what the idea of monogamy promotes.
Men who hit women are scum!
It's true that men are the more inherently violent of the sexes, what it puts forward is that men as a whole are less violent when they have wives and families to care for and a stable society.

The whole topic of monogamy is fascinating, the sexual liberation age was meant to destigmatize sex and bring it to everyone to enjoy... But it didn't.
At the core of the issue, men desire sex more than women and women hold all of the power when it comes to relationships (up to a certain age).
What seems to be happening is that probably 95% of women are dating the top 40% of men.
What I mean is that if we boil it down to it's basest form, that even a woman who is a 4/10 is able to have sex with a 7/10 bloke if she feels like it.
This sort of translated to women rather than men sowing their wild oats and then coming back to marry an average guy when their biological clock started ticking.
It's not surprising that these men who were denied for so long are starting to say no thanks when these 30-something women come knocking for the ring and the picket fence.

Again, monogamy is the most stable of ways to construct a society and have the basic needs of men and women fulfilled.
I don't think this should be enforced in any way, I don't want to live in a hand maid's tale, but I also see a return at some point to more traditional ways of living.

I can’t believe a female journalist tore down a man who obviously has no respect for women. I’m shocked.

I quoted things Peterson said then gave my personal opinion on them. That’s all I did.

May 25, 2018 2:00:44 GMT RT said:

I can’t believe a female journalist tore down a man who obviously has no respect for women. I’m shocked.

I quoted things Peterson said then gave my personal opinion on them. That’s all I did.

No, you quoted the NYT article which caricatured a lot of the positions that the guy holds.
He might be among the greatest ass clowns on planet but it is not helpful to a debate to ridicule.
If the reporter couldn't be objective then don't write the article.
It would be just as easy to write an insightful piece that dismantled the arguments of the incel rather than trying to openly mock the position.
Ask Hillary how much her comments about the "deplorables" helped her cause.

I’ll give you that. Letting the guy talk and letting the words speak for themselves is an easy way to make him look like a jackass, but these days that isn’t enough anymore. And hell, laying out the facts isn’t either sometimes.

All I know is that I focused more on what he was saying rather than the mockery to make up my own mind. Hopefully most people that read the article do the same.

May 25, 2018 1:58:04 GMT iNCY said:

May 24, 2018 15:10:33 GMT KJ said:

Men have beat their wives since pretty much the dawn of time ... monogamy doesn't curb violence.

That's not what the idea of monogamy promotes.
Men who hit women are scum!
It's true that men are the more inherently violent of the sexes, what it puts forward is that men as a whole are less violent when they have wives and families to care for and a stable society.

The whole topic of monogamy is fascinating, the sexual liberation age was meant to destigmatize sex and bring it to everyone to enjoy... But it didn't.
At the core of the issue, men desire sex more than women and women hold all of the power when it comes to relationships (up to a certain age).
What seems to be happening is that probably 95% of women are dating the top 40% of men.
What I mean is that if we boil it down to it's basest form, that even a woman who is a 4/10 is able to have sex with a 7/10 bloke if she feels like it.
This sort of translated to women rather than men sowing their wild oats and then coming back to marry an average guy when their biological clock started ticking.
It's not surprising that these men who were denied for so long are starting to say no thanks when these 30-something women come knocking for the ring and the picket fence.

Again, monogamy is the most stable of ways to construct a society and have the basic needs of men and women fulfilled.
I don't think this should be enforced in any way, I don't want to live in a hand maid's tale, but I also see a return at some point to more traditional ways of living.

I’m pretty sure you’re a Christian. Care to take a guess how many times the Bible advocates hitting or punishing your wife?

You cannot say monogamy is the better course when everything in modern western society limited the role and voice of women until the last several decades.

I’m waiting for some evidence that society has been better because of the traditional standards of gender and marriage. Which part of this society was peaceful? Didn’t have poverty? Didn’t have war? Didn’t have huge swaths of people persecuted for race, religion, or gender? Didn’t have violence? Murder? Crime?

This diatribe about women having the audacity to not settle down - and the idea successful women or older women “settle” for men (or that men are rejecting them) - is based on what exactly?

