/lit/ - Literature

>Look mom I cleaned my room so I can post threads about my idol/replacement father figure on 4chan again today!

Sunday school teacher for the modern male whose parents never took him to church

>>11300369
wash your foreskin bucko

Dull and asinie. I have no idea how 60s boomer new age garbage with conservative values has struck such a chord.

>>11300369
messiah complex in a canuck
he idealizes some past state of human affairs without ever considering that whatever attributes he's advocating for were themselves the result of a historical process from one state to another
tl;dr the wrong kind of conservative (social darwinist)

Congratulations! You have once again succeeded in posting a thinly-veiled 'literature' thread with the intention to gossip like a schoolgirl!

>>11300526
>chad Peterson acolyte using his clean-room ESP to see through a vagabond anon's falseposting
I admire you, wise one

>everyone is a dragon but me

>>11300369
I was cleaning my room before it was cool

No one would even care what he says about women if he concluded everything with "I hate daddy and I like sex".

>>11300369
very deceptive. he is a motivational speaker at best but doesn't really guide anyone towards anything other than becoming a drone.

>>11300522
>tl;dr the wrong kind of conservative
what's the right kind of a conservative?
>inb4 a dead one/redpilled one

is he breathing fire like a dragon ahhaa? rawrrr

>>11300369

Some of his work struck a chord with me early on, especially what he borrowed from Jung and Eliade and how he connected it with Evolutionary Biology and more modern Psychology, but almost everything he has done since his rise to fame has been idiotic and/or annoying.

>>11300369
Like him, don't love or hate him. He's accessible enough for the masses but challenging enough to those who can't reason or have little to no common sense. I don't think he's a genius, but I do stand behind some of the basic things he says, and I think the left-wingers ought to pay a little bit more attention to him. Right-wingers ought not to suck his dick the way they do. Anyhow, left- and right-wing politics is fucking retarded.

>>11300643
>ought to pay a little bit more attention to him.
Oh please, if anything the inverse is true

Boring

Even he is right about something.

>>11300646
I think I see what you mean, but liberals shit all over him because of his conservatism (if you'll call it even that). In my opinion, the guy's got a lot of common sense that I just don't see in neolibs.

>>11300369
Like him. People on this board hate him SOLELY because he's popular. Read that again, fight me if you disagree. This board is full of contrarian basement-dwellers so what can you expect.

For purely visceral reasons, love the video clips where he "DESTOyS LEFTISTS"

Hate the caricature he's become; as always popularity cheapens the product. Still, the message is essentially correct and he put a finger on something important. I'd place him in the same league as Taleb: they may be public intellectuals but they're worth listening to if only to remind yourself of your own ignorance.

>>11300643
>challenging enough to those who can't reason or have little to no common sense
challenging enough to those who ask for some semblance of factual accuracy

btw, "common sense" is shit

>>11300369
His "philosophy" is convoluted trash, that he tries to trick people in believing with science magic, sophistry and mysticism.

>>11300612
paleo, actually
>based Gottfried

>>11300660
I'll revise my statement. He's challenging to the neolibs who refuse any counterargument purely on the basis of "bigotry." They're afraid of free speech because they're afraid of what might make sense but doesn't fall in line with "progressive" or absolutist liberal views. Gender, sexuality, refugees, etc.

>>11300681
>neolibs

>>11300688
Okay, I'm not the smartest guy, but the least you could do is explain why I'm wrong.

>>11300646
How many times are you planning on posting this image? How long is JBP going to live in your head rent free?

>>11300681
like I said:
>challenging enough to those who ask for some semblance of factual accuracy

>>11300694
>I use the term neoliberal to refer to progressives

>>11300702
Neoliberals believe they are the progressives, though. I was being ironic.

It hurts my feelsies when people say that he’s for people without a father figure. I never had a father figure and he really improved my life. Gave up smoking, drinking and playing videogames. Started to take school and work more seriously.

Thanks daddy Peterson.

>>11300656
I like his work as a psychologist unironically, and his manner of speaking is comfy and entertaining, but I can't forgive his bogus interpretation of postmodernism.

>>11300373

>Look 4channers, I made fun of a man a group of people admire because I'm a pathetic contrarian!

>>11300750
He didn't actually make fun of Peterson though.

>>11300369
I like him but cringe at how some people worship him

>>11300743
please go into depth about what he misinterprets about the outcome of postmodernism

>>11300643
He *is* accessible, but I don't think he's challenging; especially after his initial fame in light of his position on the pronoun law, he seems to be making a point of polemicizing beyond his intellectual means. This can be seen both in his favorite brickbat to swing at the Left, "postmodern neo-Marxism", his understanding of which is entirely dependent upon a poor polemic written by a Randian who claims that Rousseau and Kant are postmodernists, and in the recent hubbub about "enforced monogamy", where his later clarification (i.e., that it's socially enforced respect for monogamous relationships) flies in the face of the account wherein he brought it up in the first place (i.e., as a solution that prevents incels from being a phenomenon; if he didn't mean forcing women into relationships with men, then how is the above account supposed to deal with men who aren't selected for by women, which was the issue he was responding to?).

On the one hand, the Left has done a terrible job of engaging his followers, in part through actually yanking elements of his speeches out of context to put them in the worst possible light, but they don't even need to do that, since the "enforced monogamy" issue is a perfect example of his own incoherence on an issue; if they'd stop having weird hangups over arguing with him, they could probably achieve the social disenfranchisement that they want for him.

But when it boils down to it, he's a milquetoast classical liberal dancing around Jung, a bad reader of Nietzsche who can't escape Christian morality, and who can't face up to N.'s challenge to develop new values. He can't offer any account of how "postmodernist neo-Marxism" causally developed as an alternative to his preferred positions. And he's a super boring dilettante when it comes to philosophy; like hell, why not listen to Dreyfus's Existentialism lecture courses instead of this boring dweeb?

Most of the people that hate him in this board didn't read his work, and attack him based on his fanbase, poorly written articles or because they disagree with him politically.

Maps of Meaning is great. His lectures are fine (inb4: DNA strands clip). His career is sucesfull and he has interesting ideas.

Then there are his controversial interviews. And his self help book. And that's what most of the criticism comes from.

