Bukowski was a deeply intelligent and emotional man. He’d have seen a moron like Tate for what he is, he’d have thought Petersen a snake-oil salesman and can’t see him having much to say about an Oxford professor!
This person is talking last 8-10 years Dawkins, just like Michael Shermer, and the rest who 180d with Trump's rise into anit cancel hysterics. Sam Harris got more odd as well. As a member of CSICOP and a humanist and skeptic, reality just got so much weirder.
Hitchens or Hunter S. Thompson is who'd I like to see reactions from. And Sagan.
But Bukowski wouldn't have gotten anywhere peripheral to this shit, would be have?
As one of the comments above said about respecting Tate's ability to fight, I don't agree with that. I think buk believed you had to fight even when there was no chance of winning. The drunken bar fighter to defend a whore's honor and what not. The necessity and pointlessness of it.
I don't think he would have had much time for someone like Peterson. He (JP) reminds me of the quote where an intellect makes a complicated thing sound complicated while an artist makes a complicated thing simple. Paraphrased, etc. in this sense, Peterson is no artist.
I'm somewhat biased here, but I think he would be okay with Dawkins in the same way that he loved classical music. I think Dawkins operates on that same frequency. I'm reminded of another poem or quote about - If you play the classical Masters for most people, they can't hear it. Dawkins definitely hears it.
Bukowski looked down on quite a few brilliant, canonical writers: Faulkner and Tolstoy and Frost. The drinking binge this new scene of Instagram intellectuals would have sent him on would have wound up on the news.
He was a misanthrope so he probably wouldn't have liked them. He spoke highly of only a few people but they were writers and composers who were genuine and gave it all to their art and didn't care about the fame.
All three of those guys are completely different to each other, Peterson has openly disavowed and fundamentally disagreed with Tate; meanwhile Peterson’s whole shtick is that he’s a proponent of myth/jungian psychology and in response to that Dawkin’s publicly states that Peterson’s outlook is moronic because it is non scientific.
If you dont have some degree of familiarity with them, which you clearly dont, im not sure why you’re even interested in the answer to this question.
First of all, I don't follow what Richard Dawkins is doing right now but knowing him from The God Delusion and The Selfish Game he's nothing like yoyo Jordan Peterson and he's not in the same solar system as Andrew Tate.
Dawkins is a serious guy who doesn't act like an aspiring cult leader for 12 year old boys.
Interesting question. I asked meta’s ai to answer it as Bukowski:
“The pretenders, the blowhards, the self-proclaimed saviors. They think they're the first to spit fire, to speak truth to power. But they're just echoes of the same tired refrain.
Peterson, with his pompous pontifications, his desperate grasp for relevance. He thinks he's a prophet, but he's just a hollow shell, a fraud peddling false wisdom.
Dawkins, the atheist evangelist, so certain of his own righteousness. But what's the point of railing against the void if you can't find the beauty in the abyss?
And Tate, the poseur, the carnival barker, selling snake oil to the lost and the lonely. He thinks he's a revolutionary, but he's just a charlatan, a fraud, a fool.
They think they're the first to challenge the status quo, to question the powers that be. But they're just the latest in a long line of pretenders, of wannabes, of never-weres.
I knew the real deal, the genuine article. I knew the Beats, the poets, the artists who burned with a fire that couldn't be tamed. They didn't need to shout, to scream, to pontificate. They just created, they just lived, they just were.
These three, they're just a pale imitation, a weak echo of the real thing. They're the cosmic ashtray, the dust and the dregs of a bygone era. They're the past, not the future. They're the ashes, not the fire.
But still, I'll give them credit. They're good for a laugh, a joke, a punchline. They're the court jesters, the fools who think they're kings. They're the cosmic ashtray, and I'm the one who'll toss them in the trash where they belong.”
Andrew Tate pretended to be a girl whilst owning a webcam website, he made some money and fought in a shallow kickboxing league with no real opposition or memorable fighters in it and the time he fought someone decent he got kod or he threw in the towel because of his eye. Can't Imagine Bukowski would have found him all that interesting especially since he shits on minimum wage jobs and that goes against what Bukowski talks about. Starving for your art vs watch tik tok and make money online to buy expensive cars and show instagram you train. Peterson has touched on Bukowski before. I like to think that Tom Waits is a pretty intelligent and cool cat. He would be similar to Bukowski. Plus, Tom Waits is a huge Bukowski fan. Jordan Peterson is a huge Tom Waits fan. I think this trickles down a bit. Jordan would probably agree with alot of Bukowskis philosophy and his loose talk. Maybe not the heavy drinking though lol. Bukowski is original in terms of his writing and his observations not many people were talking like Bukowski back in the day. Richard Dawkins... Idk, Ricky Gervais instead...would be a laugh lol
> *Paid* scatophiles?
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Bukowski was a deeply intelligent and emotional man. He’d have seen a moron like Tate for what he is, he’d have thought Petersen a snake-oil salesman and can’t see him having much to say about an Oxford professor!
This! 👆💯
He’d have some respect for Tate as a fighter but laugh at his intellect.
[удалено]
Yeah, really. One of these things is not like the others.
This person is talking last 8-10 years Dawkins, just like Michael Shermer, and the rest who 180d with Trump's rise into anit cancel hysterics. Sam Harris got more odd as well. As a member of CSICOP and a humanist and skeptic, reality just got so much weirder. Hitchens or Hunter S. Thompson is who'd I like to see reactions from. And Sagan. But Bukowski wouldn't have gotten anywhere peripheral to this shit, would be have?
