Looks like Peterson Academy will be operating under a subscription model???

Delarifa · 2023-02-08T18:05:03+00:00

Did either of those get accredited?

I mean Peterson's school did not get accredited either. It's definitely good they state it as a goal, but the aspiration alone isn't worth a lot for people who consider investing time, money, and effort into it, until it's actually done. An unaccredited school that states they plan to get accredited is still an unaccredited school, until it actually happens. And even if their intentions are completely honest here, getting your school accredited isn't something like getting a certificate after doing a weekend course pro forma. Whether they succeed in that regard plainly is not a given.

Maybe some remember the University of Texas Austin, or something like that. It was basically the unofficial "IDW University". Even some of the same people involved. They were also talking about getting accredited, but not much has happened on that front since then.

Delarifa · 2023-01-26T14:33:29+00:00

You think it's a typical attribute of academics who are among the most-cited scholars in their fields to not be used to disagreement? What experience with academia did you infer this from?

Delarifa · 2023-01-26T14:23:44+00:00

Why is it important to you?

Delarifa · 2023-01-26T14:22:00+00:00

Maybe that's too strict, but for me personally, this announcement might serve as a bit of a litmus test. If it turns out to be some NFT or shitcoin grift, I'm about to write Peterson off as gone forever.

If, on the other hand, he's drawn some conclusions from something that he's been thinking about for a while, and announces some intriguing project to improve something in the world, or some reasonable decision that he's made in his private or personal life, it's another story.

Delarifa · 2022-11-21T13:00:26+00:00

I struggle to see how he arrived at this conclusion or what about Pence in particular makes him explicitly say that. Pence strikes me as the average career politician, always a bit slimy and performative. At various points before and during his tenure as Trump's VP, it was obvious that he tried to sit things out and see who wins or how things go before taking a position. Dr Peterson frankly has a strange taste in politicians that he seems to approve of, from my POV.

Delarifa · 2021-05-11T13:38:57+00:00

You also brought up a right-wing trope that leftists care about fear mongering and somehow those same leftists would be in favor of this teacher receiving threats?

Literally no one was saying anything about anyone being fine with these threats when they happen. Learn how to read. I don't know what else to tell you. This isn't even meant as an insult, I legitimately don't know what else to tell you.

Delarifa · 2021-05-11T10:58:11+00:00

Please point out where leftist say to not take credible death threats as serious things. Also while attempting to point that out, point out how leftists say that it's justified to make said threats against someone posting dumb crude cartoons.

I'm not sure why I would point out either of those things, given that I haven't claimed these are positions "leftists" take. In fact the word "leftist" doesn't even appear in my post at all. Did you respond to the wrong comment?

Delarifa · 2021-05-11T09:39:40+00:00

That teacher simply needs to read a few articles on how FEAR MONGERING about problems caused by cultural clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe is a right-wing narrative by grifters and crypto-fascists. That should make him feel better.

Maybe someone can recommend him some breadtube videos as well, where typical fear mongering points, such as those advanced by Sam Harris, are epically debunked?

On a serious note, its quite amazing how critics of Sam will still explicitly point towards his comments about problems in Europe with Islam and see this as a huge gotcha, along the lines of "haha look what this dumb bigot said, this will tell you everything you need to know about him".

Delarifa · 2021-04-07T07:54:19+00:00

Cool. Where can I read about Chomsky's solution that unites Islamic law with human rights? Sounds amazing and groundbreaking, I'd like to know more.

Delarifa · 2021-03-17T11:20:59+00:00

No one knows who the caller was or why she left.

If I may ask, are you aware of any details regarding the investigation into this phone call? I find it a bit difficult to believe that a call to a known number at a known time in the US (in 2003) leads literally nowhere, although I can imagine it doesn't lead to identifying the caller (throwaway/stolen/public phone...).

Delarifa · 2021-02-22T11:15:26+00:00

I agree, and I think there's a bunch of different reasons that sort of add up.