>>11300369
He got me into mythological deconstruction/analysis, Jung, and reading overall. Pretty nice guy, even if every appearance he is booked for is a topic outside of his sphere of influence with hostesses trying to maneuver him into toppling himself with incredibly loaded questions. Maps of Meaning is a pretty powerful dissertation into the Jungian dialectic.

>>11300826
>jungian metaphysics is great

>>11300838
>even if every appearance he is booked for is a topic outside of his sphere of influence with hostesses trying to maneuver him into toppling himself with incredibly loaded questions
JEZEBELS
fucl's sake, nobody is manuevering him into anything, it's more like he's enthusiastically jumping in

>>11300369
SO BANE - AND THAT'S THE BLOODY THING ABOUT BANE - HE REPRESENTS CHAOS, IN FACT, HE'S AN AGENT OF CHAOS, AND IN CONTRAST, WE HAVE CIA, WHO REPRESENTS ORDER, ROUGHLY SPEAKING. BUT CIA, IN HIS BITTER RESENTMENT, IN HIS-HIS POSTMODERN CULTURAL MARXIST IDEOLOGY, HE TRIES TO TAME THE CHAOS - AND THAT'S A BAD IDEA MAN, IT'S LIKE-IT'S LIKE IF YOU TRIED TAMING FIRE, IT'S JUST GOING TO LEAVE YOU BURNT. BUT CIA, HE TRIES ANYWAY, MOTIVATED BY A LUST FOR POWER - AND IT'S LIKE - GOD ITS SO SAD - ITS LIKE YOU'RE NOT A BIG GUY! YOU'RE NOT A BIG GUY, AND NO POSTMODERN RATIONALIZATION WILL CHANGE THAT. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS EXPLICIT ON THIS MATTER. AND SPEAKING OF TAMING FIRE - WHAT HAPPENS BY THE END OF CIA'S 'EXPERIMENT'? THE FIRE IS NOT TAMED, QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT'S ACTUALLY RISING. AND THIS DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 20TH CENTURY. AND IT'S LIKE SOLZHENITSYN WRITES IN THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO - THE BLOODY MARXISTS ATTEMPTED TO QUELL FIRE, BUT IN DOING SO THEY MERELY FUELED IT. AND WELL ACTUALLY, THEY DID QUITE A BIT MORE. YOU CAN'T PRETEND TO BE A BIG GUY IF YOU'RE NOT. WE TRIED THAT EXPERIMENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY, AND IT WAS A BAD IDEA MAN! AND IT. IS. NOT. A. ROUTE. YOU. WANT. TO. GO. DOWN.

>>11300750
>m-muh CONTRARIANISM!
I've been hearing this exact same complaint from Redditors since 2012 and I'm still hearing it today. Are you people such herd animals that you can't conceive of someone having an opinion other than your own, except due to contrarianism?

He's a decent psychologist and a terrible social commentator.

If you watch his videos where he sticks solely to personal psychology - you know, the thing he actually got a degree in - he really shines through. The problem is when he starts to apply of these ideas in facets of life where they really are not warranted in the slightest.

>>11300369
>lit philocratrats hate him
>he preaches to be a better person to outcast kids who have to other idols in life besides anime characters
>preaches Christianity
>hates trendy postmodernism and neoliberals
I like him just for that.

>>11300369
Literally top reddit/youtube tier pseudosciencist

>>11300894
If he had a degree in alchemy that would literally be less cringy than psychology

>>11300908
Nice projecting there.

>>11300821
Peterson already addressed some of the objections you laid out.

>"postmodern neo-Marxism"
Here's Peterson's definition:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkdkss
JP stance on the incompatibility of Marixsm and post modernism:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkaevc

People get touchy when JP uses a vague term like "marxist post modernism", but he defines his specific meaning by it, and uses it as a launching off point. It's a vague term, but he is very clear by what HE means by it, and he doesn't put words in the mouth of other philosophers. It's almost like people who get offended consider THEMSELVES postmodenists or something? Otherwise it's a weird place to argue against JP. He clearly gets the essence of that word and uses it clearly in his rhetoric, regardless of what *you* make of his total argument.

>the pronoun law
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkgb7j

>"enforced monogamy"
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Now what about reading Maps of Meaning and addressing/criticising his actual ideas instead of focusing on controversy?

>bad reader of Nietzsche
Care to substantiate your claim?
>can't escape Christian morality, and who can't face up to N.'s challenge to develop new values
He doesn't believe we CAN create our own values. Jung didn't either. But maybe you can enlighten us on how to do it, ubermensch

>>11300907
What he's preaching isn't Christianity, he thinks Christianity's true only in so far as it allows beta males to reproduce and places constraints on alpha males and women, other myths could work equally well. His epistemology is more cringy than run of the mill postmodernism

Those "outcasts", the same ones who would have embraced New Atheism 10 years ago and just shoved bananas up their asses, are just responding to him in regards to their material interests... if knowledge of Sumerian mythology and gorilla harems don't get them laid they'll just move on

>>11300369
I like the idea of someone like him becoming famous much more than Peterson himself. I think it's good that there's someone out there encouraging real erudition, conquering all of these self help self-proclaimed gurus

>>11300914
He's showing Calvin how to get to /r/The_Donald

>>11300958
I just don't get fatalistic people like you, anon. How sad and binary is life to you?

I like him because furries, communists and discord trannies HATE him. So he must be doing something right.

>>11300963
encouraging real erudition by not reading what you're talking about and relying on mystical mumbo jumbo, he really is the 21st century philosopher

>>11300975
>implying
lit is turning more and more into pol by the day.

>>11300369
Old religious nut who runs a cult of incels.

>>11300966
So you're going to use armchair psychology now? Good to see that at least you know you don't have a refutation to the argument, then.

>>11300981
pol is right about most of its issues of contention, especially racism, which has become literally impossible to argue against in good faith.

Most of the writers this board likes from before 1900 have completely pol tier beliefs

>>11300643
>he uses centrist talking points

A dopey man with a dopier foundation, but he upsets the right people.

>>11300992
So now calling man a fool because he's not as smart as you think people should be is an argument?
Seems more like angsty bias to me.

>>11301000
What's your objection? I don't get it. He is a centrist, a classic liberal.

>>11301011
He has 150 Iq, actually. He is pretty inteligent

>>11300998
>likes from before 1900
>t. pols beliefs are pre-19th century
idiot surprises exactly zero(0) people

>>11300998
I too mourn for the days when men of letters could have a good-faith conversation on the vagaries of the negro's skull shape.

