/lit/ - Literature

There was a good negative/critical review of him on a Catholic website. I'll see if I can find the link.

Read some critiques of Jung.

>>11352226
are you retarded anon?

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

The only counterpoint you should need is that he doesn't know what postmodernism means. Anyone who unironically accuses others of being "postmodern marxists" is a pseud of the highest caliber.

>>11352259
Jung has absolutely nothing to do with peterson. He was a mystic, not some entry level reactionary.

>>11352322
Jung's collective unconscious is inseparable from a delimited and racial nexus of latent preferences and articulations of the world. Not exactly reactionary, but it isn't totally absolved from fascism as far as the latter is inseparable from an aestheticization of politics in the form of racial mysticism and symbols a la Nazi Germany

>>11352322
>Peterson
>Reactionary

You dumb tit, Peterson is a classic liberal in every sense. Do you really think he wants to return to a pre-modern social order which enforces a caste system and is ruled my a monarch? He is just like every normie "conservative" - at the end of their life, they realize that what was 'cool' and 'progressive' in their youth has been shifted outside the overton window and they don't know how to cope with being seen as society's oppressor class. His best friends are fucking Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro lmao.

>>11352322
One thing does not exclude the other. Behind jungian archetypes lies fascist-paganism, the man wasn't even that interested in hiding his ties to fascism.
>>11352483
Being a classic liberal in 2018 is pretty reactionary, specially once you consider how classic liberal is just codeword for "neoliberal ashamed to out himself" these days.

>>11352483
peterson is a reactionary compared to the present center. obviously you can go way further right than him but his viewpoints are now consdired archaic or whatever

i am curious to know what a modern reactionary country would look like. Like if France decided to bring back their monarchy lol. Probably would be a shitshow everything is gay now

>>11352236
This one?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/book-review-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-78542

>>11352495
>peterson is a reactionary compared to the present center

The present center is completely deranged and ironically quite reactionary itself.

An actual substantive critique:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

>>11352510
i mean yeah the basic worldview they have is retarded but it is still the mainstream

>>11352502
That's it. That's a great review. I think there was another review by a priest that was also good.

>>11352518
Well the point I'm trying to make is that progressivism and left-wing politics today is actually reactionary politics disguised as progressive.

Let it be known that progressives today literally argue for racial and sexist segregation based on delusions about power structures in society, which is COMPLETELY at odds with 60s vision of Martin Luther King and the liberal left in general.

These people literally want to go back to Jim Crow, they just think they have better arguments than racists did.

>>11352531
>which is COMPLETELY at odds with 60s vision of Martin Luther King and the liberal left in general.
Blacks outside of Jim Crow were doing better pre-Civil Rights Movement by some indexes than average Blacks are doing today.
This is obviously their own fault, but if you come at history from an intersectional lens then the obvious answer to these symptoms is to revert back to pre-Civil Rights society.

>>11352495
Look at modern Italy, untenable EU economic policies have given rise to a Nationalist/Populist government that really doesn't know what the hell it's doing but wants the EU overseers to fuck off
Greece is really going through the same thing, but they're too economically burdened for it to have any effect.

>>11352621
>Nationalist/Populist
this is not reactionary though, in a monarchy it doesnt matter that much what all the plebs think. Obviously you cant push them too far but like you dont have Nazi style parades celebrating the People

>>11352275
He doesn't.

>>11352517
Demonstrably false. Look at what this Nathan Robinson piece quotes from David Brooks's column, and then look at David Brooks's column. The author of the critique suggests that David Brooks exalts Peterson uncritically, but I don't think that's a fair assesment. Brooks is rather mild in his approval of Peterson. Nathan is willfully misinterpreting the opponents he cites.

>>11352322
Jung is psychoanalysis for religious people. Mysticism and archetypes focus on narrative and faith over any pretense of data, so it attracts christian "academics" who find studying stories far less threatening to their faith than having to actually study clinical data.

>>11352226
>Where can I find counterpoints to X?

You are fucking pathetic.

>>11352226

The ContraPoints video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

>>11352899
Fuck off Contrapoints.

>>11352483
>classic liberal in every sense
>dude enforced monogamy lmao
>dude I challenged you to a debate but I won't actually debate you lmao

>>11352935
>>dude enforced monogamy lmao
SOCIALLY enforced. He literally just said that societies that encourage monogamy have less problems. I don't think he is asking for the right wing death squads to knock down your door and perform a virginity test on all the unwed females.

>dude I challenged you to a debate but I won't actually debate you lmao
nothing to do with reactionary/liberal debate. I agree that he is a fucking hack that is trying to enjoy his influence and fame for as long as possible before the normies realise that he has nothing of value to tell them that their parents didn't tell them as 10 year olds

>>11352517
As someone who likes to listen to his lectures time to time (particularly when he talks about symbolism in children stories) I think this is a fair criticism of him. There's definitely a cult around him that has deified him him into something he's not.

>>11352899
found a ContraPoints

>>11352226
His commentary on the alt-right/identitarians is pathetically childish and full of sophistry. He unironically thinks he answered the JQ by providing a total non-sequitur. He's too much of a pussy to debate anyone among the dissident right because deep down he knows chunks of his audience would be swayed. Meanwhile, he'd be totally open to debate left-wingers (and rightfully so) because they're relatively easy to defeat and knows his audience would be swayed by any of their ideas/claims/etc.

He's a globalist shill and establishment approved.

>>11352517

The article cites a frustration with not understanding Peterson, while saying some of his writings are like Rorschach Tests. I would disagree with this, but now I'm doubting myself. I always felt like I understood what Pterson was saying, that he doesn't literally mean men and women when he says feminine and masculine, for example, but how are people supposed to interpret his work if not for it's apparent meaning at face value?

>>11352935
>dude enforced monogamy lmao
...Are you suggesting this is a bad thing?

>>11352226
I went from loving this man to despising his vile, disingenuous commentary on numerous topics the more I heard him speak.

Especially his commentary on the alt-right/identitarians. It's been pathetically childish and full of sophistry. He unironically thinks he answered the JQ by providing a blatant non-sequitur. He unironically invokes the horseshoe theory by claiming alt-right = SJWs because "identity politics".

He's too much of a dishonest fraud to debate anyone among the dissident/alt right (despite numerous civil requests to do so) because deep down he knows chunks of his audience would be swayed. Meanwhile, he'd be totally open to debate left-wingers (and rightfully so) because they're relatively easy to defeat and knows his audience wouldn't be swayed by any of their ideas/claims/etc.

