/lit/ - Literature

>>11181079
>becoming

He became one over a year ago. If it didnt mean serious media organizations calling him out on his bullshit, he would probably be selling JBP branded drinks, snacks, and nicknacks to hundreds of thousands of NEETs

He's not gonna last long

How do people fall for this? He's making a living by attempting to change society by promoting an ideology that is predicated on denouncing activism and ideology. It's completely incoherent

Meh, who cares.

>>11181098
He's the post-Obama Christopher Hitchens. He's gonna be making videos and writing books and doing tv spots until he croaks

>>11181079
(AND THATS A GOOD THING)

>>11181110
Yeah that's what I think too

>>11181106
Because the people he preaches to are morons.

>>11181110
But at least Hitchens could be clever sometimes.

>>11181125
He's eventually gonna debate a smart enough woman who ends up enraging him so much that he implies or flat out says shes a whore and thatll be the end of him in the mainstream

>>11181136
Hopefully
He's spilled the beans, only needs to let them out

>>11181136
he already said to the nytimes that the government should enforce gfs for incels, if he doesn't go down after this and after using the debate against le-ebin-english-comedy-man and le-ebin-liberal-black-man there's nothing that can convince his brainwashed followers

>>11181135
that's just you being hypnotized by Hitchen's english accent, the canadian one doesn't work quite the same

>>11181079
He's a viable candidate for antichrist at this point

>>11181106
like Alex Jones the core of his ideology is to not get involved

>>11181110
he has more in common with David Icke when you hear some his new ages ideas

Why do people get so worked up over JP?
Yes, he's a bit of a hack, but at the end of the day he's not doing any real damage. Overall he's a clear net positive influence and he's making some people think, unlike 90% of "public intellectuals".

>>11181161
>to not get involved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjhWf-9x7GM

>>11181165
it's just standard 60s boomerism, nothing specially weird about it

>>11181170
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672
>Jordan Peterson actually believes the DNA double helix, discovered in 1953, is depicted in ancient Chinese, Aboriginal and Egyptian art

>>11181166
>at the end of the day he's not doing any real damage.

>>11181172
see >>11181170

>>11181173
>implying he wants to force monogamy at gunpoint
>implying he's not just promoting standard boomer conservative values
Keep your brainlet tier discussion on twitter/reddit.

>>11181166
I can't think of any living intellectuals who haven't done more harm than good. Being relatively harmless doesn't mean he's good for anything.

>>11181172
wtf

>>11181191
It's your mind on Jung.

>>11181189
Fair enough, but the people who watch JP would be watching something worse (music videos, CNN, FOX, Steven Pinker...) if they didn't watch JP.
It's a fucked up situation we're in and anything that's even remotely challenging to the status quo can be considered good.

>>11181166
He's not only a bit of a hack but his only benefit is the self-help stuff which is not really original at all, and which he uses to slide in certainly harmful and dubious political and moral ideas.

What exactly, is he making people think about? Most of his followers barely think, they just like that he shuts down SJWs and motte-and-baileys their more extreme views on women, etc.

>>11181213
JP isn't remotely challenging to the status quo and he isn't good, he's a net bad.

>>11181136
that will never happen.
he's a fag but most women are brainlets, i doubt there is a more intelligent woman than me, let alone memerson.

>>11181079

>>11181172
Lol he's a Jungian. They think everything means anything.

>>11181213
Is he really challenging the status quo by preaching to existing echo chambers? The narrative that he's being silenced or is a rebel is a little ridiculous. He doesn't debate anybody who's actually qualified and doesn't engage intellectually with the ideas of the left at all - on an academic level.

If someone came along and debated leftists seriously that'd be good desu. He's not only intellectually dishonest but a coward in that respect, and basically just in it for the money/fame he gets from pushing his ideology. That's a net bad, I can't see how it'd ever be considered a positive.

>>11181218
>>11181221
He's promoting certain conservative values to young men on a massive scale. He's making it, dare I say it, "cool" to be conservative or at least question certain things.
Now you might not like that, but he's pretty unique in this regard and the status quo has been titled in the opposite direction for a long time.

>>11181079
he's inclusive, understands different perspectives,
and doesn't set up existential or semantic traps and cages for people.

>>11181247
>"cool" to be conservative
lol, kids these days

>>11181237
You don't need to be 'more intelligent' than him, the flaws in his worldview have been dissected and explained clearly by plenty. And yes, eventually someone, woman or man will debate him and actually engage with his shit-tier philosophy. Peterson isn't a genius, he's just charismatic.

>>11181245
Intellectual honesty is a spook.

>>11181172
>two snakes intertwined. That must be DNA, not just a representation of two things being connected.

>>11181247
>He's promoting certain conservative values to young men on a massive scale.

Which has been happening since the dawn of time.

>Now you might not like that, but he's pretty unique in this regard and the status quo has been titled in the opposite direction for a long time.

It's not unique in anyway, conservatives are regularly in power in western countries and have been for decades.

>>11181260
That's some Foucault-tier logic right there. Yes yes, we should all just push our own agendas without any honesty or accountability to what's true or reasonable.

>>11181269
>It's not unique in anyway
It is in his professional environment. Hell, it is in nearly all social spaces these days.

>>11181247
People, and in America especially men, have been drawn to the right quite a bit even before him; in fact it's women who are the politically more stable group, both over time and at the voting booth - this has been the case since Reagan's time. He's not unique at all, and said conservative values are still very much there everywhere in our culture - the fact that SJW whine and bitch so much, is because they can't stand that fact. They are obviously insufferable, but so are the people who cling to them, misinterpret said values and their utility/source, and push them, just because they feel they personally will benefit. Such people are not in any way new, and all Peterson is doing is giving some 'credibility' to that worldview. Not a bad thing in itself, but to claim that it's a revolutionary behavior is ridiculous.

>>11181281
Conservative values are everywhere in American culture. It's not unique in anyway.

>>11181136
Lol please go the fuck back to rebblit.

>>11181245
I agree that he's not engaging in any challenging intellectual debates, which is why I doubt the Žižek debate will ever happen (although Ž can also play along and be non-confrontational).

Young people have had a bad feeling about the "just be a degenerate" (roughly speaking) ideology, but didn't know how to express it. JP is that voice, to an extent. He's selling responsibility, not just rights, that's a somewhat unique take outside of some religious circles.

Again, don't just look at JP as an intellectual maverick doing anything particularly original or challenging in that regard, look at him from the eyes of a normie pleb redditor who hasn't read a book in his life.


>>11181269
>Which has been happening since the dawn of time.
Name ONE person who's been doing it with success before JP in the last few years (or decades).

>conservatives are regularly in power in western countries and have been for decades.
Let's stay in the NA political scene where JP operates: redefinition of marriage, diversity quotas, anti-nationalist/"nazi" paranoia... all of this has been the norm for the last decade or more. Conservatives have very little power nowadays (and no, GOP aren't conservatives).

>>11181295
In small pockets of economically destitute areas, sure. But their absent in any place of economic relevance or the ability to enforce their ideas. The left has achieved social omnipotence, and this can be seen in the way they're able to obstruct a right-wing government on social power alone. This is doubly true in academia which has spent it's time justifying and intellectualizing the most recent coordinated anarchist riot.

>>11181281
It's only in some places in academia where that's the case. And the general cultural attitude in America has always had said values. Nobody has forgotten them. The reason people are fighting to change the culture is just that. Outside of a small minority, most people grow up, albeit somewhat liberal, but still highly influenced and socialized by traditional western values. Peterson in fact, is a champion of the status quo, and the only thing about the current status he wants to change, is the presence of people who are against any aspects of the old traditional culture. He only gives lip service to the liberal ideas that he supports, because some of his audience would be upset if he said things more clearly. Hence the motte-bailey tactic.

>>11181079
>fake r/relationships posts designed to shit on peterson

imagine the type of person who would make this

>>11181110
Nobody followed Hitchens like some kind of prophet or guru, people liked his rhetoric and put-downs.

A lot of people saying he's a hack and that he doesn't understand anything but they never say why.

>>11181079
This is 100% fake

>>11181327
>in academia
Academic here, it's really not. Depends quite a bit on what field you're in.

>>11181308
> "just be a degenerate" (roughly speaking) ideology
I agree that this ideology has problems, and am totally in support of the idea that modern western youth have no idea about responsibility.

But what JP is championing isn't just a rejection of it. He very explicitly supports a return to the old social and family structures. And his philosophy is a mess, and while that's not a big deal for a self-help guru, the fact that he pushes said shitty philosophy everywhere and uses it (as well as pretty brainlet-tier arguments - not saying he's a brainlet but his audience sure is) to justify said ideology, is an issue.

>look at him from the eyes of a normie pleb redditor who hasn't read a book in his life.
You have a point, in that sense I do understand WHY he's popular. I just question the idea that his popularity is healthy.

>>11181329
I know it's anecdotal but one of my friends has taken the peterson-pill and it's pretty frustrating to listen to all the time let alone attempt to engage with, and i'm not even a 'liberal', it's not at all surprising that it'd result in a strain on the relationship (unless the woman knows her place, right?).

>>11181166
Yeah, there are like hundreds of other of these self help speakers out there yet 4chan focuses on Peterson to complain about.

>>11181244
>>11181194
that's not jung

>>11181341
Yes they do

>>11181353
He's the only one getting this much attention, and to be honest he's definitely one of the most well-spoken and informed/intelligent of them. People get butthurt when stuff that's dumb gets more credit than it deserves, and this is an example.

>>11181341
Again, another meme. His philosophy has been taken apart so many times, by a wide range of people.

If you were around for the first few months on /lit/ when the kermit became really famous, even up until now, people routinely post deconstructions of him and his work (including 'Maps' - so don't give the 'nobody actually read him, waaahh' bullshit). And there's plenty of good essays and videos out there deconstructing his arguments. Stop pretending like he's the victim of unfair and unreasonable criticism (though he IS the victim of being misrepresented to a degree by some SJWs - that's true). JP likes to push that narrative himself, that he's being silenced by intellectual inferiors when in reality it's him who doesn't engage with actual leftist intellectuals.

>>11181384
>says the exact same thing, just in longer form.

>>11181235
>when memes become irl

>>11181424
No, I'm actually not. What i'm doing is informing you that such arguments have been made, and are extremely accessible everywhere on the internet. Actually going through the motions every time a kermitshill wants you to on /lit/ is pointless. If you want to be less of a brainlet, learn to seek out information on your own.

>>11181437
>just trust me bro.
I've never even listened to a single jordan peterson video.

>>11181443
I'm not asking you to trust me, because I didn't say anything substantial. If you're wondering about actual deconstructions, hang around these threads more or look for it yourself. And if you haven't watched his stuff, then why do you even care? It does explain why you're unfamiliar with the counterarguments but a couple of hours of googling will get you up to speed if you actually care.

What are you looking for here, exactly? You haven't taken time to engage with JP's ideas yourself, or those of his critics, so why do you think you can claim that his critics don't exist?

https://youtu.be/8zvxHh4Eaw8

Just gonna leave this for the Peterson followers.

>>11181472
I'm not a fan of the socialism etc. that Zero Books promotes but they really do engage with ideas really well and honestly, and are a pleasure to listen to. Good taste.

>>11181269
conservatives are just 10 years delayed progressives, we need an actual reactionary with a vision of the future that doesn't limit itself to "whatever progressives want, but slower"

>>11181084
fpbp

>>11181496
And what exactly, would those ideas be?

>>11181455
Everywhere i go i see these people who apparently feel safe sitting there hiding behind some vague "they've been debunked already" bullshit while oddly enough being incapable of bringing up any actual arguments of their own.
It's disgusting.

>>11181455
if you can't summarize the essential arguments against peterson you probably didn't understand them

>>11181348
>Academic here, it's really not. Depends quite a bit on what field you're in.

>>11181172
Peterson gives Jungian psychoanalysis a bad name

>>11181079
>says she has her life sorted out
>complains and ask for advice in reddit
Peterson is started to become a problem though. Just one year ago everyone wanted a Stacey so pure girls were overlooked which made them somewhat attainable. Now they are becoming highly regarded and there's no way we will get one with so much competition while Staceys will still not want to fuck us. Peterson is trying to help but he's only fucking us over.

e-celeb = cult of personality.

Anyone who trades in ideas publicly is bound to have a retarded following to some extent. But no, I don't feel as if he pursues it deliberately, nor does he maintain it like a cult leader would.

>>11181515
i don't think they need help my dude

>>11181512
>>11181509
The reason half the posts just casually mention how flawed his arguments are, is because it's been done to death. On an imageboard, requiring every one of these myopic posts to be responded to in detail is ridiculous, especially given that said posts still seem to show up even when people do provide source. Go learn about JP and the counterpoints on your own.

Zizek wishes he was Peterson

>>11181520
>I don't feel as if he pursues it deliberately, nor does he maintain it like a cult leader would.
This, he's not really as bad as some ideologues. At most, he panders and sneaks in things to his more extreme followers and maintains an air and narrative of his ideas being unquestionable. It's arrogant and dishonest but it's not a cult.

Every board loves Peterson except /lit/, why do you guys have to be the black sheep?

>>11181516
Pure girls didn't want incels in the past either.

>>11181541
/his/ doesn't either, are you serious?

>>11181541
Because we actually read books.

>>11181541
I don't/wouldn't mind him except for the fact there has to be shitty peterson threads nonstop ruining the board, considering it is a slow board

>>11181544
Yeah. It's not limited to Peterson himself. The daily "where do I start with Jung" threads are tiring.

>>11181537
the whole point of this board is discussion, not hand waving and redirecting to google
how are we going to have a discussion if one side constantly refuses to list their points? Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself or what?

>>11181541
Peterson brought the reddit plague from the 2016 election to this board. It isn't an understatement to say that Jordan Peterson has permanently ruined this board.

>>11181542
I'm not an incel though. I'm just a regular guy who is getting forced out of my niche market.

>>11181549
It's been going on for a while. I used to actually give recommendations for comparative myth and talk about why Peterson is shit, but most of these requests seem to come from fanboys that aren't willing to engage with the literature and scholarship. I've had better luck finding people actually willing to talk about that stuff on /tg/, which is hilarious.

>>11181541
>Every board loves Peterson except /lit/
Which board actually like him though?
I know that /pol/ doesn't.

>>11181559
>ask for book recommendations
>not willing to engage in the literatur
literally how retarded are you?

>>11181542
>Pure girls didn't want incels in the past either.
Where does the societal double standard come from that pure girls dislike pure boys?

>>11181571
Incels are not pure. Volcels are.

>>11181079
Granted, I haven't listened to much Peterson - I've heard a handful of his interviews and one of his seminars, but this doesn't seem like a Jordan Peterson problem. It sounds like a fairly standard occurrence.

A young, budding male finds a successful older male he admires, and to whom he is intellectually inferior - either due to age, talent, or both. He espouses the older males ideas, emulates him, and gets overly passionate. This is, and has been, entirely standard male behavior from time immemorial.

He'll grow out of it.

>>11181552
>one side constantly refuses to list their points?
But that's wrong. It was done and has been done many times. You'd have a very valid point if said criticisms were hard to find or didn't exist. But that's simply not true.

> Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself or what?
Why don't you educate yourself on both sides, then come here for a discussion. I'd gladly debate particular points and new articles from either side, but if you legitimately think he has no legit critics, then you clearly haven't done the very basics to allow for a discussion.

If someone tried to debate with me on my topic of research work but didn't have the needed background, I'm not going to spell it out for them unless they are my friend, not someone on an imageboard who very well could just be getting people to waste their time. It's no different here.

And by the way, whenever there's some new article or video that people want to talk about, they DO talk about it in detail. The recent shit with the 'enforced monogamy' that the media is clinging to, got 410+ replies, with some actually decent discussion. So honestly I don't see what you're complaining about.

>>11181571
Biology.

>>11181571
That's not true in my country for example, almost all girls here prefer inexperienced guys. But they don't like guys who are INcels, as >>11181575 puts it. Would you want a girl who's so ugly or emotionally messed up that no guy wants her?

The double standard largely comes from our social structure traditionally.

>>11181589
>who's so ugly or emotionally messed up that no guy wants her?
Not that anon but ugly not. Emotionally messed up absolutely.

>>11181589
>in my country for example, almost all girls here prefer inexperienced guys
W-hat country is that?

>>11181565
Engaging with the literature doesn't mean being in an echochamber and ignoring sources besides Jung and Campbell who elaborate and more importantly, differ in interpretation. I'm not complaining about the asks, that's great. I'm complaining about people who just want more shit to support the ideology of their kermit-daddy instead of actually becoming less of brainlets.

>>11181575
I get what you are saying and I guess that you are right.
But what exactly does "involuntary" mean here, is someone who never even tried "involuntary" celibate?

>>11181589
>Would you want a girl who's so ugly or emotionally messed up that no guy wants her?
I seriously don't know the answer to that question, I think that uglyness is completely tolerable within limits and that if I set my standards to "mentally healthy" or higher my chances would drop to literally zero.

>>11181079
If Molymemes a cult leader then why not Peterson?

you're helicopter-worthy if you're literally upset by peterson
I means you have a negative emotional response to concepts such as
>patriarchy
>dominance hierarchies
>masculine feminine dichotomy
>human biodiversity
but instead of being honest about it, you talk about peterson's argument as if you were actively engaging with them. you're somehow able to have a very nuanced understanding of "abolishing whiteness" but you also actually believe that peterson is asking for state-funded gfs for permavirgins

>>11181590
Sorry I can't parse the syntax. Are you rejecting the ugly one or the emotionally fucked one?

In either case, the thing is in the west, most people do have relationships before marriage - there is no social or religious restriction. Because of this, a guy who can't get a gf is seen as having something wrong with his personality. That's a very reasonable way to think imho. Of course, getting to know a girl and vice versa, she might realize said virgin isn't so bad at all, but when it comes to first impressions, which are a big part of attraction in many situations.

A virgin guy can be just as much of a red flag as a guy who's had tons of relationships but none lasted at all. Same for women in that situation. Now for short-term stuff maybe that's not an issue, but for LTR it is.

>>11181614

molymeme demands fealty

>>11181611
>But what exactly does "involuntary" mean here, is someone who never even tried "involuntary" celibate?
You get chances but you're waiting for a girl you plan to get married to. I guess if you don't get chances but you still are theoretically waiting for the right girl you're a volcel too. Seems like a nice way of solving the incel problem actually. They just have to pretend they never wanted to fuck anyway and people will stop hating them. They may even be perceived as honorable people.

>>11181619
Criticizing his philosophy or his views on those things, doesn't imply that you have an emotional response to them. And I'm sure you have a positive emotional response to those as well. Everybody has biases, and these don't really imply that the arguments are bad.

>abolishing whiteness
AFAIK the critics of Peterson don't really talk about this, and neither does JP.

>>11181628
>They may even be perceived as honorable people.
It's what a number of such people did and became monks/ascetics in the past, I imagine.

>>11181629
>AFAIK the critics of Peterson don't really talk about this, and neither does JP.
Seems like a pretty standard position held by his critics even if it is irrelevant to the Peterson discussion.

>>11181589
Which country are you from?

>>11181623
haha, this. Did he not use to ask his followers a yes or no allegiance question before deciding whether to engage with them or not?

>>11181629
>Criticizing his philosophy or his views on those things,
stop doing that, talk about what you're really upset about. how does it make you feel that he's successfully referencing psychometric data when talking about accomplished jews? does it fill you with dread?

>And I'm sure you have a positive emotional response
no, I don't. however, I'm pretty sure I can recognize over-socialized authoritarians who have mistaken their "leveling of the hierarchies" for an ideological cause. anyone or anything that makes them sense danger is a-ok in my book

>>11181611
>I think that uglyness is completely tolerable within limits
Sure, but I'm sure you'd prefer a better looking SO right?
> "mentally healthy" or higher my chances would drop to literally zero.
Eh that's not that true, unless you have mental issues or are ugly yourself.

Remember, the casual sex market is very skewed because people just go for what they prefer - there's no assortative mating. But for long-term stuff, it's much more reasonable.

>>11181640
Didn't he also encourage his followers to break off from everyone in their life that wasn't an ancap?