>>11300975
He encourages people to read Dostoevsky and Nietzsche and other approachable entry level literature/philosophy, on a massive scale, which I support. I don't really care for the politics or whatever else his videos say.

>>11300826
>inb4: DNA strands clip
The point he was trying to make is that people have intimations of things before they can articulate them explicitly and concretely. Francis Crick likely figured out the structure of DNA while tripping before proving it.

>>11301034
well their skulls are literally smaller, so they were on the right path. When one race shows literally no examples of success ever it is fair to draw conclusions

why do anti-petersonists get so triggered by him? i have not seen any coherent argument from these anti-petersonists that peterson has not already addressed preemptively.

>>11300821
>the Left has done a terrible job of engaging his followers
He doesn't even want to engage with the Left at all, what else do you suggest?

>>11300826
>Maps of Meaning is great
no it isn't

>>11301016
>What's your objection?
That he is a classical liberal. He's a closet right-winger who's entire career revolves around "owning the libs" by promoting archaic views on women and society.

Find him boring, incoherent, and I don't understand the appeal.

>>11301051
what are you talking about? it's clear that you only have the concept of peterson from some of the atlantic, slate, and maybe the new yorker articles. leftists truly have not engaged with him. the arguments that i see coming from leftists are half baked and already addressed by peterson 1 year ago.

>>11300998
>literally impossible to argue against in good faith
I don't see how that is the case. Infographics are not real life, you know

>>11301062
>archaic views
ie. correct views. He isnt anywhere near sexist enough though.

>>11300907
>neoliberals
You don't even know what that word means you fucking faggot

>>11300369
I find him pretty mystifying. His message is so simple that it's basically common sense, and yet people pedestal him as some sort've genius beyond his time because he's telling incels what people have been telling them for years: it's your fault, and you need to improve.

His message isn't wrong. Good work ethic and discipline needs to be applied to all facets of life in order to properly develop (clean ya damn room), women like a man who's capable, etc. It's just a real testament to his audience's stubbornness and imbecility that they need to be told this.

>>11300948
I'm already familiar with all of this, and it's what informs my criticism of him.

With respect to postmodernism and the relationship to Marxism, he doesn't back it up, he just asserts that there's an undeniable connection, and then handwaves away Derrida and Foucault's criticisms of Marxism. For what it's worth, Derrida is more informed by Heidegger, Husserl, and Hegel, while Foucault is informed a great deal by Nietzsche. To miss that means to come out swinging at phantasms. And again, those posts are my source for him relying on that stupid Randian book; if that's his source, and not something primary like the actual writings of Derrida or Foucault (or Marx), then he's being intellectually dishonest both to himself and his followers who ought to have a real substantive way to deal with either Marxism or Postmodernism (and the infinitely better critiques of Postmodernism and its sources comes from Stanley Rosen, esp. his book Hermeneutics as Politics, fwiw).

I didn't say anything about the pronoun law besides using it to demarcate a period of time where I think there's a difference in his presentation.

Again, I'm familiar with what he says on his blog (and in the Reddit AMA), which is why I explicitly contrasted what he said in the NYT profile with his subsequent attempt to clarify himself. Again, he doesn't, because socially enforced monogamy doesn't deal with men who aren't selected for by women, *unless he means/meant it the way his critics think he did*. For my part, I had some sympathy for him on the basis on what I said above about the Left's dumb handling of him (combined with the fact that he's not any big deal intellectually; why waste the time?) But it was precisely on this matter of enforced monogamy where both his original line on it was indefensible, and his subsequent clarification so stupid (he cites one of his reddit followers as evidence! Why not cite papers showing the term's use in the way he's apparently meaning it?! Why follow that dumb "evidence" by citing a study which doesn't say the thing he thinks it does?!), that all sympathy and interest have dried up in light of the boring opportunist dilettante.

>Now what about reading Maps of Meaning and addressing/criticising his actual ideas instead of focusing on controversy?
Look, a friend (before the pronoun controversy) was super excited about him and telling me to check out his videos. I did, and I was bored and I thought the connections he offered between ideas and interpretations was forced, and wrong when it came to matters I've studied carefully.

I've seen the lectures, I'm not going to bother with the book.

1/2

>>11301067
Every IQ study, every crime statistic, every black city in the US, every black minority in every country that has them, the entire continent of Africa, the twin studies, every bit of genetic evidence produced so far

And on the side for antiracism...nothing. No evidence at all. Just the promise that if only whites stop being racist then blacks will start behaving like them.

>>11300948
>Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.

That's the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (and this is where the Marxism emerges) is something like "since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power."

There is no excuse whatsoever for the secondary claim (except that it allows the resentful pathology of Marxism to proceed in a new guise).
>he doesn't put words in the mouth of other philosophers
the irony is palpable

>>11300369
Nobody with thoughts worth hearing has thoughts on him.

>>11301071
>It's just a real testament to his audience's stubbornness and imbecility that they need to be told this.
Young people today get very little of this, considering their parents spoil them and the school system bends over backwards to let them pass.

>>11301016
>a classic liberal
I too like people who advocate for 16 hours working days and child labour in the factories

>>11301092
Oh sure, but if you're 18+ there's no longer an excuse for not learning the essentials of life. You can only blame external factors for so long.

>>11301102
People don't magically get endowed with knowledge and clarity when they turn 18. That's the whole reason that Peterson's popularity has been so explosive.

>>11301110
That's also very true and I'm not disputing that, I just think the people who try and say "well my parents raised me wrong it's not my fault lol" are kind've pathetic.

>>11301076
>have not read derrida and foucault
categorically false
https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM?t=22m26s
see for yourself.
YOU are the one who is guilty of NOT reading the primary source, namely Peterson's. No, handwaving him away is not an excuse.

>>11301114
>kind've
how revolting

>>11301066
>he doesn't know about the fiasco with Zizek
PIDF detected.

>>11301117
He knows nothing of Derrida and Foucalt. Read this.

https://medium.com/@Corax/peterson-historian-aide-m%C3%A9moire-9aa3b6b3de04

>>11301118
Kind've is, isn't it?