He's a globalist shill and establishment approved. That's why he was even on NBC morning and got a full tour across all sorts of mainstream outlets, radio stations, etc. He's constantly retweeting global-capitalist rhetoric. He was on a UN panel and made significant contributions to a paper which advocated for carbon taxes and mass migration because of "muh sustainability". He's a total fraud. This charlatan has been propped up by big money and establishment figures from the get-go. He didn't rise organically in the slightest.

>>11353019
>societies that encourage monogamy have less problems
Which ones, because western society has been a long succession of problems from the longest time. Some even arose from monogamy. Eastern empires for instance usually had polygamous societies and the biggest instabilities they had to face were mostly western-caused.

>>11353019
>SOCIALLY enforced
How is that a justifiable position to take when you meme so much about much individual liberty, hierarchies and competency gets rewarded in our enlightened western societies?
The guy is a hack, knows he has a very strong incel following and is pandering to them. There's so much inherent contradiction in what he says but his brainlet audience is too stupid to realize it. Like his stance towards nationalism is inherently contradictory to his I support free market, fuck yeah capitalism and neoliberalism stance, but again these are things beyond the comprehension of the audience that wants to pay their internet daddy to tell them things that their parents told them 10 years ago, at least you have that part right.

>>11353110
Polygamous societies need a low life expectancy for the men though. For sure Mongols and Arabs (during the conquests) for example built hugely succesful societies where polygamy was the norm but that was in response to the lack of men to make up for the women due to all the men dying in war. If the number of available females is greater than males, polygamy becomes more common to maintain the population. If the number of available females is less than the number of males you get incel rage and social collapse. This is probably one of the only one of Peterson's arguments that is actually relevant and worth talking about in an abundance of muh marxists and muh post-modernists. Stupid hill to die on anon.

>>11352899
This, but unironically. Covers all his meme arguments and contextualizes him in the broader discourse.

Pic unrelated.

>>11353108
>Meanwhile, he'd be totally open to debate left-wingers (and rightfully so) because they're relatively easy to defeat and knows his audience wouldn't be swayed by any of their ideas/claims/etc
Psh, you and the Left both wish. Fucker was invited by Zizek to debate and he got all "ONLY IF I'M PAID A SHITTON" about it, all while on the one hand pretending no one on the Left wants to debate him, pretending that Left significant figures aren't significant to the Let so he can dismiss them as mere "anybodies", and complain out of the other side of his mouth about what a busy schedule he has.

Disingenuous prick.

>>11353127
I agree with pretty much everything you said anon. I was just clarifying that the enforced monogamy meme was blantantly used to misrepresent him. He has huge amounts of valid criticism from the right, huge amounts of valid criticism from the left. And people try to crucify him on socially enforced monogamy of all things?

>>11352226
>counterpoints to what this guy says
See that's the trick, in order to argue against something the person has to actually make arguments. Not just vague assertions about me unga you bunga
The reason why he'll consistently dance around concrete answers to fundamental questions is because he's a complete charlatan and he knows it

>>11353101
I'm suggesting that's not a justifiable position to take when you talk so much about individual liberty, hierarchies and and competency. You Peterson drones are absolutely retarded cultists, hope you'll realize it before Peterson's retirement plans are fully realized.

>>11353094
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.

>>11353142
Identity politics is where the true capital is as far as mainstream media and discourse goes. Peterson will endlessly debate free speech and political correctness and cash out and that's what people, both on the right and on the left, want him to do.

>>11353140
>was invited by Zizek

I have this fanasy of Zizek and Dugin ripping apart Peterson from the Left and the Right with mumbling eastern Euro accents and nervous ticks while Peterson just stands there crying out the same old tired muh individualism, muh civic nationalism, muh capitalism bullshit. Would feel good.

>>11353177
>both on the right and on the left, want him to do.
What? The vast majority of Peterson's critics, left and right, acknowledge the reality of identity politics and want him to address it. I think we are all big enough now to realise that identity politics isn't a policy or a game that we can or should ignore. If any group of individuals forms a collective, all other individuals are forced into the inverse collective by negation. Ignoring it is a meme opinion that will be disregarded soon enough.

>>11353175

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing that the meaning behind his words are unclear? Are you saying it was all gibberish to begin with, and you're frustrated that someone could think otherwise?

>>11353197
>The vast majority of Peterson's critics, left and right, acknowledge the reality of identity politics and want him to address it.
That's what I said and Peterson is happy to indulge as long as it's filling up his pockets. But don't be a retard in saying identity politics is THE issue to be tackled. It's a symptom, the disease is failure of the left and the ongoing collapse of neoliberalism and global capitalism. Identity politics is a narrative to keep you distracted from the real issues that matter to vast majority.

>>11353230
Liberals really underestimated how much they relied on good ol communists, socdems and other assorted hard-leftists to serve as a counterbalance to conservatives, huh? They somehow missed the fact that NO ONE is willing to shed a pint of blood for neoliberalism or globalism unless they're extremely well paid.

>>11352519
>I think there was another review by a priest that was also good.
You might be thinking of Bishop Barron's article:
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-jordan-peterson-phenomenon/5717/

>>11353131
Nah mate, I'm just particularly sick of this particular type of anglo pragmatism that gives very complex social phenomenae the first plausible explanation. Polygamy (and monogamy) are much more diverse than we can grasp in a 4chan convo, there are antrhopologists who dedicate years of their lifes to study a single matrimonial tradition just so some cannuck cunt can come up and say "yeah guise monogamy arose from causing less problems x)))))))))"

>>11353140
>pretending that Left significant figures aren't significant
He isn't exactly wrong.

>>11353152
Polygamy destroys civilizations.

>>11353140
Zizek is widely considered a pseudointellectual who only has a fanbase because he appeals to their marxist inclinations. I agree with Peterson that it isn't worth his time to debate someone who can barely make a coherent point in his own area of expertise let alone Petersons

>>11353175
Is there a Zizek version of this?

>>11353335
>Zizek is widely considered a pseudointellectual who only has a fanbase because he appeals to their marxist inclinations
Citation needed. I really don't get how you people can hype up JBP as if he was some very sought after and respected intellectual before becoming a literal meme while also claming that Zizek, a man who could probably walk up to any university in the world and come out with a job is a hack only read because he appeals to "marxist inclinations" in his readership.

>>11353335
What's Peterson's area of expertise? Lobster biology and being a self help internet daddy?