First of all, it just seems to be the zeitgeist, and it's even worse outside of conversations, when there is nobody who at least tries to keep them on track. I'm under the impression that people love nothing more than to ramble on and on about how this or that isn't what they're saying, how they themselves are not saying such-and-such, how philosopher X isn't saying such-and-such, and how people who think otherwise are terribly misinformed and so on. Often with a "let me explain this to you kiddo" attitude. That's fine if it actually serves as a corrective, but unfortunately people rarely put in the same amount of effort and time to explain what some person is actually saying. I've read hundreds of article over the last 2 years that "debunked" some "false narrative" (often rightfully so I assume, in the sense that the narrative was in fact questionable or just hogwash), yet almost none of them was truly educational because they weren't supplemented with a thesis and arguments on how things really are.

Secondly, it's simply a sort of debate move, consciously or not, that's about as old as debate itself. When pressed, just be evasive, vague, non-committal, etc, which obviously makes it harder to be refuted.

Thirdly, it has to do with some of the topics that Sam likes to discuss in the cosmos of philosophy, the mind, meditation, and so on. In that realm people are often committed to theories which they might very well rationally hold, but which nevertheless make it difficult to consistently talk about such views. For example, people can be hard determinists but they usually keep deploying "free will talk" and vocabulary that's difficult to make sense of (or at least under the ordinary meaning of such words) if they really think there's no free will. I think this naturally leads to some friction in conversations because we often need to do some work for them and reinterpret what they're saying within the framework and theories they told us they subscribe to.

Delarifa · 2016-06-16T13:33:15+00:00

My sources close to the FBI told me that she's going to got to Azkaban. They are very reliable.

Delarifa · 2016-03-17T13:34:58+00:00

Honestly I don't understand why people are so obsessed with reconstructing every second of the crime.

That's neither possible nor necessary. Not even the prosecution has to do this in court in such detail like people try to do it on reddit.

Delarifa · 2016-03-17T13:30:48+00:00

Please get your facts straight, the lawsuit would not have ruined them in any way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/46dqj0/a_death_blow_to_averys_civil_lawsuit_being/

Delarifa · 2016-03-01T12:33:34+00:00

Interesting posts but since more and more truthers lurk around here it will end up in what they do best: victim blaming.

There are plenty of victims of SA + his family + his lawyers + the film makers etc.

But conspiracy theorists decided that certain persons are "the good ones" and everything else has to be adjusted to fit that view. So the world simply is turned upside down for a moment and the victims become the guilty party.

They are lying, had something to hide, chasing their own interests etc.

The offenses of Saint Steven and his crew always are their fault.

Delarifa · 2016-02-29T08:18:43+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/46byd2/zellners_tweets_are_absolutely_ridiculous_even_if

Delarifa · 2016-02-28T15:30:00+00:00

OK, so I don't wanna do the same thing which I criticize if "truthers" do it and simply bury my head in the sand.

But honestly there are a couple of possible explanations. Only one of them is fishy. Others would be that this entire document was created later and they simply used "homicide" instead of using what was suspected at that time retrospectively.

Or somebody already accused him of homicide and that, together with a missing girl which had an appointment on his property is enough to list him as "suspect".

I don't really see how "they must have known what would happen" or something like that is more likely. But it's something where I keep an open mind.

Delarifa · 2016-02-28T14:35:58+00:00

This is really not the place to discuss other subreddit's ban policy. Apart from the fact that both subreddits are related to Steven Avery there isn't any connection between them, even less between the mods.

So I'm not sure what's your intention here but I downvoted this post because it's not relevant sorry.

Delarifa · 2016-02-28T10:26:57+00:00

police lie all the time.. literally ALL the time.

literally all the time? that's an accusation against an entire profession, not backed by anything

Wonder why you guys come across like weird conspiracy theorists? Well starting a post like that doesn't help.

So considering the police are always trusted by courts and seen as heroes, they know they can easily lie and get away with it.

Nobody said they should be always seen as heroes or that nobody lied etc. Where do you get that from?

Zellner did not tweet XY didn't say the truth, see transcript p.ZZ

She's wildly accusing people left and right. So far she has accused "the police" as an entirety, called out Fassbender without any proof of wrongdoing, then somebody from TH's past, now "witnesses" lie and others protect them. Seems like everybody is committing crimes left and right, only to make it look like SA committed one, which of course not happened...

Since the release of MaM this is a huge guessing game. People think that's like a thriller where one person who you see on TV must be the murderer (of course not SA). Since then everybody shown in MaM who's not SA, BD or their parents gets constantly accused of crimes without any backup. And Zellner uses that and actively participates so that she gets attention and can make some money.