>>11300853
based

>>11300948
>Care to substantiate your claim?
He has videos lecturing on Nietzsche, and the number of issues I have with it would be too substantial to get into on an image messageboard. In part, he simplifies Nietzsche, and he also doesn't seem to see the connections between certain elements in Nietzsche, and when he disagrees with N., it's not clear that he has any good sense of why he should be making use of Nietzsche at all in light of their differences, which are more substantial than Peterson seems to think.

>But maybe you can enlighten us on how to do it, ubermensch
Nietzsche's argument about that is that that's trivially untrue that we can't create our own values; that's what the break between the Greeks/Romans to the Christians is, and that's what the break between the ancients and the early moderns (Machiavelli, Descartes, Bacon) is, and again the break between the early moderns and the late moderns who discovered historicism (Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche). Value creation for Nietzsche isn't for individuals; it's for philosophers, and the evidence of it are the ruptures in the history of thought that define the horizons against which we understand everything. Peterson is simply wrong on that count, unless he thinks, for example, that the scientific horizon against which we understand things (i.e., that things are to be understood as measurable, or primarily by a certain kind of disposable use understood in light of science's ability to inform technology in the replacement of goods) was natural to the ancients.

2/2

>>11301078
And what do you plan to do about it? Don't get me wrong, I support the freedom to say things that are "difficult" to hear, but racism is just too late to shape the world.
Centuries of human migration, miscigenation, bonding (you really don't have a black person that is important to you?), I don't see how any of that can be undone/prevented without bloodshed (the IQ different is enough to prevent black people from using Kalashinikovs againt the whitebois)
Idk, anon, the only option I see is to treat people like individuals rather than groups, we are in dire need of unification, as class and as citzens

S E X A N D
E E
X A
A T
N H
D E A T H

>>11301167
>the only option I see is to treat people like individuals rather than groups
>we are in dire need of unification

>>11301051
I know that he doesn't want to engage with the Left. But the Left has been attempting to persuade his fans in the Center and Left that he's not worth their time, and their efforts have been for the most part very poor.

>>11301114
It's not their fault they were raised like shit, the fact that they remain shit is in their hands though, which is Peterson's message.

>>11301167
i have literally dated a black girl so i understand very well seeing people as individuals. It is still completely untenable to deny racism with the amount of evidence there is now.

To not only deny it, but to use antiracism as a stick to hit whites with is just indefensible. Im fine with just pushing it under the rug, but nobody is doing that, they are using the continued poor performance of blacks to justify all sorts of hatred against whites and reallocation of wealth.

>>11300369
brainlet burger, pseudointellectual spectacle for the online politics MMORPG

>>11301117
His primary source is described in the Reddit AMA post linked at >>11300948. Which notably doesn't cite Foucault or Derrida, but some other schmuck's book about them. But your response is that I haven't fucking wasted enough of my time with this lameass? Howabout fucking pointing out some places where he explicitly talks about particular writings that aren't just informed by the aforementioned Randite's shit book?

>>11301062
>he's a closet right-winger
As if it's wrong to be right wing
>who's entire career revolves around "owning the libs"
The guy taught at Harvard. He is a university professor. His rise to fame is very recent and by no means reflect his career.
>promoting archaic views on women and society
He is right tho

lol fucking 4chan. everyone a little pharaoh

>>11301173
>and their efforts have been for the most part very poor.
IIRC the Current Affairs and Contrapoints were good, but there is a difference in outreach between the him and those two people. And your statement rests on the assumptions that said fans would listen to the Left anyway. So many times leftists offer to debate Peterson and so many times he brushes them with no repercussions from his fans.

It seems less like Peterson enlightening to turn away from the Left and more giving the ideological tools to validate their original aversion to the Left.

He's great if you share his narrow view of success, if you don't he's useless
He tries get into philosophy and answer the questions that existentialists have made to themselves and he neither gets his own position (has he ever talked about Kierkegaard? or Plato?), neither he understand what he's arguing against (he thinks Nietzsche is a nihilist and that nihilism only leads to debauchery)
He cant answer if he believes in god or not, he just says a lot of nothing to scape from that question whenever its brought up
He's rise to fame was based on an exaggeration of a law that, at that point, was already on place in toronto for years
He thinks he understand the wold because he has helped some people but then he talks about things he clearly has never had any contact with (example): he said art can only exist thanks to god and that there's no atheist artists, only atheists that "think" they are atheists.

>>11300656
It's funny because just before he started blowing up /lit/ loved him. Then he got big, and bam, suddenly /lit/ hates him.

It's all just manufactured disconsent though. The government needs to manufacture constant social dissent over trivial non-issues (the life choices of deranged faggots, race relations, sexual habits of people you'll never meet, etc. etc.) because this distracts the masses from the unending neo-colonialist bloodbath the American government is engaged in, the growing opiate epidemic that's making pharmaceutical countries billions of dollars, the mass surveillance state being implemented bit by bit with every minor "terrorist" attack, the fact that the entire fucking natural world is dying around us and holy fuck the rising sea levels are going to displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide and 1/4 of the worlds bee population has died off and we aren't even sure why what the fuck.

so many brainlets triggered over being told to clean their rooms and take on responsibility. kek.

>>11301216
this is literal history revisionism

>>11301216
take your pills

>>11301206
Fans have been reading or watching the critiques, so it's not as if there's no potential there, but the lesser specimens (the Jacobin article for example) are so slapdash and flippant in their approach, that it comes off as condescending and judgemental towards otherwise Left sympathetic Peterson fans who think their own side is being unfair. I do think approaches like those of Contrapoints are to be desired.

>>11301193
I literally linked the youtube video with the exact timestamps where he said that he read the primary sources.

>>11301180
What we should do is attempt to measure the qualities people generally need to have in order to be able to attain certain positions (temperament, IQ, etc.), and quantify discrimination not on the basis that 'every group, be it ethnic, cultural or whatever is the same, therefore they deserve equal representation', but based on whether individuals of different groups generally do as well as you would expect them to in terms of their career/lack of criminal history/reproduction based on where they fall on the spectrum. If there are medium to large discrepancies between different groups that can not be explained otherwise, you are dealing with discrimination of some kind (it might still be discrimination within a that group, not by others, say if muslim fathers are more reluctant to allow their daughters to visit universities). Obviously there are other factors like providing people with roughly equal opportunity for education and access to jobs and social support systems on a structural level, but I think it would be a much fairer system than what we have now.

