Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

10 Kommentare

Profilbild von Vakugu
Vakuguvor 1 Jahr

They don't deserve this everything for TRP. 💔

Profilbild von Mano Vijay
Mano Vijayvor 1 Jahr

Creating some attention adhan bro

Profilbild von Thiyagu❁
Thiyagu❁vor 1 Jahr

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.

Profilbild von Gowtham
Gowthamvor 1 Jahr

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

Profilbild von S.E.A
S.E.Avor 1 Jahr

I'm shocked and disappointed by this decision.

Profilbild von SuccessPeace😇
SuccessPeace😇vor 1 Jahr

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

Profilbild von Mercy🕊🦋
Mercy🕊🦋vor 1 Jahr

Yes💯

Profilbild von Saravanan95
Saravanan95vor 1 Jahr

not fair #BiggBossTamil8 #BiggBossTamil

Profilbild von RK
RKvor 1 Jahr

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.

Profilbild von Sathyanand Rajendran
Sathyanand Rajendranvor 1 Jahr

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

Ähnliche Videos

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten