正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Aniyathuku aggression kaatadhinga #biggbosstamil team. Unga indha aggression ah task la kaatunga. Sending out a person in 24hrs in what basis? Unfair #biggbosstamil #BiggBossTamil8

133,882 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

Vakugu 的头像
Vakugu1 年前

They don't deserve this everything for TRP. 💔

Mano Vijay 的头像
Mano Vijay1 年前

Creating some attention adhan bro

Thiyagu❁ 的头像
Thiyagu❁1 年前

Vijay TV shows chose to destroy itself. Before CWC now BB. The core concept Men vs Women itself a boring and disaster concept will leads to unwanted gender based hatred in Public.

Gowtham 的头像
Gowtham1 年前

Totally unfair! BB na Adhu yaru evict pananum nu Makkal dhana mudivu pananum?

S.E.A 的头像
S.E.A1 年前

I'm shocked and disappointed by this decision.

SuccessPeace😇 的头像
SuccessPeace😇1 年前

Yaa totally unfair, waste of time for contestants who had so many dreams..

Mercy🕊🦋 的头像
Mercy🕊🦋1 年前

Yes💯

Saravanan95 的头像
Saravanan951 年前

not fair #BiggBossTamil8 #BiggBossTamil

RK 的头像
RK1 年前

Wow, Pathetic. If that was the channel's idealogy, why did you bring in the so many contestants. You could have removed 1 before even the telecast yesterday. The person who are leaving would had so many dreams and have to leave without even playing their proper game, just for heck of the program's audience drawing strategy... I am sure the person who is leaving will not be an Vijay tv product.

Sathyanand Rajendran 的头像
Sathyanand Rajendran1 年前

One day la eviction la not good 👎 may be contestants Kula sanda mootividura velaiya irukum🤞

相关视频

Jordan Peterson on why you can't be good without integrating your capacity for aggression: Peterson argues that morality without aggression is hollow. The person who has never developed their capacity for force isn't actually good. They're just harmless. And there's a crucial difference. "No one can be a good person without integrating their capacity for aggression. Because without that capacity for aggression, you cannot say no." He unpacks what a real "no" actually means: "No means, if you really say it, no means there isn't anything that you can do to me that will make me change my mind. Or conversely, it means I will play for higher stakes than you will. And unless you've got your aggression integrated, there isn't a chance you can say that. And if you did, no one would take you seriously, because they'd know it was just a show." This is where Peterson brings in Jung and contrasts him with Freud. For Freud, morality was the super ego clamping down on the id. The aggressive, instinctual parts of you were the enemy, and the moral project was suppression. Jung saw it differently. Peterson explains that Jung was deeply interested in the problem of evil, particularly while trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and the Second World War. The question that preoccupied him: what do you do with the part of you that's aggressive and potentially malevolent? "Do you just crush it? That's the super ego response in some sense. Do you just put it behind you, so to speak? Is that a possibility? Or do you admit to its existence and bring it into the game?" Jung's answer, what Peterson calls "the integration of the shadow" was to invite the bad guys out to play rather than lock them in the basement. The hockey player analogy lands the point: "You're an aggressive hockey player, but it's disciplined aggression that gives you access to a whole source of energy you wouldn't otherwise have." Goodness is the disciplined integration of harm. A person who can't be dangerous can't really be trusted when they say no, can't protect what matters, and is cut off from an enormous reservoir of energy. The moral person is the one who has made peace with theirs and put it to work.

Kevin Tanaka

22,073 次观看 • 3 个月前