>>11353355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlmNqwEhGIk

>>11353359
well now that is a great argument
I don't even like Zizek (though I don't really dislike him either) but it never ceases to amaze me how a bunch of illiterate cunts claim JBP is some sort of academic ubermensch while Derrida, Zizek, Heidegger or other similar philosophers with whole departments dedicated to their work are forgotten hacks.
I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant here and tell you faggots that if you wanna be taken seriously by the big boys, you gotta at least admit how fucking intellectually dishonest you people are. This very thread is an example of this, we have, pretty much every week, a thread similar to this where every argument against Kermit gets misinterpreted and mocked by a bunch of rabid cultists who think they're winning. You people are actually worse than tumblrinas.

>>11353355
I've heard Zizek claim that his recommendations have actually hurt people's chances of getting positions, so I don't know how true that is. I think part of his popularity is because he make make the disciplines which amount to nothing more than leftist think tanks seem entertaining to the general public.

>>11353372
I don't know if you've noticed, but no one in this thread has claimed Peterson is an "acdemic ubermensch." In fact almost everyone has been critical of him and his suspicious lack of serious debate. The only defence of him in this whole thread has been the enforced monogamy thing.

>>11353372
>a bunch of illiterate cunts claim JBP is some sort of academic ubermensch
Hardly anyone does this. People like him because he's actually fighting back against some of the insanity of the left. That's it. Only the most deluded people claim he's an intellectual giant. The thing is he doesn't need to be, a lot of the lefts positions on issues are so flimsy and rely on so much cognitive dissonance that they're easily knocked down.

Secondly his book is a self help book, but the issue is not whether it is some deep insightful work but whether it's necessary today, and sadly it is. An entire generation is growing up not knowing basic life skills, Petersons book is shallow but the saddest thing is it's entirely necessary for people today who have no fucking idea how to act like an actual man and not just a meat sack whose only purpose in life is to promote fashionable social justice issues for social media credit.

>>11353333
By "Left significant" I meant "significant *to the Left*". I was saying that Peterson can't claim that he's not been offered debates by figures important to Leftists when that's not the case.

>>11353486
How significant are these leftists in the grand scheme of things?

>>11352750
Different interpretation of the same text doesn’t mean willful misinterpretation. The best example of the latter is when Peterson claims Road to Wigan Pier told him to abandon socialism

>>11353372
>taken seriously by the big boys
Hahaha how’s making $30k a year in academia, fag?

>>11353396
>whether it's necessary today, and sadly it is

Agree with most of your post but this part. Is there really much different “today” than there has ever been? Dumb, helpless and weak people have always been around and books/philosophies that appeal to them are so common throughout history. 99% of people would get nothing out of Wittgenstein.

Imagine saying Nietzsche is one of your main influences and not even being able to separate him from camus

>>11353108

>>11353607
Pretty retarded, but misremembering a name in the middle of a long lecture is not even the dumbest thing he said in that screenshot

>>11352502
Can someone TL;DR this?

>>11352322
>jung
>mystic

>>11353652
you must be suffering from a psychological disorder or complex of some kind

>>11353652
He was the latter end of his life

>>11353384
He's done some rather well quoted research on stuff like addictions from what I've heard.

He may not be an "intellectual giant" but he's probably more intellectual than 90% of this board at the very least.

>>11353737
not at all

He's a genius when it comes to psychology, but a pretty big idiot when it comes to politics.

>>11353489
Apparently significant enough for Peterson to consider and what they stand for a kind of threat to the West.

Again, Peterson claimed that no Marxists were willing to debate him, which transformed into him handwaving away the offers he got due to his schedule and because he claims the ones offering are too small fry, which isn't true, but beside the point anyway, since he doesn't want to debate Marxists, whatever he might claim elsewhere.

>>11353175
Damn that was good.

At actual alt-right critics of Peterson.

>>11352226
it's not postmodern neomarxism, Pete. It's managerial liberalism, mass media driven information overload and the resulting culture of Narcissism. If anything, you should be blaming Rawls instead of Foucault. Peterson manages to 'own' leftists only because he is defending middle class commonsense against the increasingly intrusive psychopolitical demands of the managerial globohomo leviathan. Try reading vox, the guardian or the nyt, grates like nails on chalkboard precisely because they are asking you to adopt a very specific kind of mentality that's full of internal contradictions. On one side, it's institutional realism, on the other, it's a mangled form of social constructionism. shrill moralism and the journalistic royal We deployed for the sake of an ethics of mandatory individualistic hedonism. All the traditional criteria of 'merit' thrown out the window for a fixation on percentages and 'representation', and yet they still expect the deference accorded to traditional 'merit'- based institutions.

'identity politics' has been embraced by major corporations precisely because it's an effective instrument of post fordist human terrain management. Doesn't prevent Jeff Bezos from becoming the wealthiest man in human history. See Deleuze and Foucault on the society of control vs disciplinary societies and Lasch inspired paleocons such as Paul Gottfried and Sam T. Francis on the rise of managerial power.It is in the interest of managerial therapeutic state to define you as a victim who must be granted self esteem by the benevolent external agency of the system. Internet leftists are sadomasochists who use the heavily formalised discourse of social justice to inflict narcissistic injuries upon each other. Meanwhile, the chuds on the right are clinging to a semblance of an identity,their 'classical liberalism' has little to do with 'the enlightenment' it is an ersatz ego defense mechanism, a refusal to be assimilated into the 'woke' hivemind.

>The postmodern big Other is a Symbolic Order stripped of its symbolization of itself; not posing as God or History, it openly announces itself as a social construct - but this ostensible demystification doesn't impede its functioning, for it has never functioned more effectively

>>11352226
>>11352275 agreed, his misrepresentation of 'postmodernism' is either a proof of his stupidity, or of complete intellectual dishonesty

Anybody who actually tries to understand what ‘postmodernism‘ will find counterpoints all by himslef
Some guy on youtube started doing this, it's not a bad start, and a well necessary one considering the amount of pseudo-smartasses who blindly follow Peterson on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms

>>11353757

>>11353127
It's retarded because "social force" is fucking ubiquitious everywhere in every way. SJWs and other radical for example rely on nothing but social force to get their way.

Slowly but surely /lit/ is sliding into current year and nobody seems to notice.

>>11353127
It's perfectly justified when he consider society to be a set of rules that we abide by. Peterson said that the people in the west aren't that individual because most of them are willing to follow those rules, but this bring a stable society.

By changing the rules and encouraging monogamy we get, according to JP, less incels rages.

I swear, most of you people are inept brainlet that watched 5 minutes of peterson before being triggered, if even that.

