/lit/ - Literature

>>10551175
Pure meme. He's almost as worthless as Sam Harris.

I, /lit/, say to you, a lowly, impressionable newfag pleb, that he is indeed a meme, and that you shall not read him. You are now incapable of doing so, because I, /lit/, forbade you.

See:
>>10550101
>>10550101
>>10550101

>>10551185
shit.

I actually enjoyed this little interview

>>10551175
everythings a meme and depends

i like him

The lobster comparison is pure pseudo-science One could just as easily argue that it's human nature to organize themselves a la wolf packs which defy a hierarchical, despotic structure— not unseen in the study of anthropology.

>>10551219
That interview was a disaster because the host was a dumb bitch.
She could not have picked a less opportune moment to screech about the gender pay gap and women in the workplace. It was almost like she wanted to prove that she's an affirmative action hire and should be at home with the children.

>>10551257
If you're going to attempt a take-down could you at least do so using coherent syntax.

>>10551271
>>10551257
Forgot a period after pseudo-science.

I stopped watching a couple minutes in. He didn't say anything that bothered me, but it seemed like all he had to say were vague platitudes. Is that all peterson's work consists of? Does he have any genuinely interesting things to say?

the lobster argument made me cringe

>>10551293
>Is that all peterson's work consists of? Does he have any genuinely interesting things to say?
This is probably bait but if you want an idea of Peterson that video isn't a great place to start. The exchange is severely limited by the host. You're observing an IQ gap in the double digits and that in itself is enough to shrink the possible scope of a discussion, to say nothing of the host's obvious ideological agenda.
In brief Peterson's "work" consists of depth psychology rooted in evolutionary biology used as a map to understanding political and social landscapes.

>>10551257
wolves have hierarchies too. that doesn't contradict what he is saying at all

>>10551319
Do you think Peterson has an ideological agenda?

>>10551324
If you mean in the Zizek sense, then it's impossible not to.
If you mean in the political sense, then no.

>>10551257
>One could just as easily argue that it's human nature to organize themselves a la wolf packs which defy a hierarchical, despotic structure
Yeah... you could

>>10551331
>If you mean in the political sense, then no.
Isn't he a pretty outspoken defender of liberalism (classic)? Individual rights, freedom of expression, democracy etc. That's a pretty overt ideological agenda.

>>10551350
If you think democracy in the west is an "agenda" then you're a few centuries late to the party.

>>10551362
Preserving/supporting the current political order is a political agenda.

>>10551331
What is a political ideological agenda though? A set of political beliefs you wish to promote because they seem correct to you? Then of course he has an agenda.

I don't know much about Peterson but it seems inarguable his beliefs have a political dimension. Not only in the sense of the allegiances and hostilities he has with various real or caricatured political factions (neo-reactionaries vs campus sjws, rational liberalism vs authoritarian collectivism, sane individuality vs oppressed grievance-baiters), but also because you barely have to dig down at all to find the political function of ideas like 'a return to individual responsibility' in the context of, for example, ideological struggles over the power of markets in public life vs collective labour-organised power.

Plus, how do you account for the way that Petersen articulates together a whole lot of beliefs that are so commonly articulated together. E.g. evolutionary psychology, anti-communism, individualist ethics, respect for order, valorisation of strength as opposed to decadent celebration of weakness. Isn't the fact that all these ideas are so commonly articulated as one coherent message or worldview in contemporary conservative circles evidence that their organising principle is a discourse outside the objects he seems to talk about, a discourse that's actually organised around the political struggles he's intervening in?

>>10551371
I suppose so, I think this line of thought isn't relevant though because I don't think Peterson is a political agent.

>>10551390
You can't say something isn't relevant because you disagree with it.

>>10551333
There exist instances of social dominance but they're highly situational and defy the static, top-down hierarchies Peterson would claim that humans unwaveringly follow.

>>10551419
meant to respond to >>10551320

>>10551387
You're presupposing a conclusion with which I wasn't engaging and then making that the basis of your reply.
As far as I can tell what you are implying is that everyone has an underlying political agenda that they always wish to covertly propagate and that this is what always guides their actions.

My point when I said that the host had an ideological agenda was that her beliefs clearly interfered with her ability to honestly engage with Peterson's message, whatever it may be. If you're looking for a clear exposition of Peterson's ideas, like that poster was suggesting he was, then this kind of dialogue is not desirable for that purpose. The almost constant strawmen ("you said this, so that means you actually think this..") and attempted gotcha journalism are clear signs that there's not going to be what I call "enlightened debate" in which the purpose is the mutual exchange and consideration of ideas.