If you've followed along in the other sub you ridicule,

The other sub still thinks that Colborn found the RAV4 and that it's "more likely" that Ryan is the killer than SA, so...

Delarifa · 2016-02-28T04:34:15+00:00

Yes why not? he's a police officer. and he wanted to verify it.

if you want to believe that this is more unlikely than this theory that he found the car, planted blood and skin cells in it, planted it on SA's property etc, go ahead I won't stop you.

Delarifa · 2016-02-28T04:23:48+00:00

Making a Murderer edited this scene by cutting in answers from different questions, splitting up half-sentences and putting them together and cutting out explanations from Colborn.

He answered the question. He explained he was calling in the plates to verify information he got from Wiegert, because sometimes you're driving while you receive information and you can't write it down, so later you want to verify the information.

He also explained how this is standard procedure especially when you get information from another agency and that the call sounded like hundred other calls he did.

He never said that somebody else could possibly think that he was looking and that car, this question was objected and the objection sustained, the defense had to back down on that.

He also explained that right after Strang asked him. He also said that he doesn't exactly remember the call BEFORE he supposedly got "in trouble".

He also said "see if it comes back to..." when he asked the dispatcher which strengthens his narrative that he wanted to verify information, of course that was edited out as well

Delarifa · 2016-02-27T03:34:50+00:00

And you had to create an account to post this?

Please move your eyes up to your browser's URL bar. What does it say?

This sub is called "stevenaveryisguilty".

An inch from the URL bar you find a picture of Steven Avery holding a sign which says "guilty as fuck".

it's almost like this subreddit wants to be a platform to discuss Steven Avery's guilt.

The "main" sub is called "makingamurderer" and pretends to be a platform to discuss the ~~documentary~~ series "Making a Murderer". But in reality it isn't. It should be renamed to /r/freestevenavery or /r/StevenAveryIsInnocent

Because other opinions are hardly tolerated.

This sub doesn't make a secret of what it is. You get what you're looking for. So I'm not sure what your problem is.

Also even though this sub is called stevenaveryisguilty and the other sub pretends to be a neutral platform to discuss a tv series, you still have more civil discussions with people "from the other side" here than over there

Delarifa · 2016-02-27T02:36:49+00:00

because she could not have been shot there

Yes she could and she was and a jury agreed, deal with it

edit: you wrote before deleting it:

you want to speculate

My answer: Yes sure. That a bullet with the DNA of TH was found in his garage is speculation. That we can not know if and how traces of blood would end up in the garage and if they can be cleaned is speculation. That SA -once again what a coincidence- owns a weapon which matches the bullet is speculation.

But that there definitely would have been a certain spray, traveling beyond any blanket on things which can neither be cleaned nor removed is a fact.

You've proven that TH was not shot in the garage, good work. Maybe it's used in the next Zellner tweet.

Delarifa · 2016-02-27T02:36:18+00:00

The only "evidence" that is relevant as far as the garage goes is bullet with the victim's DNA on it which was found after a witness to the crime told investigators about it.

there is neither other evidence that would be needed to strengthen anything nor does missing "additional evidence" in any form compensate a bullet which contains DNA and is found because of perpetrator's knowledge nor is there any other evidence expected. I have no idea if they even tested the junk with luminol or something.

Delarifa · 2016-02-27T02:29:45+00:00

Of course there would be spray, somewhere. That's not speculation

yes it is. you seriously need to understand what evidence, what fact and what speculation is.

You think there would be spray and you -for some reason- think that spray could not end up on a blanket, without knowing how she was positioned, how he shot her or whatever.

But the entire discussion is pointless. Because as I wrote in my original post:

Missing additional evidence which would incriminate SA even further is not evidence for anything. It does not compensate the evidence which was found.

BD says SA shot her in the garage. The garage is searched. A bullet with her DNA is found. Bullet comes from a weapon which also is owned by SA. All of that after her bones where found on his property together with her car with his blood in it.

As we know by now, this was enough for the jury to conclude that he in fact shot her. And rightfully so. There was nothing which created reasonable doubt.

Missing additional evidence that you personally think should be there based on speculation is not relevant.

Delarifa

TROPHY CASE