>>11352226
postmodernism=marxism=cultural marxism=feminism=stalinism=critical theory=bad
Foucault=Derrida
evolution=good
hyerarchy=necessary
women=chaos
people=lobsters
God=Goedel proved He exists
Jung=very smart great guy
Dostoyevsky=very smart great guy
Nietzsche=evolutionary Christian

>>11352447
Elaborate

>>11352272
Only good post ITT, I can't see anyone taking Peterson seriously after reading this, no wonder not one of his drones tried to reply to it

>>11353965
This is fair

>>11352226
I've never watched a single lecture of him nor read any of his works, but Youtube recommended him to me through some PragerU video so ever since I just dismissed him as another conservative boomer
is he actually worth the time /lit/?

>>11353372
>while Derrida, Zizek, Heidegger or other similar philosophers with whole departments dedicated to their work are forgotten hacks.
Misinterpretation and dismissal is a fair punishment for writing in an intentionally dense and obscure style. Peterson may be a rambling moron, but if he can turn public opinion against these "thinkers" than he'll have done more good than harm.

>>11353974
Here's a summary of that video: (((THEY))) are controlling academia and brainwashing you.

Your assessment was right

>>11353634
Everything peterson is right about has been said by many others many times already. His arguments are usually not arguments at all, but blind assertions. He uses the word "Being" with respect to Heidegger, but anyone who knows Heidegger sees that it has nothing to with him at all. He claims he's not a dualist or manichean, but the way he treats "order" and "chaos" makes that hard to believe. He treats equates Marxism and post-modernism which is ridiculously simplistic. Chomsky and Zizek would agree with his criticism of post-modernism and yet they, marxism, post-modernism, the frankfurt school and the killing fields of Cambodia are all literally the same thing. His popularity comes not from the solidity of his teachings (there is none) simply his meme-status form the C-16 controversy, which he's now just capitalizing on.

>>11353982
>Zizek
>dense
wew maybe you're the one who's dense

>>11353974
IMO you're better off just reading the writers he's inspired by. Seeing as he rehashes their teachings or (in the case of Orwell and Tolstoy) ignores swathes of their thought, I don't see much point to what he has to say. I did enjoy it for a while, but I don't think he's said anything I've held onto outside of weird psychological facts like how eating a low carb but very big breakfast lowers neuroticism apparently. Bear in mind I've only watched his lectures, and even them not all, never read his stuff.

>>11353859
>it's not postmodern neomarxism, Pete. It's managerial liberalism

Actually, it's paternalistic illiberalism.

Like I said here>>11352531

The current academic "left-wing" that Peterson rails against is about as left-wing as Elon Musk, and the reality is that these people are reactionaries who have completely denied all the gains of the Enlightenment in favor of political correctness, racial and gender warfare.

These people criticize liberalism for being universalist when, according to them, there's no such thing as universalism, even as an aspiration, instead you get ideas like the progressive stack, and other Hobbesian nightmares.

Do you know who else criticized the ideals of the Enlightenment in precisely the same way as academic postmodernists? Joseph De Maistre. He was the most fervent critic of the Enlightenment, and he also said that there was no humanity, there could never be any humanism, because humanity didn't exist, the only thing that existed was Americans, Brits, Germans, Italians and Chinese etc. And of course the corollary to that is that nothing exists except race, ethnicity and gender. They aren't "human" because humanity itself is a false ideal.

These people, the academic postmodernists, are so reactionary that they share more with the supposed Nazis they hate and deplatform.

>>11353990
Have you ever tried reading his more theoretical books? They're certainly on the dense side.

>>11353974
Yeah.

He's good. Watch the channel 4 interview to know why he's popular.

From what i've read on /lit/ most people who shit on him are frustrated intellectual strawmaning him.

See
>>11353127

Watch some of his old lecture too

>>11353998
>These people, the academic postmodernists, are so reactionary that they share more with the supposed Nazis they hate and deplatform

>>11353982
Derrida and Heidegger are the only dense philosophers Peterson speaks of, He demonizes Derrida and he's not even against Heidegger (going as far as to quote him in his book) for some reason despite them sharing the same philosophy.
Foucault is entry level writing, even Camus would qualify harder to read than him, yet somehow he's an obscure charlatan and the architect of western civilization's demise along side Derrida.

>>11354000
He's definitely much easier to read than Hegel, Heidegger or Lacan

>>11354005
Well they are. Censoriousness is literally a defining critic of Nazi Germany.

If you are for censorship, you are a fascist. End of discussion.

>>11354016
aspect*

>>11353998
it's true that left started losing ground once they abandoned the category of "universalism", but at the same time it is a dangerous concept if assumed uncritically. For people, leftists intellectuals if you will, the Soviet Union remains a trauma, much more so than any right winger ideologue cares to admit. That's where "universality" showed it's cruel nature. And Zizek response is to try it again, try it again, without recognizing the critical flaw (or dialectic) in the concept. Ironic for a Hegelian

>>11354016
>If you are for censorship, you are a fascist
>implying fascism=totalitarianism=Stalinism

>>11354006
>Foucault is entry level writing, even Camus would qualify harder to read than him,
It sounds like you're well-practiced in parsing through this stuff. Foucault is still pretty dense even if he is less-so than his contemporaries. I'll give him this much credt, I don't think he was trying to intentionally be onscure.
>yet somehow he's an obscure charlatan and the architect of western civilization's demise along side Derrida.
To be fair, the sort of conscious thinking about power structures he inspired has brought about all sorts of terrible policy and reform.

>>11354025
But he does recognise it all the time. He's against thoughtless action exactly because it might lead to another USSR. The only issue is that he doesn't offer any solutions, but then again, that was never his job.

>>11354025
Well, the only way the Left can be saved in my opinion is if they stop playing with Hobbes and deny that cooperation between races, genders and ethnicity can take place, because as long as they play this postmodern idpol game, they are essentially playing the game of the National Socialists and white nationalists in general.

White people in particular will eventually think like this:

>"Oh, so there is no universalism, and I am supposed to feel guilty about being white and a historical oppressor?"
>"Well how about I just win this racial and gendered Hobbesian game instead?"

The moment you say that the most important aspect about people is their race, or their gender or their ethnicity, you are essentially saying that the worldview of a Nazi is essentially correct, it's just that white people should lose. Well, what if they don't want to lose, and what if white people decide once again to play that game?

It won't end well. And to call upon those forces is to play with fire.

>>11354030
Great response man, really appreciate the discourse

>>11354031
Just pick up Discipline and punish, it's honestly an easy read with no particularly dense vocabulary and quite straightforward ideas
>To be fair, the sort of conscious thinking about power structures he inspired has brought about all sorts of terrible policy and reform.
You're really overestimating Foucault to think his work actually had any influence politically, he's nothing but another author taught at the humanities, hell even Peterson might have more political influence than any of the French philosophers he dislikes now that he is such a well known e-celeb with a large following.