Rooting out Peterson as a crypto-post-modern power game master manipulator or whatever isn't even the discussion I was having.

>>10551419
Wow. This Petersen is on some high-IQ-level shit.

>>10551426
Cool, I get your point. My point was that it's kind of inane to say that Peterson isn't political, or didn't have a political agenda in that interview. I'm not approaching things from a psychological perspective, about what he's secretly thinking, but from the discursive perspective that I guess is antithetical to Peterson but seems to be way more theoretically self-critical and useful than whatever he thinks his methodology is.

>>10551439
I don't know what Peterson secretly thinks either, but from what I know of him, I think he would say that political systems are too complex for him to put forth and follow an express political agenda. If you then say THAT is his political agenda, because he MUST have one, then in my turn that's what I'd call inane.

>>10551175
same old bullshit about "meaning". it's a disease. coping mechanism to keep thoughts about the futility and meaninglessness of life at bay. "get your life in order", "responsibility", "sort yourself out". anything for 65k in patreonbux to play Internet daddy for the day to day young swine

>>10551463
his political agenda is classical liberalism for the most part

>>10551481
You sound like an extremely bitter and frankly unsorted person. Drop the edgy nihilism and clean your room sometime bucko

>>10551463
Political agenda for me doesn't necessarily mean coherent manifesto for a political system, it means that what they're saying is kind of overdetermined in the ways we can understand it's organising principle. You could say that in this interview Peterson views are informed by his individual more or less reasonable approach to the discussion topic. You could equally say that the discursive system that his words are formulated in and become meaningful in are formed by and function in social struggles.

Also I don't think it's at all inane or a stretch to say that it's possible (or even common) for people to present things that have political or social content as apolitical or natural. And I don't see the problem with what that other poster said about how preserving the status-quo is in itself political. To say that the kind of psychological individual things he thinks we should be talking about are somehow more accessible to us than social or political struggles seems to be self-evidently a very political thing to say, and is the viewpoint that's been most widely criticised by people trying to theorise how neoliberalism functions ideologically.

>>10551489
does peterson actually say "bucko" a lot, or was it a one time thing that people will now perpetually make fun of him for?

>>10551175

he's a meme with apodictically positive advice. He's a breath of fresh air in a time where ppl have forgotten how to build character.

>>10551495
The later, its more of a meme, same with "and that's THAT" and "roughly speaking"

>>10551481
gr8 b8 m8, would r8 8/8.

That woman is so fucking stupid it's incredible

>>10551175
>>10551565
Damn. Why is the interviewer being so adversarial? It’s not being hard-hitting because you’re not even letting the subject’s ideas develop and digging into them meaningfully. Just cheap, trite, surface level little indignations. Trying to humiliate and shame rather than understand and truly criticise. How disgusting.

>>10551419
>instances of social dominance
wtf do you mean? what qualifies as social dominance? I think human social life is rife with it, but it would be dramatic to compare it to a wolf pack in most cases

>>10551767
So what you're saying is that Peterson shouldn't be criticized?

>>10551781
kek

>>10551175
Jordan is the dumb person's go to smart man, he's a good guy tho.

>>10551767
She's taking everything personally. This is typical with many women. Every time I talk with them about politics they start crying, even though I make sure not to talk about them. Then they are like
>Men have no feelings
Even though I'm feels.jpg inside.

>>10551844
This is true. Doesn't matter if I talk to my mom or to the girlfriend of one of my mates. Always taking everything personally.

This woman is awful in any interview she does

He conducted the interview in a cool way.

Idk about his opening remarks tho, the interviewer was aware she was being unreasonable. You could tell when she would hold back smiling.

>>10551844
Yes I was at my friends house once and his mum was drinking and interrogated me about a rather benign joke I made over dinner and ended up crying and running off to her room.

Watched interview
Lady isn't really humiliated, just interested and sometimes offended (often can't engage in conversation with JP because he's using psychology terminology to make his points)
Much of the time JP is defending his views or showing how interviewer's accusations about him are technically incorrect
Some good discussion about ideology of the Left, but ultimately not worth watching

>>10551175
please stop shilling on this board, we have trouble with porn, crossposting and /pol/ as is. thank you

>>10551299
>DUDE CONSIDER THE LOBSTER

>it's another Marxists bash Peterson thread

WHAT A SURPRISE

Do we think he fucked his research assistant for joint credit on his work on political correctness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Critiques_of_political_correctness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a_zHkctg5E

I wonder if it's something they learn in journalist schools. To act hysterical, confrontational and assume the worst? Pretty annoying to watch imo.

https://twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/953523706373931009

>>10552118
Btfo

>>10551175
JBP looked good here, but his liberal philosemitic trash ideology is not going to cut it in real world politics.