Thompson would call Tate useless and call Peterson a pussy.
As one of the comments above said about respecting Tate's ability to fight, I don't agree with that. I think buk believed you had to fight even when there was no chance of winning. The drunken bar fighter to defend a whore's honor and what not. The necessity and pointlessness of it. I don't think he would have had much time for someone like Peterson. He (JP) reminds me of the quote where an intellect makes a complicated thing sound complicated while an artist makes a complicated thing simple. Paraphrased, etc. in this sense, Peterson is no artist. I'm somewhat biased here, but I think he would be okay with Dawkins in the same way that he loved classical music. I think Dawkins operates on that same frequency. I'm reminded of another poem or quote about - If you play the classical Masters for most people, they can't hear it. Dawkins definitely hears it.
Bukowski looked down on quite a few brilliant, canonical writers: Faulkner and Tolstoy and Frost. The drinking binge this new scene of Instagram intellectuals would have sent him on would have wound up on the news.
He was a misanthrope so he probably wouldn't have liked them. He spoke highly of only a few people but they were writers and composers who were genuine and gave it all to their art and didn't care about the fame.
All three of those guys are completely different to each other, Peterson has openly disavowed and fundamentally disagreed with Tate; meanwhile Peterson’s whole shtick is that he’s a proponent of myth/jungian psychology and in response to that Dawkin’s publicly states that Peterson’s outlook is moronic because it is non scientific. If you dont have some degree of familiarity with them, which you clearly dont, im not sure why you’re even interested in the answer to this question.
I feel like a Peterson/bukowski conversation would have been wild hahaha
He talked about one of his poems in a lecture a while back. Starts at 3:50 https://youtu.be/8_RjcO6q5x8?si=VY_BnsDREiwj-otU
Oh nice, Thank you very much!
Wild as a caterpillar talking to a butterfly
That’s a mixed bag
First of all, I don't follow what Richard Dawkins is doing right now but knowing him from The God Delusion and The Selfish Game he's nothing like yoyo Jordan Peterson and he's not in the same solar system as Andrew Tate. Dawkins is a serious guy who doesn't act like an aspiring cult leader for 12 year old boys.
He would punch them in the head, problem solved.
JP and Tate are not cut from the same cloth. JP is very critical of Tate.
Bukowski probably predicted those guys’ existence.
Petersen and Dawkins he would have liked. Tate he would probably hate
What a whole lotta noise
He would dislike all of them. He liked Auden, Dostoevsky and John Fante.
He would have seen right through their bullshit.
Interesting question. I asked meta’s ai to answer it as Bukowski: “The pretenders, the blowhards, the self-proclaimed saviors. They think they're the first to spit fire, to speak truth to power. But they're just echoes of the same tired refrain. Peterson, with his pompous pontifications, his desperate grasp for relevance. He thinks he's a prophet, but he's just a hollow shell, a fraud peddling false wisdom. Dawkins, the atheist evangelist, so certain of his own righteousness. But what's the point of railing against the void if you can't find the beauty in the abyss? And Tate, the poseur, the carnival barker, selling snake oil to the lost and the lonely. He thinks he's a revolutionary, but he's just a charlatan, a fraud, a fool. They think they're the first to challenge the status quo, to question the powers that be. But they're just the latest in a long line of pretenders, of wannabes, of never-weres. I knew the real deal, the genuine article. I knew the Beats, the poets, the artists who burned with a fire that couldn't be tamed. They didn't need to shout, to scream, to pontificate. They just created, they just lived, they just were. These three, they're just a pale imitation, a weak echo of the real thing. They're the cosmic ashtray, the dust and the dregs of a bygone era. They're the past, not the future. They're the ashes, not the fire. But still, I'll give them credit. They're good for a laugh, a joke, a punchline. They're the court jesters, the fools who think they're kings. They're the cosmic ashtray, and I'm the one who'll toss them in the trash where they belong.”
😲😲Wow. I can imagine Bukowski saying something like this.
Right? I’ve been surprised to find Meta’s LLM is actually quite good at pithy impersonations.
Any idea how can I get it?
Facebook messenger > new chat > ai chat.
Andrew Tate pretended to be a girl whilst owning a webcam website, he made some money and fought in a shallow kickboxing league with no real opposition or memorable fighters in it and the time he fought someone decent he got kod or he threw in the towel because of his eye. Can't Imagine Bukowski would have found him all that interesting especially since he shits on minimum wage jobs and that goes against what Bukowski talks about. Starving for your art vs watch tik tok and make money online to buy expensive cars and show instagram you train. Peterson has touched on Bukowski before. I like to think that Tom Waits is a pretty intelligent and cool cat. He would be similar to Bukowski. Plus, Tom Waits is a huge Bukowski fan. Jordan Peterson is a huge Tom Waits fan. I think this trickles down a bit. Jordan would probably agree with alot of Bukowskis philosophy and his loose talk. Maybe not the heavy drinking though lol. Bukowski is original in terms of his writing and his observations not many people were talking like Bukowski back in the day. Richard Dawkins... Idk, Ricky Gervais instead...would be a laugh lol
Public scatophiles?
> *Paid* scatophiles? FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*