No, but the /leftypol/ branch of lit (/pol/ too) is certainly a cult.

>>11181642
>how does it make you feel that he's successfully referencing psychometric data when talking about accomplished jews? does it fill you with dread?
What? I have no issues with that, or regarding the IQ differences between races. Stop with the assumptions m8.

> over-socialized authoritarians who have mistaken their "leveling of the hierarchies" for an ideological cause.
I'm not for this either, in fact I find such types annoying. Seems like you really do have the black and white mentality I asserted that you did.

>>11181648
That was it. I think I might have conflated the two. Molymeme was truly dangerous at one point.

Why does Reddit hate Peterson trying to help young men to better themselves?

>>11181636
>Seems like a pretty standard position held by his critics
I'm not honestly sure, and would legitimately be curious to know if that's the case. It probably is to a degree, because those who support the "biological differences don't exist" narrative are all very much anti-Peterson. But that doesn't mean that all his criticism comes from that camp. To label anyone against his ideology or philosophy as an SJW is ridiculous.

And more importantly, when we're talking about debating the ideas, we should just focus on the ideas in question. Identity politics is cancer. I know a lot of westerners can't avoid it though.

>>11181628
>I guess if you don't get chances but you still are theoretically waiting for the right girl you're a volcel too
>They just have to pretend they never wanted to fuck anyway and people will stop hating them.
That is literally me, good to know that I am counted among the volcels.

>>11181646
>Sure, but I'm sure you'd prefer a better looking SO right?
I wouldn't want her to be too good looking, I think that would make me feel pretty insecure.

>Eh that's not that true, unless you have mental issues or are ugly yourself.
Since no one has told me that I look good or bad I assume that I am moderately ugly.
And besides basically zero social skills I think I am reasonably mentally healthy.
I haven't had more then a few sentences of casual conversations with girls in the last 3 years, so I assume that my sexual value is pretty low.

>>11181657
>What? I have no issues with that, or regarding the IQ differences between races. Stop with the assumptions m8.
then you're an enlightened centrist critiquing a guy who talks about disney movies and jungian archetypes. who the fuck actually cares about late-stage boomerism. the interesting part about him is the people he energizes and the people he upsets

Same challenge I gave yesterday for those who constantly complain about Peterson. Give a recommendation of something that will help people that isn't:

a) 50+ years old
b) by some rich asshole who doesn't know what it is like to be at the bottom of the food chain in 2018.

If you cannot, then I seriously implore you to shut the fuck up.

>>11181621
>Because of this, a guy who can't get a gf is seen as having something wrong with his personality.
You're assuming nations are culturally homogeneous instead of many coexisting subcultures with their own set of values. While some subcultures are more dominant than others that doesn't mean that for example a girl who wants to stay a virgin until marriage is an oddity but still part of the dominating subculture that rejects virginity but most probably that she belongs to her own subculture with its own set of values and therefor she may see male-virginity as positive.

>>11181674
>centrist
I'm probably more of a conservative in many ways, I do agree with his issues with promiscuity. And yes, I basically am critiquing his shitty philosophy and jungian analysis, and his lack of real understanding of anthropology and history. I do have issues with his claims to universalist interpretations of the masculine and feminine, or of dominance hierarchies. Not about their existence, but with his interpretation and applications, and general looseness and lack of either understanding of nuance or dishonesty that some of it has.

If he just claimed that he thinks western social structure and family structure is what he wants to return to, that's be ok, but his claims that the optima for social structure are universal (in fact, hidden in our psyche and the universe's order - revealed through myths which are 'universal' (hint - they aren't)) and are always these exact same social structures, is the issue. There's definite truth to the information he uses but he's a crap philosopher.

That said yes you are completely right, the people that get polarized by him are interesting. But I do really feel that him, as well as other Identity Politics is really harmful to society, and polarization isn't good in the long-run. Eventually maybe people will see this.

>>11181079
Honestly I'm just starting to hate peterson because he's rich. Has always been well off and now is just rolling in wealth. I think its immoral to have that much money and then claim like you understand suffering and so on.

>>11181676
>something that will help people
Help them with what?

>>11181619
>you're helicopter-worthy if you're literally upset by peterson
stopped reading there, underage r/ancap subscriber

>>11181686
Oh I agree, I was mostly talking about the average, normie culture. There's plenty of subcultures, usually religious, where people are not promiscuous.

>>11181577
nice job assuming that I don't know the arguments on both side, it's just not my job in a discussion to bring forth both sides of the argument just to have an army of anonymous shitposters strawman that "those are not our arguments, you didn't understand"
that's why I want YOU to summarize your side, so I exactly know what you personally think so we can engage in an honest debate or at least link to some kind of summarization so we can have a starting point for the discussion
I can and would summarize petersons points but that's kind of a irrelevant thing to do in a thread that focuses on the critique of his ideas, there'd be no starting point for discussion

additionally yes I think the depiction of conjoining snakes is not DNA but that's not really an argument for or against something but more of an anecdotal belief on his side you may or may not agree with. it doesn't invalidate any of his scientific neurological interpretations of how the brain works which shows huge parallels to actual findings in brain research and robotics

I honestly don't give a shit about the politics side of things and wether peterson is right or not, I just wanna talk about what anons here personally think is wrong and why that is

finally, things like "enforced monogamy" or a return to conservative values is not at all what he wants and is just another strawman to discredit his character, he is just saying that family values served a purpose until now and we should be careful to deconstruct these social structures, not because they're god given or the only possible way of living, but because they worked until now and we don't actually have a clue about what the consequences are of changing them in the long run
that ofc doesn't mean we shouldn't change them, and he's very clear about that, it means that we should change them when we can be certain that it makes things better

it's actually not very difficult to understand, we might argue about how certain we have to be to try and change social concepts

>>11181674
love this centrist slur
so many retards absolutely seeeeething against anyone who doesnt buy into the left or right's brainlet koolaid

>>11181658
Not quite, he advised people to cut family members out of their lives if those family members weren't able to stop being poor influences on the caller. I think one guy did it and ended up offing himself anyway, then his POS drunkard parents suddenly pretended to care.

>>11181701
I never brought up the DNA thing or implied that the enforced monogamy thing was a legitimate issue - in fact that's literally why i said "the media is latching onto".

> that's why I want YOU to summarize your side, so I exactly know what you personally
So the first post I responded to was a post claiming that "JP has no legit critics". That's wrong, and a common meme, and I just responded to state that it was wrong. Wanting to personally argue with the other side is not the same as simply pointing out an obviously false statement.

Now I do agree that /lit/ is about discussion, so yes, if we were discussing something particular or I wanted to spend the time to actually debate people, I'd type out some text wall as usual. But we're not, I just wanted to point out that the idea that Peterson is "never actually criticized" isn't true, and that both sides have very easily accessible stances.

> I just wanna talk about what anons here personally think is wrong and why that is
That's totally chill, so do I usually. But stating that "JP has no critics" (if that was you), isn't the way to go about it.

I'm laughing at the snarky leftist failed grad student butthurt itt

>>11181711
>their lives if those family members weren't able to stop being poor influences on the caller.
Cult always tell potential cultists to do just that

>>11181166

He gets hated because he opposes leftist speech laws and he promotes personal responsibility.

>>11181172
Hahaha fuck off retard.
Have you read the cosmic serpent yet?
How do you explain the ayahuasca trips in which the amazon indians see giant snakes like dna. And after the trip they mix a few plants from.the jungle and created a mixture that paralyzes. This mixture was not known in the west before and when you ask the indians how they knew what plants to mix they usually say something like "the plants told us" or "the snake/nature gods we encounter while on drugs told us".
You shallow minded people declaring anything that lies outside your human grasp as nonsensical just shows how ignorant amd arrogant you are. Have some appreciation for the incerdibly complex mysterie we call life for once you stupid pricks

>>11181110
I think there are similarities as well but only in the sense of him being a vehicle and advocate of an elevated discourse - Peterson being far less articulate than Hitchens.

Christopher Hitchens would be wonderful to read in our current political climate. But Peterson is right about our current social attitudes in that we've all become overly sentimental and desperate to be sincere yet are so afraid of criticism that everything is packaged in these snarky, passive aggressive memes.

And yet Petersonfags still play the cat and mouse game agin ITT

>>11181676
No one can help you but yourself

>>11181341
This article points out how he's a con-artist.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/book-review-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-78542

>>11181735
Hitchens unlike Peterson was an actual intellectual who actually contributed to society though.

I'm the only one with insanely slow captchas?

>>11181721
That doesnt mean its exclusive behaviour to cults.

>>11181348
You haven't mentioned one specific thing about his "ideologiy" that's harmful.

I think most of the people criticizing JP are to full of themselfs and/or have a obstructed view of him.

I'm not here to defend him but I feel a very deep connection to the intellectual roots of this man. I agree on many things he sais and other things I think he sometimes puts to bluntly. But JP himself acknowledges his ignorance on an infinite amount of topic time and again. He is not intellectually dishonest. He is a pragmatist whos trying to figure this situation out before it degenerates into civil war and nuclear crisis.
Sure he may have poured some fuel into the culture war fire but that woild happen with any idea or preacher. There will always be people thst use this phenomenon to construct their own little ingroup so they can be superior for once. Anyone who understands the intellectual roots of JP doesn't behave that way. Being humble is the first step to wisdom. The fear of god is the first step to wisdom.
We don't know.amything. anyone who claims to know absolute good from.absolite bad is lying.
All.jp says is: We can agree that the 2nd world war was bad. Hoe do we move in a different more productive direction.
Maybe you should stop worrying if jp is wrong or right but focus on your own developement

>>11181742
The only thing that article points out is its author's perception of Peterson's intention. Namely that writing an advice book, which is widely popular as a genre, as a person who is already widely popular is bound to attract popularity and the whole affair is therefore opportunistic.

The argument is clinically retarded.

>>11181735
Hitchens, like Peterson, is someone who who build his celebrity by throwing himself into the culture wars. Which were at that point religion vs athiesm.

His celebrity is distinct from his actual value as a thinker/writer

>>11181756
Yes and? That is not riveting defense of molymeme not being a cult leader

>>11181079
archetypal possession, it's kind of ironic isn't it?

