Consume Product

> "Can you define the Holocaust for the audience and me?"

I'd say "Holocaust? I've never heard of it. Do you mean the "Holodomor"?" - "Or perhaps the gulag system created by the jewish Bolsheviks, which enslaved and murdered tens of millions of White Christians?"

> Get them mad.

Yes. I see it as an art - two people debating, doing their best to make the other look stupid. There is no way I would ever fall into anger - in fact I'd rather look baffled, laugh, look at them bewildered as they say something nonsensical. But I wouldn't let them get away with it.

I saw so many debates, and none of them were truly satisfying. They required some indirect understanding of something - but I want them to go by having them deal devastating punches to the face. "I can prove that you are an idiot based on what you said here."

> You do that usually by catering to the dumbest common denominator.

I don't think that's the key, as that would make you sound stupid as well. Jordan B. Peterson in his prime wasn't about expressing stupid ideas - in fact people appreciated the profound way he expressed himself, and he did it in a way that properly conveyed the information without needlessly "over-intellectualizing" it (aka make it incomprehensible).

I personally prefer abstractions to be guided by the concrete, otherwise people might have varying interpretations of it. And I dislike obtuse combinations of words. If I give something a title, I want it to be expressive in itself rather than requiring explanation.