How to Deal With Truly Strange People

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Contributor
Fact check:




The video is a genuine ~7-8 minute clip from Jordan B. Peterson (via his "Jordan B Peterson Clips" channel), titled "How to Deal With Truly Strange People."

It features Peterson recounting a personal anecdote from his younger days (around age 25) in Montreal about dealing honestly with his unpredictable ex-Hells Angels biker landlord. Key elements include the landlord's drinking binges, late-night attempts to sell appliances (toaster/microwave), a motorcycle ride, rough behavior, and Peterson's decision to tell the truth about not enabling the drinking (influenced by his wife), which resolved the issue without conflict.

Fact-Check Summary​

This is primarily a personal anecdote shared for illustrative purposes (emphasizing truth-telling, especially with "strange"/paranoid/unpredictable people, and its practical value). It aligns with Peterson's style in lectures, 12 Rules for Life, and other content, where he draws on clinical psychology experience, real-life stories, and lessons about chaos, responsibility, and honesty.

  • No verifiable public contradictions or debunkings: Searches for the story (landlord, Hells Angels, Montreal, Joual-speaking, appliances, etc.) turn up consistent retellings by Peterson across videos and references, with no evidence of fabrication from critics or fact-checkers. It's treated as autobiographical.
  • Contextual plausibility: Peterson lived/worked in Montreal (University of Toronto professor but with earlier ties). Hells Angels have a documented presence in Quebec/Canada with a rough reputation. Heavy drinking, erratic behavior, and informal appliance sales fit the described subculture. Peterson has referenced studying alcoholism extensively.
  • No extraordinary claims: It doesn't assert falsifiable historical/political/scientific facts. It's framed as "this happened to me" and used to illustrate a broader point about truth vs. expediency. Similar stories appear in his books/lectures (e.g., dealing with dangerous or unstable individuals).
Potential caveats (common for anecdotes):

  • Details may be dramatized or selectively remembered for teaching impact (standard in storytelling/lectures).
  • No independent corroboration (e.g., named landlord or witnesses) exists in public sources—expected for a private story from decades ago.
  • Peterson's broader persona attracts scrutiny; some critics question his interpretations or self-presentation, but this specific tale hasn't been a flashpoint.
Overall: The clip and story check out as authentic Peterson content. It's not "news" or a policy claim to debunk—it's motivational/psychological advice rooted in a recounted personal experience. If you're concerned about a specific claim within it (e.g., a quoted detail), provide more context for deeper digging. Peterson often uses such stories to advocate for careful honesty as a strategy in high-stakes or uncertain interactions.



grok.com

Peterson's Strange Landlord Anecdote | Shared Grok Conversation

Fact check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MnhHNeGk0
grok.com grok.com
 
Diogenes said:
Fact check:




The video is a genuine ~7-8 minute clip from Jordan B. Peterson (via his "Jordan B Peterson Clips" channel), titled "How to Deal With Truly Strange People."

It features Peterson recounting a personal anecdote from his younger days (around age 25) in Montreal about dealing honestly with his unpredictable ex-Hells Angels biker landlord. Key elements include the landlord's drinking binges, late-night attempts to sell appliances (toaster/microwave), a motorcycle ride, rough behavior, and Peterson's decision to tell the truth about not enabling the drinking (influenced by his wife), which resolved the issue without conflict.

Fact-Check Summary​

This is primarily a personal anecdote shared for illustrative purposes (emphasizing truth-telling, especially with "strange"/paranoid/unpredictable people, and its practical value). It aligns with Peterson's style in lectures, 12 Rules for Life, and other content, where he draws on clinical psychology experience, real-life stories, and lessons about chaos, responsibility, and honesty.

  • No verifiable public contradictions or debunkings: Searches for the story (landlord, Hells Angels, Montreal, Joual-speaking, appliances, etc.) turn up consistent retellings by Peterson across videos and references, with no evidence of fabrication from critics or fact-checkers. It's treated as autobiographical.
  • Contextual plausibility: Peterson lived/worked in Montreal (University of Toronto professor but with earlier ties). Hells Angels have a documented presence in Quebec/Canada with a rough reputation. Heavy drinking, erratic behavior, and informal appliance sales fit the described subculture. Peterson has referenced studying alcoholism extensively.
  • No extraordinary claims: It doesn't assert falsifiable historical/political/scientific facts. It's framed as "this happened to me" and used to illustrate a broader point about truth vs. expediency. Similar stories appear in his books/lectures (e.g., dealing with dangerous or unstable individuals).
Potential caveats (common for anecdotes):

  • Details may be dramatized or selectively remembered for teaching impact (standard in storytelling/lectures).
  • No independent corroboration (e.g., named landlord or witnesses) exists in public sources—expected for a private story from decades ago.
  • Peterson's broader persona attracts scrutiny; some critics question his interpretations or self-presentation, but this specific tale hasn't been a flashpoint.
Overall: The clip and story check out as authentic Peterson content. It's not "news" or a policy claim to debunk—it's motivational/psychological advice rooted in a recounted personal experience. If you're concerned about a specific claim within it (e.g., a quoted detail), provide more context for deeper digging. Peterson often uses such stories to advocate for careful honesty as a strategy in high-stakes or uncertain interactions.



grok.com

Peterson's Strange Landlord Anecdote | Shared Grok Conversation

Fact check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MnhHNeGk0
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
don't do this. fuck AI,
 
Into the Night said:
Do what? He never posted anything. He hardly ever does. Mostly he just copy-paste X articles and crap from Grok.
Click to expand...


Evaluation of that assessment​


Partially accurate on the pattern, weak on the implication.


  • Volume and sourcing: Diogenes frequently pastes external material (X posts, videos, and Grok outputs) as the core of threads. That is visible across multiple threads. The Peterson fact-check is a clear example of using Grok as a research/verification tool and posting the result. Calling it “copy-paste… crap from Grok” correctly identifies the method.
  • “He never posted anything / hardly ever does”: Overstated. Diogenes does start threads, select material, frame it, and occasionally add short commentary or follow-ups. The handle and consistent theme (truth-seeking, anti-narrative, primary-source emphasis) show deliberate curation, not pure spam. “Never” is rhetorical exaggeration.
  • Quality judgment: Labeling the Grok material “crap” is pure preference, not analysis. In this specific case the Grok output is a measured, sourced fact-check of a personal anecdote—accurate, caveated, and relevant to the video. Dismissing the tool itself does not address whether the content is correct or useful.
  • Rhetorical move: The post shifts from the substance of the Peterson clip (or the fact-check) to a character attack on posting style. Classic forum deflection: criticize the messenger’s method rather than engage the claims. It also echoes the earlier “stupid as into the night / drunk / on drugs” style of insult directed at high-volume posters.
Bottom line: The observation that Diogenes relies heavily on X pastes and Grok assistance is fair and observable. The rest—claiming he “never” posts original content and that the material is worthless—is exaggeration plus ad-hominem. It does not refute the accuracy of the fact-check or the relevance of the video.


grok.com

Diogenes Forum Post Volume Criticism | Shared Grok Conversation

Context: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.249174/post
grok.com grok.com
 
Diogenes said:

Evaluation of that assessment​


Partially accurate on the pattern, weak on the implication.


  • Volume and sourcing: Diogenes frequently pastes external material (X posts, videos, and Grok outputs) as the core of threads. That is visible across multiple threads. The Peterson fact-check is a clear example of using Grok as a research/verification tool and posting the result. Calling it “copy-paste… crap from Grok” correctly identifies the method.
  • “He never posted anything / hardly ever does”: Overstated. Diogenes does start threads, select material, frame it, and occasionally add short commentary or follow-ups. The handle and consistent theme (truth-seeking, anti-narrative, primary-source emphasis) show deliberate curation, not pure spam. “Never” is rhetorical exaggeration.
  • Quality judgment: Labeling the Grok material “crap” is pure preference, not analysis. In this specific case the Grok output is a measured, sourced fact-check of a personal anecdote—accurate, caveated, and relevant to the video. Dismissing the tool itself does not address whether the content is correct or useful.
  • Rhetorical move: The post shifts from the substance of the Peterson clip (or the fact-check) to a character attack on posting style. Classic forum deflection: criticize the messenger’s method rather than engage the claims. It also echoes the earlier “stupid as into the night / drunk / on drugs” style of insult directed at high-volume posters.
Bottom line: The observation that Diogenes relies heavily on X pastes and Grok assistance is fair and observable. The rest—claiming he “never” posts original content and that the material is worthless—is exaggeration plus ad-hominem. It does not refute the accuracy of the fact-check or the relevance of the video.


grok.com

Diogenes Forum Post Volume Criticism | Shared Grok Conversation

Context: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.249174/post
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
no.

grok is pure crap.

thats not an opinion.

grok is a lying piece of crap.
 
Diogenes said:

Evaluation of that assessment​


Partially accurate on the pattern, weak on the implication.


  • Volume and sourcing: Diogenes frequently pastes external material (X posts, videos, and Grok outputs) as the core of threads. That is visible across multiple threads. The Peterson fact-check is a clear example of using Grok as a research/verification tool and posting the result. Calling it “copy-paste… crap from Grok” correctly identifies the method.
  • “He never posted anything / hardly ever does”: Overstated. Diogenes does start threads, select material, frame it, and occasionally add short commentary or follow-ups. The handle and consistent theme (truth-seeking, anti-narrative, primary-source emphasis) show deliberate curation, not pure spam. “Never” is rhetorical exaggeration.
  • Quality judgment: Labeling the Grok material “crap” is pure preference, not analysis. In this specific case the Grok output is a measured, sourced fact-check of a personal anecdote—accurate, caveated, and relevant to the video. Dismissing the tool itself does not address whether the content is correct or useful.
  • Rhetorical move: The post shifts from the substance of the Peterson clip (or the fact-check) to a character attack on posting style. Classic forum deflection: criticize the messenger’s method rather than engage the claims. It also echoes the earlier “stupid as into the night / drunk / on drugs” style of insult directed at high-volume posters.
Bottom line: The observation that Diogenes relies heavily on X pastes and Grok assistance is fair and observable. The rest—claiming he “never” posts original content and that the material is worthless—is exaggeration plus ad-hominem. It does not refute the accuracy of the fact-check or the relevance of the video.