>>11301271
Read this https://medium.com/@Corax/peterson-historian-aide-m%C3%A9moire-9aa3b6b3de04

based, any one whom doesn't like him should go the fuck back to /leftpol

there is no bigger pleb indicator than liking this brainlet and falling for his ruse to make drones out of you

>>11301171
>Implying unification based on race is the same as the one I proposed

>>11301180
Pushing it under the rug is the way to go, what science found may be true, but it's ultimately useless (considerig the variance between individuals is greater than the one between ethnic groups).
I'm not sure if egalitarian policies should be abolished, but making everything about race will cause civil unrest very soon at this rate.
I wonder if people like Sam Hyde/the Buzzfeed crew are aware of that...

>>11301290

kys

go back to /leftpol/

>>11301302
t. drone

>>11301270
>Fans have been reading or watching the critiques,
Proof of that actually happening? Peterson just disregard what they wrote completely with some snappy again no backlash from his fans.

I do agree that some articles are not that good in debunking him, but my main concern is his audience do not care anyway to actually engage Left that shame tactics are properly more effective as deterrence/isolation than actual debate.

>>11301307

t.

/leftpol/yp

I like him cause he's the only one left who still gets his panties in a bunch by my boi Jackie

>>11301302
>>11301333
>reddit spacing

>>11300853

It's been so many years since the original meme and yet it somehow persists nonetheless as it tries to stretch onto ever imaginable concept on 4chan

Truly fascinating this 4chan meme experience is.

>>11301277
I did. It's selectively choosing Peterson's ideas then dismissing the entirety of Petersonism based on it. I don't have time nor passion to throughout refute that medium post on 4chan. Here's just the starter of such post.
>insits that Peterson lied about Derrida being a marxist
No, Derrida really was a marxist. He just wanted to find a new way to read Marx using the frame of phenomenology. He's still a Marxist in his core. This is extremely evident from the fact that he attended numerous Marxist rallies and was falsely imprisoned for bogus drugs charge due to his perceived Marxist belief.

>>11301271
Okay, I'll cede you that he's read Madness and Civilization. But what you mean is that he read one of Foucault's earliest books and found it to be not like what he was expecting from the Randian book that remains his primary source for what to think of postmodernism, and that would be because the Foucault of that work isn't doing the same thing that the Foucault of Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, is doing, which is the Foucault that people talk about with respect to postmodernism.

That Peterson says he was surprised by how readable it was and how trivially true he found it just really emphasizes my point about how he's informed about postmodernism by sources that are not the writings themselves.

>>11301348
>Petersonism

>>11301343

hurr hurr

le ebin reddit

>>11301347
Most /tv/ memes like all good memes are syncretic.

>>11301080
>There is no excuse whatsoever for the secondary claim (except that it allows the resentful pathology of Marxism to proceed in a new guise).

Except no, you're wrong. Embracing that claim annihilates the entire Marxian project since it doesn't embrace a notion of false consciousness or provide room for any form of privileged true historic consciousness to operate. That sort of (neo)-Nietzschean understanding of reality is the very historic pathology of decaying late capitalism.

>>11301316
Comments sections I've read for the Jacobin article, the Viewpoint article, reddit posts about the NYT profile, the comments on the Contrapoints video, etc. I'm forgetting the name of the most egregious video I saw snaking its way through social media, though I recall the Shuja Haider guy from the Viewpoint article being interviewed for it; the comments on that thing were a mix of both fan reactions and reactions by Leftists and Centrists that found themselves on his side just on account of how bad the video was.

It's surely the case that some fans are just polemicists following him on account of how he affirms their already existing stances and tells them they're not at fault for any of it, but there's quite a few people who also think he's just genuinely interesting and that he's not necessarily out of line with a Leftism that did away with the excessiveness of some of the Identity Politics crowd. Those people are super attentive to how the polemics portray him, and it's moving them further from the Left.

>>11301348
>I did. It's selectively choosing Peterson's ideas then dismissing the entirety of Petersonism based on it.

Complete misrepresentation but whatever you need to tell yourself.

>I don't have time nor passion to throughout refute that medium post on 4chan

Nor could you.

>>11301394
I'm not gonna write 2k+ words to satisfy some 4chan faggot who couldn't even address my criticism of that medium's criticism of Peterson's criticism of Derrida.

>>11301388
>he's not necessarily out of line with a Leftism that did away with the excessiveness of some of the Identity Politics crowd
nazbol gang

>>11301388
>Comments sections
I am sure the content of said comments revealed that they critically digested what was being said. :^). Discussions of these articles good or bad in forum dedicated to Peterson would have been far better evidence but I will take it I guess.

> that he's not necessarily out of line with a Leftism that did away with the excessiveness of some of the Identity Politics crowd.
His political vandalism of marxism (among other philosophies) make your statement completely wrong. Even so there is already Zizek, which again Peterson's failure to engage with Zizek shows the unwillingness of him and his followers to engage the Left

>>11301348
>He just wanted to find a new way to read Marx using the frame of phenomenology
What, no he didn't. That describes early Marcuse and maybe Kojeve, if anyone. Derrida takes over Heidegger's "Destruktion" and critique of the "metaphysics of presence", and it's not informed by Marx.

>This is extremely evident from the fact that he attended numerous Marxist rallies and was falsely imprisoned for bogus drugs charge due to his perceived Marxist belief
You're grasping for shit now; how does that demonstrate that Marxism is clearly present in his philosophical writings or work?

>>11301117

>reading a youtube video

>>11301394

>Petersonism

Jesus fucking christ.

>>11301399
Your criticism is a joke. You haven't even read the piece otherwise you would know why. It's literally in the fucking paragraphs that starts with the big bold DERRIDA.

>>11301316
>shame tactics
That's exactly what the left is doing when portraying JP fans as incels, resentful privileged males, extreme right wingers, etc.

>>11301422
https://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_marx_partner/

>>11301399
>Peterson seized a quote from Spectres de Marx to profoundly misconstrue Derrida as a dogmatic Marxist, rather than as a philosopher who, three decades into his career, wanted to investigate the “spirit” of Marxism set against the backdrop of the “totalitarian terror in all the Eastern countries, all the socio-economic disasters of Soviet bureaucracy, the Stalinism of the past and the neo-Stalinism in process” that was formative for Derrida. The mature Derrida wrote this in 1993, long after the nouveaux philosophes such as Bernard-Henri Lévy used the French translation of Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago (1974) to shame the French far left after the failures of the 1968 protests. A monolithic French left does not exist. Rhetorically, however, it would be most convenient if it did.