>>11354041
oh please, do elaborate on how all censorship is fascism

>>11354043
anti-psichiatry was a big movement tbf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0
he blows himself out as a shallow reactionary pretty good at 4:40

>>11352226
The problem with this guy is he doesn't say anything so there's no counterpoints to make.

>>11354051
>consistently liberal
>lmao reactionary

Well. Maybe liberalism is reactionary in this current world, but I don't agree that it is.

>you better start pretendin to believe in god if you ever intend to sort out your own chaos matrix, bucko

>>11354051
>spouts racist nonesense, apologizes when confronted with an analogy of what he said
>comment section:"how humble of him"
Jesus

>>11354054
is it liberal to force people to make cakes or not?
>liberal doesn't mean anything at all

>>11353920
this video is really good, clearly shows his blatant flaws as a philosopher without relying on his controversial political stance.

>>11354060
>is it liberal to force people to make cakes or not?

It certainly isn't liberal to force people to do anything. Words have meanings. Liberalism is the ideology of liberty.

>>11353859
>managerial liberalism
Nah, that implies the modern “left” operate on a conspiracy level of sophistication which is just rationally impossible.

I’d say it’s got more to do with something resembling Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with globalization creating more and more comfortable middle-managers who have moved up the hierarchy into self-actualization. At this level they have been comfortable enough to realize a terrible truth which is that the world is inherently unequal, unfair and all ‘hope’ in this universe is human imposed.

However, in the language of Camus, they have taken the philosophically suicidal approach and denied this absurdity by convincing themselves that the universe is truly equal and fair as its core, and it is only due to wicked people acting on their selfish desires that it isn’t. This is why to them any inequality of outcome must necessarily prove foul play (e.g. privilege).

>>11354058
>>11354051
I unironically believe people should have the right to turn down black people, it's their right.

>>11352447
>>11352489
>>11352483
>>11352764
>>11353652
I don't care what peterson is or isn't. He is low class, nothing else.

Stop associating his name with Carl Jung. The very fact you do show none of you are familiar with any real analytical psychology works, not only some vague Jungian notions the way jbp likes to throw them around. You could not differentiate shit from gold.

>>11353920
This is a pretty good channel, certainly lives up to it's name

>>11354039
yeah sure at the and of the day Nazism and idpol are separated only by an opposite moral prescription. That's fair, it's a crystallization of race and gender relations in both cases, and unbale to move forward because of it's premises, Fair enough.
But the problem with left is not so much the fixation on race, I feel like that's a symptom, of a deeper obliation. Class has been forgotten. Once the left became just a toy for middle-class college kids to feel brave and smart, all the reality of economical exploitation that are at the very heart of any inequality. A retrun to structural analysis, a return to Marx, imo is the solution.

Otherwise we're out of tricks, and Zizek is right in saying that once an true emancipatory left stop existing, the floodgates are open for fascism. That's what's happening in Europe, we're not that far off.

>>11354068
I'm sure you do, unfortunately for you this isn't the mainstream line of thought outside of obscure image boards, so what Peterson is implying is quite racist and can be interpreted as a freudian slip on his side of how he truly feels about the topic.
I have no problem with him being a racist, I just dislike closeted ones, far more than repressed faggots

>>11354068
>black """""people""""""
you mean NIGGERS

>>11354066
but the liberal view is the opposite.
and "freedom" and "liberty" is such a flexible term that anyone can just flip the concept around
>freedom to discriminate
>freedom from discrimination
means everything and nothing at all.

>>11354073
>Class has been forgotten. Once the left became just a toy for middle-class college kids to feel brave and smart, all the reality of economical exploitation that are at the very heart of any inequality. A retrun to structural analysis, a return to Marx, imo is the solution.

I agree, but I also think that simply going back to class isn't enough. Marxists and left-wingers themselves need to go back and read all the Enlightenment texts and make sure that they understand that Marx is a part of the Enlightenment and that the whole point of the traditional left was to ensure greater freedom and greater prosperity for all peoples everywhere on the planet.

It was never supposed to be a bourgeois obsession with skin color or genitals, and environmentalism.

>>11354089
These things aren't mutually exclusive. An individual can be discriminatory, but the wider society can be free and open.

Besides, if you argue that it's okay for the state to crush a small business that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you are simply setting a precedent, a precedent which will be used against other people when someone else gets power.

Test

>>11354051
>a 20s clip

Meh. Jim crow law and the gay cake thing aren't the same stuff at all.

I think Peterson got confused and prefered to retreat. That was probably the smartest choice. People can shit on him all they want but having to answer question live is m different than answering them on your computer, with all the time in the world.

>>11354068
i also believe the freedom of businesses to discriminate it's clientele on any grounds should be enforced as a right but only in the context of a fair and competitive marketplace.
the cake issue is low impact, move it to cartel/monopolistic businesses like say internet providers and it's a big problem.

>>11354090
Today’s bourgeois aren’t sufficiently selfless to promote economic analysis because it would inevitably lead to a redistribution of their own wealth. On the other hand, focusing on social issues leads to no consequences for the modern radical so long as they show themselves to be a good “ally”.

>>11354099
tell that to Jordan Peterson and "Liberals".

>>11354116
yall really equating the radical left with the bourgeois?
the reason these university students are all turning leftist isn't propaganda, it's that they go in with hopes, dreams and some money and leave without any of them.

>>11354128
>yall

Back to discord, tranny.

>>11354067
>Nah, that implies the modern “left” operate on a conspiracy level of sophistication which is just rationally impossible.
These are highly intelligent people, so nothing is really beyond them. They are engineering the political homogenization of the educated class in order to achieve the systematic takeover of the most influential areas of society, and their work has been highly effective.

>>11354128
I don’t know a single university radical whose parents aren’t loaded.

>>11354128
>yall really equating the radical left with the bourgeois?

The campus "Left" is bourgeois. Just having the means to go to university makes you middle class.

But like I said, they aren't *really* left-wing. They are reactionaries who think they are left-wing, and use left-wing language.

>>11354099
Nah nah. It's best to keep rules against discrimination for a while, and after people mix with eachother, you maybe drop them. Persia mixed people around to build hegemony and it worked brilliantly. What I'm trying to say is: reacemixing should be mandatory and the state should issue me Asian qt gfs

I think the sources he uses are much better than him. He does make some mistakes sometimes, he's not the best intellectuals out here.
But having read his book, he makes some reasonable points, and talks about interesting ideas. Honestly, I don't dislike him, I dislike most of his fans.

>>11354162
I personally think he's really uncontroversial, and strikes me as a normal centrist liberal/conservative. So I really don't get why he engenders so much animosity by the media and campus kids.