>>10551175
I don't like Peterson much but watching this gives me so much more sympathy for him because of how dumb and hardheaded this interviewer his. in fact, I used to agree that Peterson isn't that deep, but this video gives me more respect for his willingness to be incredibly patient and dumb himself down for hardheaded, self-absorbed, oblivious liberals.

>>10552160
Is it customary on this board to accept the retarded American usage of the word "liberal"?

>>10552160
Being patient was pretty necessary for his former day job.

>>10552160
Sorry, i have to post again, but this bitch is just so fucking dumb.

>Peterson talks calmly and rationally about how the pay gap is partially due to women's more agreeable personalities and lower assertiveness, to their choosing to have children and choosing lower-paying careers
>"BUT SHOULDN'T WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN AND TO CHOOSE HIGHER-PAYING CAREERS???"
>
>makes a "this dumb fucking bitch" face
>says "...they do have the right. they can. that's fine."
>"YES BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT MAKES THEM UNHAPPY TO CHOOSE HIGHER-PAYING JOBS AND CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN??"
>literally didn't even say or imply that once in the talk
>"...no, I'm not saying that and I haven't said that."
>"YOU'RE SAYING IT'S MAKING THEM MISERABLE?"
>"no, I didn't say that..."
>woman makes a superior and bitchy passive-aggressive smile as if he's some inferior life-form

>>10552177
Definitions change based on how people use them, fucking prescriptivist. If a lot of people use liberal as a derogatory term for idiot social justice warriors, you'll just have to deal with it, fucking liberal faggot.

>>10552195
I wonder if women have a permanent (albeit easily swayed) Stockholm syndrome towards power and especially the ideologies in power.

>>10552195
Don't be a pleb. She's just getting involved in the debate. Woman have to screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech to get their points across sometimes too.

The lobster bit was pretty retarded

>>10551175
Please stop making these FUCKING threads you ass

We have
So
Fucking
MANY
and they're all the fucking same

>>10552195
she looks jewish

>>10552356
Everyone here dismissing the lobster argument needs to go back to school.

>>10552338
i'm not being a pleb. Watch the debate. The entire thing is strawmanning on her part left and right. It's the fucking definition of strawmanning. She doesn't listen to him or think about what he's saying, she's literally like an automaton. There's a fucking door in her brain locked shut from ever exiting her ideology, she doesn't respond to his arguments, she responds to other men in her life who have offended her with misogynistic views, it seems like. I bet you're a woman or a dumb feminist or haven't watched the debate if you think I'm being a pleb for pointing this out.

It's almost exactly the definition of "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." It's the perfect smug face and demeanor of a person completely narcissistic, oblivious, mechanistic and wrapped up firmly and self-satisfiedly in their own automatism.

>>10552424
>we wuz lobstars
- Jordon Patarson

>>10551175
what does /lit/ have to do with king of the pseuds jorman pooterson and his self-help book

does this help me understand joyce?

no

fuck off

>>10552452
Yes, they're strawman comments, but that's typical of this kind of interview. She's trying to provoke a reaction and liven the show up for the viewers. Normie viewers don't care about Peterson's philosophy. It would be a boring show if she simply discussed his outlook the entire time. Viewers want drama.

>>10552452
or maybe....... theyre questions meant to make the guest more animated and engaged in a lively question

they do this on all of the english political chat shows

theyre not like american shows where she has to suck off the author or else they wont come back on

theyre not meant to personally offend you

you getting so excited is really embarrassing and you should think about why you get so worked up over someone doing their job

>>10552468
And those brits really expect us to believe they are in any way smarter than Americans.

>>10552488
Channel 4 news is pointlessly abrasive and completely up its own arse most of the time, but it is more intelligent than their American counterparts.
This interviewer gets a lot of flak because no one seems willing to concede that any of her replies are merely playing devil's advocate and not actually her own personal attacks on Peterson's position.

>>10551257
>reads D&G once

>>10552539
Even the most "distinguished" news outlet the UK has to offer is tabloid trash.

>>10552558
BBC, which is a corporation, is the best news website I've ever used.

>>10552539
Playing devil's advocate involves taking a position you don't support, not misrepresenting what the other person is saying.

