He's doing an ask me anything on /r/IAma at 7 pm EST What's

>>9282484
Same way Sam Harris did, pointing out how his Jungian archtype bullshit has zero epistemological or even hermeneutic validity

Tell him responsable is lame and that nihilism doens't mean lack of meaning and that he needs to sort himself out. Then start posting snuff pepes.

Ask him about the frog as an archetype

Tell him biological sex is a social construct

who is this and what does he say

archetypes are the ish

>>9282494
Was there a second "discussion" between these two? If so, what did it entail? Were either conquered?
Jung is fun to read and theorize about when dissecting friends intentions and their psychological issues but to base any moral system or truth off of his archetypes would be absurd.

>>9282484
i think he's triggering you already

Tell him morality, personal responsibility, the dominance hierarchy and everything else is a spook, that there's nothing worth caring about, that you should spend your life doing nothing, that suffering and striving are meaningless and lying to engineer the path of least resistance for yourself is the best way to go.

Should trigger an unhinged rant about pareto distributions of efficiency, the butterfly effect and "pathologizing your being". Have fun

File: mfw.png (328KB, 800x778px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 800x778px

Ask him how he reconciles the fact he constantly uses articles and statistical data to back up his psychology beliefs yet when it comes to morality and epistemological truth, he thinks archetypes are better.

Ask him why he makes this blatant contradiction and whether he enjoys the masses of wealth he procured from being a hack fraud.