>>11181368
I don't think so.
I think peterson has a way of talking about reality that evokes the internal god image of most people. That's why most of the reactions he gets are so polarized.
There are three things that can happen:
1) You project your god image(the highest ideal) onto peterson which results in the retarded cult like crowd that has sadly latched onto him
2) Your god image evokes fear and anger since you realize you are not even getting closer to your true ideals so you have ro kill the idea. You become cain. This is the case i believe with most 4chan users. They think they are smart and that they got things worked out but then cones peterson and makes their degeneracy blatantly obvious so they either change or get very angry or frightend.
3) Your god image takes it's rightful place at the top of the hierarchy and you start to do anything to transform yourself in it's image. This is akin to starting the intrinsic motor of individuation. This involves repeatedly shedding oarts of yourself that no longer fit and recreate others that do.

>>11181757
I didn’t fully understand what the Jon Stewart defense really was until now

>>11181691
you're a conservative but definitive statements about dominance hierarchies makes you queasy and in reality there are many different social structures that are just as valid
that's just the status quo. these conceptions of dominance, masculinity, femininity and social order are what's outputting our current social climate. jbp will probably not be able to reverse that before a civil war breaks out so you should be good

>revealed through myths which are 'universal' (hint - they aren't)
maybe not universal but salvation is a narrow path :)

>But I do really feel that him, as well as other Identity Politics is really harmful to society, and polarization isn't good in the long-run.
there are no politics without "identity politics"

>>11181699
I just like the imagery

>>11181767
Hardly a riveting prosecution either.

>>11181791
>suspected X does what X always do is not good evidence
Quacks like a duck

>>11181355
I agree, it isn't Jung. But it is Jungians. Learn the difference.

>>11181787
>definitive statements about dominance hierarchies makes you queasy
Did I say that, or even refer to how it "made me felt"? You seem to think that everything is an emotional argument. And as mentioned I have nothing against hierarchies themselves, or their existence. They are essential in many ways. Yes, there's the SJWs who literally think the world should be some egalitarian paradise but that and JP aren't the only two views. You can know about hierarchies but encourage ones which are better in various ways, or realize that some aspects of the older hierarchies are not going to work in today's world (tho new hierarchies will ofc emerge). And yes, one can be conservative and even religious but not support JP. Does it mean I think the opposite side are MORE correct? No, probably the opposite. But disliking degeneracy doesn't mean you have to agree with kermit.
>in reality there are many different social structures that are just as valid
which JP doesn't state, or seem to imply in 'Maps'. can you show me where he's even alluded to this?
> these conceptions of dominance, masculinity, femininity and social order are what's outputting our current social climate
Agreed. But JP isn't trying to 'reverse' them. He's in support of most of the status quo - he's against the SJWs who want to change things radically, and against various changes that have already happened, some of which can very much be argued to be good.
> you should be good
What? regarding what exactly?

>maybe not universal but salvation is a narrow path :)
If you're going to argue that religion is universal, there's really no point. It's a reasonable stance but not one that's debatable.

>there are no politics without "identity politics"
Disagree, and even otherwise today's western identity politics are really pretty bad.

>>11181749
just because Hitchens had an english accent doesn't mean he said anything smart, it just sounds like it

>>11181575
This anon may be a genius.

>>11181839
Hitchens actually wanted to change things and had the balls of going against the establishment by rejecting religion which in those years was still quite popular. Maybe the guy wasn't your typical intellectual but he was punk rock as fuck. Peterson is just the bitch of the status quo and keeps defending some retrograde bullshit that we should have got rid of hundred of years ago.

>>11181889
>Hitchens actually wanted to change things and had the balls of going against the establishment
he was literally a neocon

>by rejecting religion which in those years was still quite popular.
are you memeing? religion was dead and buried, it was just a bunch of city intellectuals laughing at rural people because they hadn't caught up with the latest trends yet and were voting for things that the intellectual elites didn't like like the whole intelligent design thingy that never was going to go anywhere anyway

>>11181825
>You seem to think that everything is an emotional argument.
when it comes to dominance hierarchies, it's an important consideration. I don't think most people have a very sophisticated conception of competence or how to build an environment that reproduces competence. I think most people are either have-nots who wishes to climb the dominance hierarchy by negating the competence of others or they're lefty-brained people who have a neurological reaction when confronted with dominance hierarchies

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.1486&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>What? regarding what exactly?
aligning yourself with the status quo is a sign of social competence and intelligence

>Disagree, and even otherwise today's western identity politics are really pretty bad.
politics isn't about being right, it's about whatever energizes people and creates political momentum. you wont energize black people by pretending that they're not black. the time where you could win an election by selling minorities a political platform by appealing to their ethnical identity is coming to an end as demographics are shifting

>>11181972
> it's an important consideration.
I'm neither a westerner nor do I really have a stake in this shit.
> lefty-brained people who have a neurological reaction when confronted with dominance hierarchies
I'd say your analysis is probably right for people who are actually SJWs. As I've said a few times, I have nothing against hierarchies or wealth stratification etc. That said you don't seem to be implying that I myself am one of them anymore, and yes I do agree that it's a consideration to make. Everyone does tend to favor things which they are biased too (duh), but I also think that there's little point in trying to dissect and classify people all the time when arguing. Just talking about the points is good enough for me, and if someone is completely biased it'll be obvious. I'm not against evolutionary psych or many of JP's points. I just find issue with some of the claims I mentioned already, as well as the pandering of his mediocre and overly reductionist philosophy to people who could actually use a more balanced approach instead of being radicalized into alt-right vs SJWs. Making him the face of the anti-SJWs isn't a good thing.