>>11354162
>Honestly, I don't dislike him, I dislike most of his fans.
Typical /lit/ hating something because it’s popular.

I personally think Peterson has merit but only in comparison to everything else - the dearth of popular independent intellectual thought. Of course Peterson makes big errors here and there, but so do other highly intelligent known commentators like Pinker.

People just aren’t as well read anymore since they waste their time on frivolous promotion.

>>11354170
What could broadly be called the left is really desperate to maintain the culture war victories they've won in recent years, so they're doubling down on enforcing their worldview.

>>11354170
Well, I think it started with how he denied to use personal pronouns. His fame extended thanks to youtube, I think. I think some people really just feel compelled by some of his ideas, as it seems that he's trying to fight the chaos created by the lack of moral grounding in modern society (or as he calls it, "postmodernism")

>>11354043
>You're really overestimating Foucault to think his work actually had any influence politically, he's nothing but another author taught at the humanities, hell even Peterson might have more political influence than any of the French philosophers he dislikes now that he is such a well known e-celeb with a large following.
I dunno. I believe thinkers that have been transmitted to nearly every figure in western governments through the educational system (which we must remember is the gatekeeper to all meaningful employment) are probably more influential than some meme professor with legions of internet virgins behind him. It kind of disgusts me how academics will consistently downplay their power and influence, I sometimes think they might not even see it. Bu it's visible to everyone on the outside.

Literally everything he says is wrong. Just look up a single one of his points and you'll discover it's wrong, or the author he cites had a completely different conclusion, or the philosopher he cites would call him a pseud faggot conspiracy theorist who should go back to /x/.

>>11354204
>Literally everything he says is wrong.

Everything? Even statistics in personality differences, gender pay gaps, interest, and so on?

As far as I can tell he's mostly correct about everything that doesn't straddle his Jungian woo woo.

>>11354217
don't you dare using "and so on" while praising Peterson

>>11354217
>As far as I can tell he's mostly correct about everything that doesn't straddle his Jungian woo woo
he doesn't understand postmodernism at all

>>11354223
>he doesn't understand postmodernism at all
He's referring to a phenomenon when he uses the term. The difficulty is that academics are trying to insert themselves into a non-academic discourse in order to maintain as much control as possible over our language.

>>11354217
Yes, it's wrong.

>>11354223
>he doesn't understand postmodernism at all

I don't care because I specifically didn't mention postmodernism.

I said statistics in personality differences, gender pay gaps, gender interest etc.

He's not wrong about any of these things as far as I can tell.

>>11354231
>Yes it's wrong.
>Screenshot from Reddit

Christ..

>>11354237
JayPee is the Reddit philosopher, faggot

>>11354217
He also has a really reductive view of "intelligence" which allows him to lean on demographic views of IQ Testing as a way to dog-whistle racists to his side.

>>11354229
>academics are trying to insert themselves into a non-academic discourse in order to maintain as much control as possible over our language
Which academics?

>>11354244
Pretty much everyone whp's made his use of the term a point of contention has been part of the broader academic community.

>>11354240
lmao this is stupid.

Any intelligence researcher uses the only means of gathering intelligence scores there is, which is logical and verbal intelligence tests. What exactly is reductive about that?

>dog-whistle racists to his side

This is such a shit argument. Racists in general and even /pol/ hate him because he refuses to cater to their antisemitism.

>>11354162
Which book did you read? Should read Maps

>>11354248
but if so many people are academics, isn't it alright for them to change laguage? (even though they definitely don't have the power to)

>>11354254
The gatekeepers to all social mobility and meaningful employment have a near unlimited influence. IT also helps that so much of their research is dedicated to learning how to do it.

Also, their numbers and position don't make it it okay for them to do any of it.

>>11354249
>which is logical and verbal intelligence tests. What exactly is reductive about that?
Intelligence would generally be considered the ability to learn (and this is exactly how Peterson discusses it) whereas an IQ test, like any other test, are mostly concerned with what material a person knows or doesn't. No IQ tests are specifically constructed in to measure a person's learning ability, so claiming IQ Test as an "intelligence quotient" is already reductive if not broken.
And then the chopping of (highly variable and inherently not testing the ability to learn) IQ test results into racial/gender/class lines can only be seen as molesting the "data" to reinforce stereotypes.

>>11354264
>The gatekeepers to all social mobility and meaningful employment have a near unlimited influence
Oh yeah. People with philosophy degrees are insanely influential. They hold all the cards. People on the street are always talking about that schmuck Hegel just because of how influential humanities are

>Also, their numbers and position don't make it it okay for them to do any of it
then who should have the right to control language and the way we define things?

>>11354249
>Racists in general and even /pol/ hate him because he refuses to cater to their antisemitism.
I've seen him push the idea that Jews are of higher intelligence which doesn't exactly shy away from the common antisemitic view of the Jews as crafty puppet-masters destroying opposing religions/culture through economic and cultural warfare.

>>11354276
Yeah you're a retard

>>11354276
I have taken several IQ tests in my life, and I have never "learned" from anyone how to use my mind to flip three dimensional objects.

I find it highly dubious that any academic actually agrees with the definition that intelligence is the capacity to learn.

>IQ test results into racial/gender/class lines can only be seen as molesting the "data" to reinforce stereotypes.

So the SAT enforces stereotypes? Because the SAT, which is a requirement for entry into higher education, is both a learned aptitude test AND and IQ test.

>>11354280
>I've seen him push the idea that Jews are of higher intelligence

Well Ashkenazi Jews do have higher average intelligence than the rest of the world population.

Are you saying he should just deny the reality of his own research, or the research of other people simply because Nazis exist?

>>11354277
>Oh yeah. People with philosophy degrees are insanely influential. They hold all the cards. People on the street are always talking about that schmuck Hegel just because of how influential humanities are
Who cares what the people in the streets talk about? The people in corporate and governmental offices, or the ones reaching through the public through mass media have already been made to affirm whatever academic doctrine the broader political left has deemed most expedient to their goals. Most have probably internalized it too.
>then who should have the right to control language and the way we define things?
I don't think I can answer that, but given their position and social function, I know it's a power that academics should be deprived of.

>>11354284
>implying i said the test reinforces stereotypes
the splitting of the data does, when you're comparing blacks and whites youre comparing a minority population economically devastated by multiple vectors (low asset pool due to segregation, drug law and enforcement removing a vast amount of fathers) to the majority population.
then they point at the IQ test scores and go SEE they're black.