>>10552567
>2 cents have been deposited into your account

>>10552570
>taking a contrary position you don't necessarily support*
what I meant to say

>>10552468
>>10552469
The thing you faggot apologists don't understand is that she's entirely sincere, genuinely self-satisfied and righteous and upset at him. Goddamnit, if you can't read basic body language and facial expressions, you can just get the fuck off this board and go to /sci/ you autists.

>>10552570
Double's advocate doesn't mean that. It means that you are supposed to be misrepresenting the positions implied IF the double's are doing the same thing.

>>10552539
>devil's advocate
imagine being this delusional

>>10552582

how are you gonna call anyone else an autist when youre going mad on a literature board just because you didnt know she always does this with 'controversial' figures

>you can just get the fuck off this board and go to /sci/ you autists

youre literally 'reee'-ing why dont you fuck off this board and go to reddit where you can have /r/JordanPeterson/ all to yourself and no evil roasties will interrupt your autistic screeching by daring to portray King Pseud in any light other than pure fucking sainthood.

>>10552603
>by daring to portray King Pseud in any light other than pure fucking sainthood.
fancy way of saying ''strawmanning and trying to paint him as hating women''

>>10552603
Yeah, this is /lit/ we don't have discussions here!

>>10552603
Holy fuck you fucking two-brain-cell autistic effeminate loser faggot. You should fucking castrate yourself and remove yourself from the gene pool, assuming you're not already a woman or a tranny who hasn't cut their dick off, you fucking failure of a human being. If you'd read my original post >>10552160 you'd see I don't like Jordan Peterson and don't think he's that deep of a thinker at all. I just said I gained a bit more sympathy for him seeing how patiently and calmly he puts up with smug douchebags like this woman who interpret him as some fascist.

Fuck you and your total failure of reading comprehension, smug bastard. If you can't read, that is indeed a good reason to get off this board.

>>10551175
>Are you concerned your audience is mostly male, isn't that a little divisive

What the fuck type of question is that, nobody would say that to Oprah for having a female audience

>>10552624
>>10552603
Not really though I love you. But still, you're being a fucking moron.

>>10552624

the lady doth protest too much, methinks

>>10551175

Peterson is absolute trash, just a random academic who realized he could double his salary if he became a right wing youtuber

https://thewalrus.ca/the-professor-of-piffle/

>>10552640
You know he's been uploading his lectures for years before he became big right?
his material also hasn't changed from that, other than expanding to the Bible
Not clicking that shit link either

>>10552638
>oooh, I'm wrong so i'm just gonna say you're too angry haha i didn't care about the debate anyway therefore i win in my own life because i'm not that angry and it's not even important anyway :^)

That's not how it fucking WORKS. I want you to admit you are wrong and were being a fucking idiot and preferably to suck my dick. Jesus Christ these fucking nu-male or female or tranny or whatever you are faggots on /lit/ fucking everything up with their limp-wristed passive-aggression. I want a fucking Vocaroo of you admitting your error and apologizing

>>10552640
>How dare a qualfied professor have opinions outside our mandated left wing right-think

I think Peterson is an idiot but people like you make me want to support his childrens crusade

>>10552640
Wow, you actually got me to read that article. I guess the joke's on me!

>>10552650

Yep, and then he realized there was a whole untapped audience of pseuds waiting to flock to him the moment he said something provocative.

He's a terrible lecturer too. I took one of his classes

>>10552651
idk keep going

>>10552665
What did he say that was provocative?

>>10552665
Get out of here you fucking leaf. Nobody cares about your shitstained country

>>10551520
And I mean that TECHNICALLY!

>>10552657

It's not his opinions, it's his using his academic credentials to sell t-shirts to pseuds

>>10552674
Who gives a shit

>>10552674
But he's not selling tshirts, you idiot, he's selling opinions. How are you this fucking dumb?

>>10552687

yeah, he has a whole website devoted to selling his 'opinions' in the form of edgy cotton tees: https://shirtsofmeaning.threadless.com/

>>10552687
The article he linked is just a long rant about how his views are "problematic" and he's retreating after being called out

>>10552691
Is that him, though, or someone making some money off his tailcoats?

>>10552697

that's him: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/871918742409818113?lang=en

Peterson's biggest shortcoming is that he may reject "liberal marxist" philosophy but he instead preaches an old man's vision of the future where men marry women, labor full time, and raise children (since he still believes that is the pinnacle of human existence).

He is only half-right and has an enormous misrepresentation of where the world is headed.

>>10552699
Haha, ok so he's selling tshirts and opinions. And you hate the tshirts. I stand corrected.