Point blank: you’re advocating for the old days where women kept their fucking mouths shut and every guy was king of his castle. Where women were second class citizens and gay people were the embarrassment no one talked about.

It sickening, and the lot of you with this viewpoint are the true negative in society ... not free-thinking women and transgendered people.

May 25, 2018 2:43:30 GMT KJ said:

May 25, 2018 1:58:04 GMT iNCY said:

That's not what the idea of monogamy promotes.
Men who hit women are scum!
It's true that men are the more inherently violent of the sexes, what it puts forward is that men as a whole are less violent when they have wives and families to care for and a stable society.

The whole topic of monogamy is fascinating, the sexual liberation age was meant to destigmatize sex and bring it to everyone to enjoy... But it didn't.
At the core of the issue, men desire sex more than women and women hold all of the power when it comes to relationships (up to a certain age).
What seems to be happening is that probably 95% of women are dating the top 40% of men.
What I mean is that if we boil it down to it's basest form, that even a woman who is a 4/10 is able to have sex with a 7/10 bloke if she feels like it.
This sort of translated to women rather than men sowing their wild oats and then coming back to marry an average guy when their biological clock started ticking.
It's not surprising that these men who were denied for so long are starting to say no thanks when these 30-something women come knocking for the ring and the picket fence.

Again, monogamy is the most stable of ways to construct a society and have the basic needs of men and women fulfilled.
I don't think this should be enforced in any way, I don't want to live in a hand maid's tale, but I also see a return at some point to more traditional ways of living.

I’m pretty sure you’re a Christian. Care to take a guess how many times the Bible advocates hitting or punishing your wife?

You cannot say monogamy is the better course when everything in modern western society limited the role and voice of women until the last several decades.

I’m waiting for some evidence that society has been better because of the traditional standards of gender and marriage. Which part of this society was peaceful? Didn’t have poverty? Didn’t have war? Didn’t have huge swaths of people persecuted for race, religion, or gender? Didn’t have violence? Murder? Crime?

This diatribe about women having the audacity to not settle down - and the idea successful women or older women “settle” for men (or that men are rejecting them) - is based on what exactly?

Point blank: you’re advocating for the old days where women kept their fucking mouths shut and every guy was king of his castle. Where women were second class citizens and gay people were the embarrassment no one talked about.

It sickening, and the lot of you with this viewpoint are the true negative in society ... not free-thinking women and transgendered people.

Oh really I am advocating for women to be second class citizens? Where exactly?
What I am advocating is that society works best when a man and a woman marry and raise a family together.
There are numerous articles on the power of a good stable nuclear family.
If you would like a scholarly article, then by all means: news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

But because I advocate monogamy I am therefore advocating domestic violence? What a ridiculous proposition.
If a man hits a woman she should get her divorce and every last cent the man owns, I am unwavering in my condemnation of domestic violence and I am actually 100% in favour of an egalitarian society. My wife is every bit my equal in every single aspect of our relationship and at the moment I work and she raises the children but she has 100% control over all aspects of our money and can have anything she wants. She drives a nicer car than I do, and I take it as my personal responsibility to make sure she is happy.
I have two daughters which mean the world to me and I will raise them to be whatever they want in this world, but I will raise them as Christians and I will teach them what I believe to be good morals as I would teach my sons. 

I don't think any woman should "have" to "settle" every person is free to do whatever they want. My point is that sexual liberation is a poor substitute for the happiness that a good monogamous relationship can bring.
We all have needs, why is it so shameful to admit that wanting to settle down and have a family is important?

And for the record, as a Christian I would be very interested in knowing where my religion condoned domestic violence.
I am pretty sure that Jesus is quite the fan of women... But by all means, re-educate me   

That article compares polygamy to monogamy, and that is absolutey not the same thing as the forced monogamy we’ve been discussing (it was also about men taking multiple wives, which is further from what we’re talking about).

You’ve lept from women “sowing their oats” and settling down at an older age to somehow the idea of a nuclear family being better? When I don’t think anyone has argued a full home - vs a broken home - is likely better. I’d tend to agree with that as well, mind you.