>aligning yourself with the status quo is a sign of social competence and intelligence
I don't think this is true (nor do I think the converse is true), but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Can you explain?

>politics isn't about being right, it's about whatever energizes people and creates political momentum.
Literally some Foccault-tier logic right there. Yeah lets read history and do academics just for political purposes. Sounds great. And yeah I think my status as not an American probably plays into this - I'm only really interested in the philosophy and the fact that some of it is bad and can lead to bad ideas, and could really care less about what you guys do politically.

>>11181718
He isn't me, and i never said that. >>11181341

>>11181718
nah man, wasn't me, everything that I find seems to be some sort of mischaracterization or caricture of his belief or just blatant strawmen, I just want one honest, genuine criticism

- political rantings: yes they suck
why do they suck? because he's too open with his terminology, he doesn't define "cultural marxism" as specific as it should be and especially in debates not as often as he should
that on one hand makes it easier to generate a greater following because of the wide range of interpretation
but on the other hand there actually is a problem, call it what you want, and it has to do with people trying to use group identity to play off either black against white people, rich against poor people etc. this is a problem in race relation as well as civil discourse
BUT adressing this problem doesn't deny the existence of problems as experienced by people of a certain group, all peterson wants to explain is that there obviously are such group specific problems, but their origin cannot be reduced to faulty behavior of OTHER groups just because they are group specific, there may be a large amount of other factors than must be equally adressed. and fixing the symptoms of a problem, for example through racial equity in the workplace, doesn't actually solve the problem of the STATISTICAL lack of education in the group "black people" for example, there's a wide range of causes for that, high single-motherhood for example that cannot be explained solely by racism, not all group specific problems have group specific causes
this is the only thing peterson talks about basically

-the other shit, how the brain functions and how that came to be is more on the fun side but has nothing to do with the above politics

>>11181774
I honestly think they're just redditors, they did the same thing to fucking Gabe Newell.
It was only ironic in degree.

>>11181742
>He repeats his major preoccupation in Maps of Meaning: the Carl Jung-inspired ying yang of chaos and order. Peterson’s method here is iterative. He repeats “chaos is X” and “order is Y”, or makes similes about them. For instance: “Chaos is freedom, dreadful freedom, too. Order, by contrast, is explored territory.” Or, on taxes: “When your tax return has been filed, that’s order. When you’re audited, that’s chaos.” On Tolkien: “Order is the Shire of Tolkien’s hobbits… Chaos is underground kingdom of the dwarves, usurped by Smaug.” If you don’t follow his points, neither do I.

literal brainlet

>>11181742
>>11181764
>>11182149
why are aristotelians so salty all the time?

>>11181144
But he never said that.

>>11181235
If that is not a net good... Just that is better than anything Zizek achieved.

>>11181541
/lit/ is filled with cunty lefty woman who shudder at the thought of actual social conservatism coming to dominate western society again. They will try to shutdown anyone that espouses these ideals.

>>11182315
so this is the power of the /r/incels refugee

>>11182252
I mean, my gott, are we aware that this post is ideology at its purest and so on and so on *sniff* *tug* *wipe sweat off brow*?

Sage

>>11182370
This is how you get banned mate. Virtue signalling your lack of interest by announcing saging. Cretin.

>>11182324
Flawless retort. You sure showed me.

>>11181730
Fuck off you retard, now let me explain to you the drug trips of amazonian tribesmen...

>>11181133
Unlike me (who's smart by the way).

>>11181173
Nice leftbook meme you faggot
>>>/out/

>>11181173
Why do leftists feel the need to misrepresent their opponents? Is that they only way you think you can win? Or are you genuinely stupid enough to believe that that's what he said.

Sort yourself out.

>>11182441
Pretty accurate description of you, actually. Now go fuck off.

>>11181161
>>11181167
He's good fun, quite a good actor too. He cultivates the impression of coherency whilst being really incoherent at the same time. It'd say he's artistic.
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1526829478464.webm

>>11181730
>if something looks like something else that means they're exactly the same
They know what to mix through trial and error and learning from others
Lots of plants and animals are unique to different parts of the world, what is the esoteric significance supposed to be here?
the plants weren't known isnt he west, well neither was squash or pumpkin or potatoes or tomatoes or maize - are they magical too?

>>11181235
Not that many people achieve the status of walking meme.

>>11181757
>you haven't mentioned one specific thing about his "ideology" that's harmful.
Look at the relationship in the OP that is clearly breaking down because of Petersons influence

Peterson should unironically review The Master by PTA.

Would anyone be so kind to enlighten a former brainlet Peterson cultist who is now unsatisfied with his repetitive talks, as to why his views on comparative mythology are bad?