>>10552701
Where's the world headed?

>>10552699
>>10552691
It literally says on the about page that its made by a fan.
If you want to call him a huckster point to many of the schemes he actually started

>>10552713

A fan, promoted by Peterson, while Peterson rakes in free advertising for his patreon

>>10552720
What are you going to do if some goober starts making fan shirts for you?
I'd probably tell him to stop because they're hidious and embarrassing but I can't blame him wanting to support a fan

>>10552712
A much better place

>>10552730
I doubt it.

>>10552728

The t-shirts (which I only noticed just now are a fan, considering he linked it on twitter) are emblematic of a wider problem, which is that instead of taking his opinions to platforms where actual debate happens (academia, opinion sections of newspapers), he put them on youtube, where no meaningful discussion can take place, but where he can get considerably richer.

>>10552730
Unless you mean liberated from our painful existence then no
Its all downhill from here

>>10552741
Go to Google Scholar, type his name, see the publications. That. Is. ACADEMIA. God you are such an insufferable faggot.

>>10552738
Well it's a good thing it doesn't matter what you think.

>>10552741
That's incredibly dumb, the only difference between posting a lecture in some newspaper and youtube is people will actually watch youtube

>>10552745
>Hurrr I wish I were dead
Nothing is stopping you but fear.

>>10552748
YouTube opionions: modern academia is DEGENERATE and should be shut down!!! Conservatism FTW

Academic opinions: Differences in Media Preference Mediate the Link Between Personality and Political Orientation, Quantifying the scientific output of new researchers using the zp-index


his standpoints in the academic world are far from controversial

>>10552750
Indeed, things will continue to get worse even if I think otherwise.

>>10552730
>muh human progress myth

>>10552741
>he thinks actual debates happen in Universities

Lmao

>>10552748

Yes, he's a relatively unimportant psychology professor. But he's not making thousands of dollars a month from patreon because he's a run of the mill prof, he's making it because he makes youtube videos where he gives a little bit of academic credibility to right wing politics.

There are plenty of other profs with similar rates of publication without youtube channels catering to idiots, and when those profs are discussed with as much frequency as Peterson I'll go away.

>>10552758
>what is spite

>>10552741
yes but that's where the exposure is, the mass isn't interested in academia, you want to reach them you go to places like youtube, it's a sad truth but that's how you've got to send a message these days.

>>10552766
What right wing politics?

>>10552766
>right wing politics

>>10552766
Will you drop the disingenuous bullshit, you know for a fact none of your frustration here has anything to do with money. You just don't like what he's saying. Own up to it instead of being an annoying bitch

>>10552766
>where he gives a little bit of academic credibility to right wing politics.

And this is why nobody gives a shit about those other Professors

>>10552782

I dislike pseudointellectual youtubers all across the political spectrum.

>>10552766
>where he gives a little bit of academic credibility to right wing politics.
God forbid.

>>10552668
I want to make passionate but violent love with you, yelling extremely racist and sexist obscenities at you as you call me a self-absorbed conceited pig and accuse me of being as stupid as the SJWs I trigger and telling me to go back to r/the_donald tbqh pham.

>>10552790
Cool, how about you just say that next time and fuck off

>>10552791
>>10552766
>where he gives a little bit of academic credibility to right wing politics.

he's failed to that though, which is why he has to resort to pop psych propaganda

contemporary academia on social sciences starts primarily with insights from sociology, which account for things like structural racism and the impact of industrialization/automation, a contemporary sociologist might ask things like "How do we plan for a world with ubiquitous AI?" or "How are real world societies reacting to automation?". The answer povided by people like Piketty is that the means to Godlike technology and political control in general are being amassed by the owners of capital.

JBP can't answer these questions because it's not an answer that's sexy to anyone on any political spectrum.

>>10552814
This post is so middlebrow it hurts.
Thank Christ you Guardian drones are going to be extinct soon

>>10552814
WOT R YOU GONNA DO WHEN YOUR TOASTER HAS MORE STUDENT DEBT THAN YOU

>>10552814
The answer is: by taking in millions of sub 80 IQ immigrants without any IDs? , isn't it?

>>10552814
>a contemporary sociologist might ask things like "How do we plan for a world with ubiquitous AI?" or "How are real world societies reacting to automation?"
None of that helps me get out of bed in the morning, I'm afraid.

>>10552814
>Can he answer "X" question?
>NO BECAUSE NOBODY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION! CHECKMATE!

M8

>>10552814
The future will take care of itself