But the core idea RT and I are arguing against is that men need monogamy to cease being violence, while Peterson has blamed (or inferred) their violent behavior as a result of women rejecting them. You’ve introduced the idea that women have rejected them to essentially be more independent than ever before. So you’ve roundabout blamed women for the issues by not embracing the traditional path of marriage of yesteryear. Even though again, there’s no evidence society was better when this happened (again: not a statement on broken homes vs nuclear families).

And sorry - I meant biblical violence to women, not just wives.

May 25, 2018 3:13:16 GMT KJ said:

That article compares polygamy to monogamy, and that is absolutey not the same thing as the forced monogamy we’ve been discussing (it was also about men taking multiple wives, which is further from what we’re talking about).

You’ve lept from women “sowing their oats” and settling down at an older age to somehow the idea of a nuclear family being better? When I don’t think anyone has argued a full home - vs a broken home - is likely better. I’d tend to agree with that as well, mind you.

But the core idea RT and I are arguing against is that men need monogamy to cease being violence, while Peterson has blamed (or inferred) their violent behavior as a result of women rejecting them. You’ve introduced the idea that women have rejected them to essentially be more independent than ever before. So you’ve roundabout blamed women for the issues by not embracing the traditional path of marriage of yesteryear. Even though again, there’s no evidence society was better when this happened (again: not a statement on broken homes vs nuclear families).

And sorry - I meant biblical violence to women, not just wives.

I didn't blame women, I expressed a view that the sexual revolution has not left men, women or society in a better state than it was before.
As far as women's rights, separate issue and I full endorse an equality of the sexes and everyone has the right to choose the type of relationship they want to pursue.
Monogamy does make for less violent societies, that was shown in the article I linked to, there is a direct correlation between an even playing field for men in the mating states and a peaceful society.
When you have sexual liberation you basically have polygamy without the marriage with the most successful men sleeping with the most women, lucky blokes I guess.
Is this women's fault? No it's not, but I maintain the societal norms they're pushing for have disadvantaged them as much as men.
I have not patience for the old time views of men sowing their wild oats and then wanting to marry a virgin, I think it was hypocritical rubbish... But I also don't blame anyone man or woman who doesn't feel inclined to marry someone who wouldn't have looked at them twice in their youth when playing the field.

Please enlighten me by the way on Christian teaching of violence towards women... I missed that chapter and look forward to your exegesis. 

Women are the un happiest they have ever been, and I’d be willing to bet that has to do with the lack of value a nuclear family is now given and other points Incy mentioned.

www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/advice/a10665/female-depression-why-women-are-unhappier-than-theyve-been-in-years-385696/

May 25, 2018 9:27:40 GMT System said:

Women are the un happiest they have ever been, and I’d be willing to bet that has to do with the lack of value a nuclear family is now given and other points Incy mentioned.

www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/advice/a10665/female-depression-why-women-are-unhappier-than-theyve-been-in-years-385696/

So you’re going with the decline of the nuclear family vs all of the analyses and rationale laid out in the nine-year-old article you cited? You know, all those things that identify the disparity between men and women in the work place?

Do we also want to talk about how mental health is no longer the same taboo, “keep it to yourself” issue that many women (and men) dealt with previously? Same as things like alcoholism went untreated or beating kids went unreported?

It’s just as likely that women are depressed because the patriarchy isn’t crumbling as fast as they want it to, or the fact a mysoginist sociopath beat a woman to the White House, or the fact that everyone is more depressed, not just women. Or that millennials will forever be in debt. Or the economy sucking. Or a million other factors.

This article was posted in the Toronto Star today. A former colleague of Peterson’s wrote about him and his rise to fame. It’s a very good read, and not just because the guy agrees with me and KJ:

“That all changed with his rise to celebrity. I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.”

www.thestar.com/amp/news/insight/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

I've spent months trying to think who Jordan Peterson looks like and I've realised it's a thinner, short haired Bret Hart.

So I went to his live speaking event on Saturday. No protestors outside. No uproar. I didn't expect any inside as it was a ticketed paid event. If it was free on a college campus the concept of protestors inside may have happened. But I think that it didn't happen on a college campus quelled almost all chance of protest. Or that a pussy hat gets hot in 90-degree weather.

