An increasingly popular disparaging and well-deserved nickname for the twice-failed candidate for Speaker of the House, Jim Jordan.
by Dr Bunnygirl October 20, 2023
Get the Airhead Jordanmug. A hot hunk of junk with cow meat that he got from his daddy alex. he is the second from alex and matches his hot masculinity. Jordan Little is good with his tongue and fast with his fingers. he also fucks the shit out of his chair in his room.
Girl 1: Bitch have you seen Jordan Little naked?
Girl 2: No but I heard his meat is bigger than Alex’s but Alex is still daddy!!!!
Girl 2: No but I heard his meat is bigger than Alex’s but Alex is still daddy!!!!
by mihhtnbeb January 2, 2020
Get the jordan littlemug. the man, hes just that guy that would be there if you needed to talk about ANYTHING. He is always so supportive of anything, and his smile, is EVERYTHING. He also has a great sense of humor, and he will know how to make you laugh if you're in the absolute worst mood.
by clownpoo October 20, 2020
Get the jordan poulsenmug. Timothy-Jordan is an double name. He is made up of Timothy and Jordan, both of which mean that he could play a very important person in your life. Above all, loyalty and love are in the foreground. He would die for his closest friends. He also has a pretty good sense of humor. The person named Timothy-Jordan is very rare and therefore above all a specimen that should be treated well because if you have treated him badly once he will remember it and he will never be good to you again.
by scotttyler97 November 22, 2021
Get the Timothy-Jordanmug. A logical fallacy where one of the sides attempts to discredit the opposition by painting the other side as incapable of arguing on the topic, by pointing out a source about the topic (which is mostly too long to skim through in a short time) and stating that they must scan the said source extensively before they can talk about the said topic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
Example 1
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
by Doge of Chamberlain October 11, 2023
Get the Jordan Petersonmug. Jordan / Chris ? : * makes joke *
Someone : * pretends to be offended / upset *
Jordan / Chris? : nouuuu ily really ㅠㅠ
Someone : * pretends to be offended / upset *
Jordan / Chris? : nouuuu ily really ㅠㅠ
by LeafyLever June 17, 2018
Get the Jordan / Chris?mug. by Yurl Tarded June 15, 2020
Get the Jordan Poythressmug.