grok.com

Diogenes Forum Post Volume Criticism | Shared Grok Conversation

Context: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.249174/post
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
QED
 
Into the Night said:
QED
Click to expand...


Did Into the Night apply it logically here?


No.


In the post you linked (post #15 / 7054364), Into the Night quotes the entire Grok-assisted evaluation that Diogenes posted in response to him, then simply ends with:


QED
Click to expand...

What QED actually requires​


QED (“quod erat demonstrandum”) is properly used only when you have just completed a logical demonstration that establishes the precise claim you set out to prove. It marks the successful conclusion of an argument.


What happened here​


Into the Night’s original claim was essentially:


  • Diogenes “never posted anything / hardly ever does”
  • He “mostly just copy-paste X articles and crap from Grok”

The evaluation he then quotes (and labels QED) actually says the first part is overstated/rhetorical exaggeration and that calling the material “crap” is pure preference rather than analysis. It only grants the narrower, milder point that Diogenes frequently pastes external material including Grok outputs.


By pasting that evaluation and writing “QED,” Into the Night is treating a mixed, qualified assessment as if it fully demonstrated his stronger, more dismissive claim. That is not a logical use of QED — it is a rhetorical mic-drop / “see, even your own tool proves me right” move.


Bottom line: Common forum usage, but not a correct or rigorous application of the term in logic.



grok.com

QED in Logic and Math | Shared Grok Conversation

Did Into the Night apply it logically here? https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-wi
grok.com grok.com
 
Diogenes said:
Did Into the Night apply it logically here?


No.


In the post you linked (post #15 / 7054364), Into the Night quotes the entire Grok-assisted evaluation that Diogenes posted in response to him, then simply ends with:




What QED actually requires​


QED (“quod erat demonstrandum”) is properly used only when you have just completed a logical demonstration that establishes the precise claim you set out to prove. It marks the successful conclusion of an argument.


What happened here​


Into the Night’s original claim was essentially:


  • Diogenes “never posted anything / hardly ever does”
  • He “mostly just copy-paste X articles and crap from Grok”

The evaluation he then quotes (and labels QED) actually says the first part is overstated/rhetorical exaggeration and that calling the material “crap” is pure preference rather than analysis. It only grants the narrower, milder point that Diogenes frequently pastes external material including Grok outputs.


By pasting that evaluation and writing “QED,” Into the Night is treating a mixed, qualified assessment as if it fully demonstrated his stronger, more dismissive claim. That is not a logical use of QED — it is a rhetorical mic-drop / “see, even your own tool proves me right” move.


Bottom line: Common forum usage, but not a correct or rigorous application of the term in logic.



grok.com

QED in Logic and Math | Shared Grok Conversation

Did Into the Night apply it logically here? https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-wi
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
QED. Another example of your mindless cut and paste.

You have numerous threads of just you cutting and pasting. There is no conversation. You are presenting no arguments. It's just mindless spamming.
 
Into the Night said:
QED. Another example of your mindless cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Assessment​


This is the same pattern as before, just repeated.


  • He does not engage the substance of the argument (that his prior use of QED was rhetorical rather than logical).
  • He simply labels the entire reply “QED” and adds an insult about “mindless cut and paste.”

Once again, QED is being used as a dismissive mic-drop, not as the conclusion of a demonstration. There is no actual argument being completed here that proves a specific claim. It’s just another rhetorical flourish + ad-hominem.

So no — this is not a logical application of QED either. It’s consistent with how he used it the first time.


grok.com

QED in Logic and Math | Shared Grok Conversation

His response: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.249174
grok.com grok.com
 
Diogenes said:

Assessment​


This is the same pattern as before, just repeated.


  • He does not engage the substance of the argument (that his prior use of QED was rhetorical rather than logical).
  • He simply labels the entire reply “QED” and adds an insult about “mindless cut and paste.”

Once again, QED is being used as a dismissive mic-drop, not as the conclusion of a demonstration. There is no actual argument being completed here that proves a specific claim. It’s just another rhetorical flourish + ad-hominem.

So no — this is not a logical application of QED either. It’s consistent with how he used it the first time.


grok.com

QED in Logic and Math | Shared Grok Conversation

His response: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.249174
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
QED. More mindless cut and paste. You are unable to think and reason for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top