The audience was probably 65-70% male. Mostly white, but I would say it would be the same fair mix if it was a stand-up comedian. Speaking of stand-up, on part of his tour classical liberal Dave Rubin does 30 minutes of comedy before Jordan comes on. I did not get this at my show. No opener.


I went into trying to look at it like as if I was a journalist writing an article to get people pissed off about it. But it failed to deliver. It would more likely just bore you. If you want to be pissed you would be pissed that the lecture was more like a slow sales pitch for his other offerings. As if he assumes everyone in the audience already has his one book and he has a chance to sell his other book or his writing course or self-authoring program.

Apparently, he has done 23 cities with 23 different lectures. And isn't just repeating himself every night. This is supposed to appeal to the idea of coming to see multiple cities. So maybe only I got saddled with a bit of a long-winded sales pitch. Or maybe he likes talking about what he really feels he knows well, his work.

I can't imagine one thing that he said would have been triggering until it got to the Q and A section. We were all supposed to go to a website and offer questions and people could upvote them on the app. After 1.5 hours of running his mouth he leaves for less than 5 minutes and comes back with a laptop and reads some very short questions. Not the ones that were upvoted. But just seemingly scrolling at random. Then he gets to one coming from a woman who has a 2 sons and is concerned about how males are marginalized on tv in commercials and tv shows. No details in her question. No need to attack her question. But this gives Jordan 20 minutes to spit on how we know Jordan. He ties together Marxism, post modernism and the Russian revolution to how the university system turned into tv commercials making men look stupid.

The only merch available were black and white posters of the 12 rules. Pretty basic. I did see some buying some. The theater was fairly well sold out. I saw no obvious neo-nazis. Only one or two real verbal outbursts in the whole thing. All together it was probably more boring of a social experience than anything else.

Trivia to note is that Boy George was on a poster to be in the same venue. He was fully busted for basically kidnapping a guy.  Guess his career bounced back.

Jun 18, 2018 15:03:13 GMT theend said:

Speaking of stand-up, on part of his tour classical liberal Dave Rubin does 30 minutes of comedy before Jordan comes on. I did not get this at my show. No opener.

:lol:

Now this moron I know something about. Rubin is a very basic libertarian, and has (successfully) help redefine the term "classic liberal" to rebrand libertarianism. Maybe he really believed he was still a "classic liberal" in the sense he claimed when he first left TYT (with his, "I'm still liberal, just not on the far left like those other lunatics!"*), but he's devolved into spouting off ordinary libertarian talking points in the last couple of years, and is literally partnered with a libertarian think tank called Learn Liberty. If you bothered to click on the link, and I don't blame you if you don't, you'll notice that Learn Liberty is a "Project of IHS," which is the Institute for Humane Studies, a Koch Brothers project, the super Republican billionaire donors who have transformed the party to the far right since David Koch failed as a Presidential candidate in 1980, and decided it was easier to start buying congress members instead, and he was correct. Rubin basically receives a paycheck from the same dudes who pay Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the worse dipshit Republicans you could imagine.

Rubin is the posterboy for right winger pretending not to be a right winger. IHS mentions on their website, "The Institute for Humane Studies is the leading institute in higher education dedicated to championing classical liberal ideas and the scholars who advance them," so I wouldn't be surprised if they put that term back out there first, and Rubin just followed suit proclaiming himself to be one after the partnership. Either way, I got to give it to them, it worked. You see "classic liberals" back in the lexicon, and used in the same incorrect way Rubin uses it. Rubin has been very useful, indoctrinating right wing ideologies under the false guise of a more moderate liberalism, so most of his idiotic audience has no idea how far right their beliefs really are now. Very clever propaganda. 

This guy being Jordan Peterson's biggest fan tells me most of what I have to know about Jordan Peterson.

I was really curious to see how he did comedy Kilgore

Michael Shermer also identifies himself as a classical liberal now too.


Best friend may be a stretch.

This is amazing

Jun 21, 2018 11:32:22 GMT RT said:

This is amazing

If that segment didn’t end with him calling Peterson a cunt, it’s all a wash.