>>11354287
>Who cares what the people in the streets talk about? The people in corporate and governmental offices, or the ones reaching through the public through mass media have already been made to affirm whatever academic doctrine the broader political left has deemed most expedient to their goals. Most have probably internalized it too.
>liberals are left
I was being sarcastic with the Hegel thing btw. My point is that they don't have any influence. Liberal ideologues do. You might think they're academics, but what they are are just common ideologues who bastardise philosophy much like Peterson does. They're both a part of the same coin. Divide et impera.

>don't think I can answer that, but given their position and social function, I know it's a power that academics should be deprived of
>people who are dedicating their life to analysing society should have no say in how society should be governed even if they're a part of said society and possess great numbers
It's a good thing they basically have no say and that media is pulling the strings instead of academics.

>>11354249
>Any intelligence researcher uses the only means of gathering intelligence scores there is
Because intelligence researchers and psychologists more broadly are fucking morons with mathematics and statistics. The idea of reducing a loaded and controversial word like "intelligence" whose meaning fluidly changes based on context (to go a bit Wittgensteinian/postmodern) onto a quantitative single axis scale measurement is the kind of embarrassing mathematical skulduggery that you would expect from quantitatively illiterate social science folks.

It's one thing to try and reduce infinitely complex and nuanced things to a few dimensions for statistical clarity, but only psychologists do moronic things that bootstrap loaded linguistic concepts onto those reduced dimensions.

>>11354300
Well, IQ tests don't measure your economic status. IQ tests measure your verbal and logical ability. The only thing that I actually believe has any effect on this is nutrition in childhood.

If you think that the social oppression of a group is directly transferable to a group's performance on such tests, then you need to explain people like V.S Ramachandran or Srinivasa Ramanujan or Thomas Sowell.

All of which are people who grew up in horrible circumstances, but are quite clearly vastly superior in intelligence to most people in general, regardless of ethnicity or social circumstance.

>>11354322
You got to operationalize a world like intelligence somehow.

If you think the way they do it now is bad, then enter the field and operationalize it better instead of whining that they aren't doing their job properly.

I mean, it's almost as if you prefer they measured people's skulls and just inferred from there.

>>11354285
>reality
The reality.
THE REALITY.
>Well Ashkenazi Jews do have higher average intelligence than the rest of the world population.
You've perfectly proven what i'm saying by misrepresenting the reality
What you actually would have said if you cared about reality was...
>Well Ashkenazi Jews do have higher average IQ TEST SCORE AGGREGATES than the rest of the world population.
which is not the same thing as having higher intelligence, IQ Tests have not been proven to be capable of measuring intelligence.
And they are highly variable, it HAS been proven that the offer of payment consistently and prominently increases individual IQ scores, strongly implying motivation is a huge factor in the results. For all we know Ashkenazi Jews have higher than average IQ Test scores because for some reason they take the tests more seriously than the general population.

>>11354327
I'm literally imploring against the segregation of data and you want me to prove it validity to you?
It's not valid.

>>11354333
>Jews are 0.2% of the world population
>but 20.22% of Nobel Prize laureates

>meanwhile retards like you on the internet think that IQ tests don't actually show what they are supposed to show

I'll trust the people who study this shit for living over some faggot on 4chan, thank you very much.

>>11354332
>You got to operationalize a world like intelligence somehow.
Does "operationalize" mean bootstrap onto a real number scale? Because that's moronic and not something you have to do at all.

Again, the issue here is the entire premise of what they are trying to do is embarrassing from a mathematical point of view. JP is a great example of the danger of this in his academic work because he misuses statistics/mathematics and thinks BECAUSE he has used stats/maths in a misused way that he bolsters his point in a scientific way. Mind you, not all social scientists are as bad as psychologists with this issue; microeconomists are usually pretty mathematically literate folks, but then again that field is a better use case for stats/maths.

>>11354284
>I have taken several IQ tests in my life, and I have never "learned" from anyone how to use my mind to flip three dimensional objects.
Did you have Legos growing up? 3D videogames?
You definitely learned how to mentally manipulate 3D objects, as everyone with 2 functioning eyes has. The difference in scores is how good you are at it which is something highly influenced by early life experience.

>>11354338
>segregation of data

What the fuck does this even mean? How is doing comparative research between groups of people "segregation of data"?

This is literally what you do with ANY other statistical analysis.

What you're essentially saying is that whenever a polisci major compares two countries politically he's being jingoistic.

>>11354106
>I think Peterson got confused and prefered to retreat. That was probably the smartest choice.
This.
I thought about what the difference between these scenarios was, and it took me a while to make sense of it, so there's a good chance Peterson would have gotten tripped up bad if he tried to explain it on the spur of the moment.
Irrational discrimination is part of our freedom to oppress each other if we so choose, and the state should generally stay out of this unless a problem can be isolated on a systemic level and solved in a straightforward manner. A law that forces bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples can be used by those couples to specifically target and humiliate those bakers, in which case it does not eliminate discrimination but simply turns the power dynamic on its head. Does a Muslim artist have to take the commission asking him to draw a picture of Mohamed? Does the gay IT-firm have to design the web portal of a conversion therapy centre? Are we generally giving rights to customers and taking them away from business owners, or are we giving rights to the gay/secular community by getting rid of religious freedom?

>>11354351
It's one thing to compare it. It's something else entirely to point at it and make bold claims of who is or isn't intelligent based on nothing but aggregates of a sampling of a population of test scores. Reductive as fuck.

>>11354348
>Does "operationalize" mean bootstrap onto a real number scale?

No, it means you need to take a word like intelligence and define it such as to make it possible to answer in a quantitative way.

You obviously have zero knowledge of philosophy of science.

>>11354361
Well most people who agree with population statistics in IQ, also believe that it is inconsequential to how one should go about dealing with individuals.

>>11354350
>as everyone with 2 functioning eyes has.

So why doesn't everyone score 145 on an IQ test?

If it is as simple as Legos and playing video games everyone in the West should have at least 130+ score on the toughest IQ tests, and yet 130+ scores is the 98th percentile of the population.

>>11354368
Not Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson thinks anyone with low IQ test scores are monsters that need to be caged.

>>11354374
>ignores the fact i was only discussing the one aspect
>ignores the fact i included variability in that one aspect
what are you even arguing? IQ scores don't really mean anything other than what they are, a score on a meaningless test.

>>11354039
Do you seriously think a bunch of cultures coexisting is something recent?

>>11354287
>Who cares what the people in the streets talk about? The people in corporate and governmental offices, or the ones reaching through the public through mass media have already been made to affirm whatever academic doctrine the broader political left has deemed most expedient to their goals. Most have probably internalized it too.
I don't think you know what academic means and you vastly overestimate the influence of the left and the intelligence of your average public servant (elected or not)

>>11354385
No, but universalist humanism is barely 400 years old, and there are people, particularly this new flavor of campus leftism, and white nationalists/Nazis, who REALLY hate the idea with a passion.