>What about Peterson’s sources? The Derrida quote that identifies deconstruction with a “certain spirit of Marxism”—elsewhere, he identifies it with America—is to be found at the start of Stephen Hick’s Explaining Postmodernism, suggesting that Peterson never read Spectres de Marx directly.

>>11301417
>His political vandalism of marxism (among other philosophies) make your statement completely wrong.
I'm not speaking to my own thoughts, but how I've been seeing other Leftists take him. I've still got Leftist friends who are super touchy with any criticism of him, which they take to be unfair. I'm not sure they've necessarily followed some of his more overtly political statements.

>>11301428
I did read it. I only chose 1 point to address to satisfy your whims.

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1005908958035365888

FBI psyop man reveals himself to be a redditor

>>11301434
>https://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_marx_partner/
Oh cool, you discovered he wrote a book about Marx and Marxism, that totally must mean he's a Marxist, whelp, guess I've been shown up by the standard of argumentation that goes "HAS MARX IN THE TITLE OBVIOUSLY MARXISM".

A+, Gold Star, 10/10

>>11301448
If you did read it you wouldn't have made that criticism. Your criticism is pathetically weak.

>He attended rallies so this reflects his personal politics
>He got arrested for drugs due to marxist beliefs

He wrote over 20 books and you can't quote a single thing to illuminate his personal politics, nothing in your "critique" reflects personal politics in anyway, it's utterly absurd.

>>11301445
man I'd love to know what kind of "Leftists" these folks you keep mentioning are
the "socialism or barbarism!" or "elon musk will save us!" kind

>>11301445
>I'm not sure they've necessarily followed some of his more overtly political statements.
Tell them about his "post-mordernist marxist boogeyman". Even so how can the stuff he say be reconciled with the Left? Especially what he said about marxism.

>>11301465
>He attended rallies so this reflects his personal politics
That's what you would expect, right?

>>11301470
>Even so how can the stuff he say be reconciled with the Left? Especially what he said about marxism.
it can if you consider the movement of the overton window in the last 40 years
there are people who think obama is a leftist

>>11300369
An idior, and a boring one at that. Literally the worst thing to be.

Peterson makes a case for left wing politics literally in every one of his speeches about his book.

I think I am the only person on lit that read Maps of Meaning

>>11301475
>there are people who think obama is a leftist
WEW LADS. If you meant Peterson's shit being compatible to just DNC voters then yea sure, but let's not pretend they are leftists.

>>11301469
>>11301470
Anarchist communists, for the most part. I agree with the two(?) of you that they're not looking sufficiently at what he says, but they became fans on account of thinking his psychology lectures were cool, agreed with his criticisms of IdPol, and have reacted against what they think are unfair, because distorted, criticisms of him.

>>11300873
>he thinks contrarians aren't herd people
dohoho

>>11301387
that's what Peterson says
I just fucked up my greentext

>>11301353
great pic

>>11300369
Can't say I've heard of him. I spend most of my time reading literature and philosophy.

>>11300656
Yeah, no doubt he'd be much more appreciated here if he didn't have that much popularity. This board is extremely contrarian. For instance, Gregory Sadler is a meme on here for some reason, a humble, not too original, practically unknown YouTube philosophy guy. If Peterson was on his same level of popularity, people would probably have more mild opinions on him and say, "This is a pretty smart dude with nuanced opinions against politically correct liberal orthodoxy." However, because he's become so popular and has such annoying fans, people feel compelled to show how smart and contrarian they are and look at him completely negatively.

>>11301265
fucking castrated sheep

>>11300369
I kinda like him, but i'm fucking tired of threads with him especially when most people here don't even know what he actually is saying...

>>11301914
>fucking castrated sheep
Another woke peruser of the 4chans, I see.

>>11301930
>The government needs to manufacture constant social dissent over trivial non-issues (the life choices of deranged faggots, race relations, sexual habits of people you'll never meet, etc. etc.) because this distracts the masses from the unending neo-colonialist bloodbath the American government is engaged in, the growing opiate epidemic that's making pharmaceutical countries billions of dollars, the mass surveillance state being implemented bit by bit with every minor "terrorist" attack, the fact that the entire fucking natural world is dying around us and holy fuck the rising sea levels are going to displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide and 1/4 of the worlds bee population has died off and we aren't even sure why what the fuck.

Someone saying "take your pills" in response to these uncontroversial truths is a fool.

>>11300652
>because of his conservatism
It's not conservatism. He's just become a grumpy old man that doesn't like anything he sees. Everything he's produced since being at UT has been a re-hashed version of "Damned kids, get offa my lawn!". He hasn't produced anything significant since he left Harvard. Only pop-culture commentary on current events that randomly seem to piss him off. Then there's that lobster thing.

>>11300369
So there are two competing Jordans in my head.

The first is that he's just a smart person drinking his own kool aid. When you're smart, really smart, like, way smarter than everyone else it's easy to fall for stupid shit. How well you argue can sometimes be reflective of raw intelligence. You can justify and explain away anything. So if you're smarter than most people, you can argue just about anything and win. Since you win the debate, you feel like you're right. Jordan's ideas of postmodernism are also very reflective of a sheltered academic background where there are, in fact, people who are actually that bad. It's just that the world outside of academia isn't anything like how he thinks it is. When you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail.


The second, and the one that more worries me, is that he's a total con artist. Cults tend to rope in desperate, isolated, vulnerable people looking for directions. So, y'know, neckbeards. A lot of the time you just have to soft sell with self-help. Scientology does it, heaven's gate did it, etc.

So what I'm worried about is that this guy is basically slowly weaponizing nerds. Which makes sense, it's a ripe market. They're people who think they're too smart to fall for propaganda, and they tend to self-isolate in their own little circles online. It's weirdly perfect.

That part is very very very worrying. I'm hoping that Jordan's a well-meaning dude who's just used to being right all the time. Otherwise this is going to be a huge problem down the road.

>>11302208
I think its somewhere in between. Peterson seems like a guy who genuinely has strong convictions about the topics he discusses. But I don't think he's really complaining about making those patreon bux from being father figure to the neckbeards.

>They're people who think they're too smart to fall for propaganda, and they tend to self-isolate in their own little circles online. It's weirdly perfect.
Yeah this is the thing about cult-like groups. The more you think you're a free thinker and impervious to getting brainwashed, the more likely you are to fall into an echo chamber because you think you've found the other people who have it all figured out like you do. Like before JBP, you had Stefan Molyneux's FreeDomain Radio group. His more devoted followers think that they're enlightened because they cut themselves off from relationships that were abusive according to Molyneux's standards, the scope of which includes everything from your parents spanking you to putting you in contact sports. Meanwhile they've joined a group where the only people they talk to now are other people on forums who have subscribed to the same AnCap philosophy that they have.

JP's fanbase doesn't strike me as quite as cult-like as someone like Molyneux, but it is troubling that when these legions of kids practically worship him, he doesn't at any point say "I am just one guy, you should formulate your own opinions on the world." Instead he relentlessly pushes his own worldview and shills his books and self-authoring program.

>>11300369
His Financial Times lunch interview was one of the saddest things I’ve ever met.

>>11302208
>>11302295
I think the following is a pretty good description of how this will play out, as a movement:

https://samzdat.com/2017/06/28/without-belief-in-a-god-but-never-without-belief-in-a-devil/

>>11300656
>People on this board hate him SOLELY because he's popular.
No. People hate him because the bigger he got the more Peterson started to spout his incoherent opinions and the more annoying his fanboys got.

>>11300369

Fraud and con artist.

>tfw I grew up in a traditional household with a good father figure

Phew, if I had been less lucky, I might have actually ended up in Peterson's target audience.

>>11300853
So good.

>>11300853
Classic

>>11300853
Amazing.

>>11302310
Sad how?

I watched some parts of his talks on youtube and got the impression that he's very close to unhinging completely. Especially his fervent advocacy of taking responsibility gave me the impression that the mask he's wearing while he says these things is slowly crumbling. I'm not sure if he knows about it though. Maybe he suffers from a subconscious knowledge of his philosophy being insufficient to prepare one for death - nothing can of course.

Either way, could a fan of Peterson suggest a good introduction to his... philosophy or whatever he does?

>>11302600
if you mean with his philosophy as what he is trying to say or someone that says similar things but in a more defined and developed way:
First read Nietzsche and then Kierkegaard, with Nietzsche you understand the whole, "god is dead and we killed him", the setting to the big question: "if god is dead, now what?"
Kierkegaard answered that question saying that he is not dead, we may not understand him but we must take a leap of faith into him and his ways (also he talks about the journey of a man from not believing to believing)
You should also read Camus (his bibliography is pretty small and easy to get into) as he tackles the fact that we humans can't understand the world, and even if there's a god or a destiny we can't understand it, he said that trying to understanding it is absurd and we must find joy in what we do and live through even though they will not lead to anything, and even if they do: we won't be able to understand it.

>>11302208
I think your pessimism is projecting here on the second choice. The guy's professional life's work should just be enough to counter balance your fear here.

A shill for capitalism.

>>11302703
Isn't the Nietschean response to the Kierkegaardian leap that you'd end up merely repeating the move from Christianity to the secularization of it that results in "God is dead" all over again? Does Peterson have a strong argument against that?

>>11302835
I think what Kierkegaard did amazingly was accepting the fact that god is irrational (from our POV), that fact alone would break that cycle, though, because most people don't study philosophy or learn from history: for the bast majority is an endless cicle, right now a lot of people are flocking to faith for answer, and eventually their kids will kill god, again.

The problem stems from:Originally, the churches saw science and the "logic" of the world as evidence that god existed until the unknown was so small that people end up killing god and their new god was science (even Nietzsche talked about this)
Even though we have science, we still can't explain everything and the line between a signal/divine intervention/a miracle from above and coincidence is thin (of course if you believe that there's a god, faith is thing that either you do or don't)

I haven't seen Peterson directly talk about that (or at least this directly), I also haven't seen all Petersons' videos so maybe he had, the problem i have is that he avoids the existentialist question(s) completely, he hasn't tackled Kierkegaard (even though I think he would agree a lot with him), Ive seen he feels comfortable explaining everything with logic and science until he gets to the leap of faith and faith is general, I think he does understands that it is a thing you do or dont and I can see why he doesn't want to go there: For someone that agrees with his view of success (a job, a wife, a house,2.1 kids), all this talk and the dread that comes from existentialism doesn't help at all.

That's why I think he has tackled the curiosity of so many people but is insufficient once you get into philosophy (even in a casual context)

>>11300369
Good but I'd happily never see his face on /lit/ ever again.

My room mate is basically indoctrinated with this Jordan Peterson guy, I haven't paid any attention.

All I know is he jumped on me one day when I told him the book I was reading was postmodern and told me postmodernism is literally evil/marxist. I was just trying to enjoy my damn book

I can surmise that he gets this belief from JP since he tends to parrot him. So what's JP beef with postmodernism, why does he portray it as so dangerous.

>>11303640
>So what's JP beef with postmodernism, why does he portray it as so dangerous.
JP thinks that postmodernism is the same as marxism/sjwsism, with is wrong. I give him a pass tho, because sjw's tryed (and still try) to ruin his life when he challenged their unholy ideology, so the duded will, obviously, be a bit bitter towards postmodernism, with is usualy the group from where sjw's come from

>>11300373
>>11300734
>>11302295
>>11302439
t. neckbeards rebelling against father figures

>>11303640
He thinks it's related to totalitarianism, and he read a book by an Ayn Rand fan, Stephen Hicks, called Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. His views are skewed both because of what >>11303662 points out in terms of experiences with the part of the Left backing social justice platforms, and the skew from the book he relies on, which claims, incredibly, that Kant is a postmodernist (which makes sense as a claim only if one knows that Ayn Rand despised Kant).

But so many of his views about postmodernism are so loosey-goosey that it's hard to distinguish between his ore reasonable critiques of relativism and the more incredible assertions he makes about the relationship between postmodernism and Marxism, which are by and large more polemical than grounded.

yeah. I'm thinking he's back.

what did he mean by chaos dragons

>>11302600
>I watched some parts of his talks on youtube and got the impression that he's very close to unhinging completely. Especially his fervent advocacy of taking responsibility gave me the impression that the mask he's wearing while he says these things is slowly crumbling.
seriously nigger

.

>>11301071
Because he tries to justify what he's saying, he provides a moral framework and backs it up in some way.
He has a lot to say that many haven't heard in a left wing saturated culture.

>>11300369
Listened to the podcast with him and Russell Brand recently, enjoyed it.

He's clearly very intelligent and has proper things to say.
He seems to be deficient in some category of philosophical awareness which I am privy to. He is too much in the belly of the machine that is civilization somehow. He lacks idealism that would contradict modernity in terms of jobs and bulldozers and those indoctrination facilities known as school and GMOs and warfare and all that awful nightmare

>>11302703
I just wanted an unbiased overview/introduction to Peterson. I'm reading Nietzsche currently and all those recommendations are on my todo list anyways.
>>11304075
Yes. Let me make it clearer:
He's still one of the desperate young males he wanted to overcome, the ones who sit in his audience and seek guidance from him. He thinks he's found a way - a universal truth of goodness - that works and promises lasting pleasure, contentness, etc. To a certain degree it works but Peterson demon - the painful realization of existence - is always in the back of his mind. He's acting out the role of teacher-messiah who would not just be better served to be his own student, but a student of a different philosophy altogether.
If you recognize death, the void, the inherent struggle of being, the pains in existence, you don't come back from that. But he's closing his eyes and worshipping an idea of family and responsibility that is untenable in the face of death. Somewhere he KNOWS the futility of it but he doesn't modify the superficiality of his beliefs or attitudes.

>>11304148
I think he addresses that; the argument is like, "the alternative is way worse," as in would you rather be a worthless nihilistic mess sobbing in the corner or like just sort of ignore how much life sucks and move on?

>>11304227
This argument can only be made if you concede to the truth of the alternative. Ignorance really is bliss but you can't ever go back to a state of ignorance once you attain true norance.
It seems to me like the perpetuation of this, life sucks move on go work and be productive, is worse than the alternative because it hinders actual progress. Why not suffer, why not break apart and then rebel and break apart the system? But our life's so good right now and I can go to the store and get something to eat and then watch Netflix and work 9 to 5 and I got a loving wife and children and its all great, it really is and then you die and your children die probably some time after your wife does and nothing ever really matters.

I don't think there's a dichotomy consisting of destructive nihilism and being a productive member of society. And I think Nietzsche presents views to transcend either of these. Where is Peterson's lightness of being? Don't take everything so goddamn serious. It's a mess alright, let's make fun of it.

>>11304265
>why not rebel

What alternative are the "rebels" offering ? Chance is, its going to be worse.

>>11304309
Again, not a dichotomy. Loving someone probably is a good idea for most people, maybe even having kids but don't worship the family as God. Unlike God it's doomed.

Radical rethinking of established conventions, truths, morals. There is no inherent worth in work. Medicine is in its infancy and has yet to recognize aging as a disease. Ignorance is a virtue - what is easily palateable, what makes you feel good in a basic way is cherished. Education's sole purpose is developing worker drones. Religion is still a thing. I could go on but the picture I painted in broad strokes is sufficient.

>>11301432
A lot of them are, it's politically correct to pretend otherwise

>>11300373
>replacement father figure
Don't make fun of father figures. They do an important job. Niggers, for example, wouldn't be much of a problem if they had them aside from violent thugs and noisy hooligans.

>>11304327
They are not exactly privileged, though.

>>11304322
What the hell are you trying to say ?

>>11304148
>Yes. Let me make it clearer:
>He's still one of the desperate young males he wanted to overcome, the ones who sit in his audience and seek guidance from him. He thinks he's found a way - a universal truth of goodness - that works and promises lasting pleasure, contentness, etc. To a certain degree it works but Peterson demon - the painful realization of existence - is always in the back of his mind. He's acting out the role of teacher-messiah who would not just be better served to be his own student, but a student of a different philosophy altogether.
>If you recognize death, the void, the inherent struggle of being, the pains in existence, you don't come back from that. But he's closing his eyes and worshipping an idea of family and responsibility that is untenable in the face of death. Somewhere he KNOWS the futility of it but he doesn't modify the superficiality of his beliefs or attitudes.
you should realize that your argument is based on you pretending to be able to read Peterson's mind, so I will disregard it. thanks for the effort though

>>11300369
He speaks commons sense and the fact that there is so much noise around him just shows how backwards western society is.

>>11300646
lmao @ the thought of a žižek fan thinking hes any better than memerson fans

>>11300894
>He's a decent psychologist
He did some incredible research when he was a Harvard. Nearly 200 scholarly papers and about 120 research projects on addiction and aggression. He hasn't been the same since the nervous breakdown (some say stroke) in the late 90s. He hasn't performed any serious research since recovering and going to Toronto. Such a loss to science.

>>11300369
he cute

I'm a moderate progressive liberal who often takes the conservative side of debates on free speech and personal freedom. I sometimes have a difficult time not using Peterson's rhetoric on the issue—specifically, speech not as unfiltered polemic but as a mode of public thought.

However, I find that the more often I do so, the less often my girlfriend has sex with me.

What should I do?

>>11300696
Petersonfag absolutely seething

>>11304490
His way is insufficient in fighting existential dread.

Why are he, Harris and Shapiro associated with each other? They all seem to dislike one another on a personal level.

>>11304647
Yes definitely. Actually it was just an impression I got from how he conducts himself - kind of unnerving.
I also haven't seen a lot of him.

he's just a professor who learned how to advertise

>>11305032
they're all pseuds who rose up in the wake of the alt-right, even though they each have to deftly avoid being called that because it means you're a fucking imbecile, they are all beloved by the men who have convinced themselves they're under attack.

>>11305032
JP and Shapiro constantly suck each others dicks though

>>11305049
Ah, sounds reasonable. I myself haven't seen much of his performances in the last couple of months, so maybe his demeanor has changed a bit. Saw him speak live back in january and found him to be rambling (though not incoherent, per se).

>>11304999
Don't talk to your gf (about /pol/itics), fuck her

>>11304400
They wouldn't be a problem if people wouldn't have brought them here in the first place.

>>11300369
pewds is smart

>>11306420
Mistakes get made.

Half baked positive psychologist for neckbeard reactionaries