The idea that people of different races, ethnicities and genders can have a conversation and reach consensus or mutually beneficial contracts is completely alien to these people. And it shows how reactionary and anti-Enlightenment these people are.

>>11354276
>Le humans are a Tabula Rasa.
LMAO, yeah pal, it's not like IQ is mostly affected by your genetics and its one of the most reliable predictors of academic and economic success.

>>11354364
Inteligence isn't a quantitative phenomenon in the sense that a ser of elements are, to say A is more intelligent than B and think this means intelligence is therefore reduceable to a fixed scale shows a complete lack familiarity with statistics (or intelligence for that matter). I'm not even the other guy you're responding to, who seems much more well versed in math than I am.

>>11354401
Which explains the number of high IQ failures at life who populate 4chan, right.

>>11354249
>Racists in general and even /pol/ hate him because he refuses to cater to their antisemitism.
No, they mostly hate him because he's being dishonest about group identities, especially when it comes to white nationalists of various kinds.

>>11354180
No, I didnt say that I dislike him for being popular, I said that I dislike most of his fans. For example on youtube; have you seen the titles and thumbnails people who upload videos about him use? Have you seen the comments? Have you seen what happens if you criticize him, even in a rational manner?
>>11354250
I read his memiest book: 12 rules for life. Maybe I will check out his other book

I have tried to be critical towards Peterson for the longest time and never could. Everything he says is true, and he makes sure of it.

However, Peterson is nothing more today than a chained pet. A couple of months ago, Ezra Levant bought the Rebel Media and started donating big money to Peterson. This moment correlates to his rise as a public figure.

So Peterson always speaks the truth until it's about the jewish question. Here's an segment of his biblical lectures, where a member of the audience asks about the Holodomor and the fact that the first politburo was composed almost entirely of semites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqtPsEXZTec

It doesn't get clearer than that.

Today, Peterson is the king's jester, repeating the same ideas and ''wrecking SJWs'' on mainstream media for our greatest entertainment and it's deplorable.

>>11354399
the problem with humanism is that it kinda worked as the birthing ground for liberalism and will forever be associated with it, and these people think liberalism is failing (with good reason btw). I suppose it's the scar of colonialism that never truly closes, as the first world runs out of places to turn into colonies and the periphery expands and starts taking place in "the West", things should become even more heated.

>>11354420
See everyone?

It's exactly what I said. Peterson doesn't peddle antisemitism = Goy/Zionist shill

>>11354375
No he does not. He's stated something along the lines of "...sure people with extremely low IQ's (~80) are good for nothing but emptying bins. But where people have it wrong is in assuming IQ determines value of a human being."

>>11354428
>these people think liberalism is failing (with good reason btw).

Well it's no wonder liberalism is failing because these people are actively trying to destroy it.

Just wait, in 20-30 years, every Western countries will be a new China, where the new equivalent of the Communist Party is going to police language and private businesses everywhere.

>>11354364
>define it such as to make it possible to answer in a quantitative way.
quantitative does not mean bootstrap to a real number scale. You can use maths without tying things back to scales in mathematically unsound ways.

>You obviously have zero knowledge of philosophy of science.
Look, I literally TA courses on the philosophy of probability and logic to math majors; I definitely don't say that as some pat on the back or to show credentials, but rather to say that I get what the goal of quantitatively analyzing things is from a philosophical perspective and a maths perspective, and I get why the mistakes are being made in an otherwise noble effort to conduct scientific inquiry. Quantitative folks (maths/stats/physics students) are greatly helped by reading and learning philosophy generally and philosophy of science particularly. The reverse is true with humanities folks and learning abstract maths and probability but unfortunately it is rare that they ever do.

It's important to realize though that maths is not simply a "tool", it is systems of logic that is rigorously and carefully constructed. Misusing it by treating it as a loose tool to reach some goal is very suspicious unless you are very honest with your misuse. The issue with psychologists is this latter part. The domain of psychology is by definition not a very good use case for rigorous maths or statistics, but it can be useful to still be quantitative as a heuristic to learn more about humans. But you must be humbled by the fact that you are misusing the quanitative tools and therefore your conclusions must be tempered with healthy and honest skepticism.

Thus, mapping "intelligence" onto one single real number scale via certain questions obviously makes no mathematical sense. It could have useful purposes of course if we are careful with what conclusions we draw and honest with our misuse, and we must never lie to ourselves that we have actually mapped "intelligence" onto a scale because that is not actually possible.

I did poorly at school and standardized testing (means low IQ I guess)

Yet I was valedictorian at university (a second-tier one). Explain that IQ friends.

>>11354443
We heat peak 'liberalism," in the late 19th century. Why do you think we have terms like 'neoliberal,' to describe more modern movements?

>>11354463
>Why do you think we have terms like 'neoliberal,' to describe more modern movements?

Neoliberal is just a slur by these campus wannabe Leftists.

>>11354353
Good post

>>11354453
You can have a big IQ specialized in a few parts. IQ take into account how well you do on severals test.

>>11354443
>police private businesses
oh noooo, not policing private businesses, those treasure chests of humanity

>>11354353
>A law that forces bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples can be used by those couples to specifically target and humiliate those bakers, in which case it does not eliminate discrimination but simply turns the power dynamic on its head.

>an edge case that I thought up in my diseased mind can therotically happen which means we mustn't implement this law I'm talking about
cool

>>11352275
So, I've studied postmodernism pretty intently and I believe his assessment of it is very accurate.

The big problem people have with comprehending his articulations on the subject is assuming that the way it operates, as a symbolic concept, or abstraction, in its followers, is no different to the academic definition of postmodernism as a philosophical construct.

TL:DR; You're stupid and he isn't.

>>11354609
Be careful what you wish for. Whoever has political power can change at the drop of a hat, and then you'll be a target yourself.

>>11354353
>Does a Muslim artist have to take the commission asking him to draw a picture of Mohamed?
No because it's art, which is covered under free expression. The whole merits of the case was whether baking a cake was art. They did not rule on the merits, so we still have no answer to this question from the court. Selling premade cakes is not art, and therefore states can enact rules saying you are not allowed to refuse selling premade cakes on class grounds like gay couples without violated the freedom of expression clause of the 1A. Was baking a cake like selling a premade one or was it like creating art? I don't see answering in either direction as being egregiously wrong, so it's not a really controversial case like folks have made out to be (such as you).

>>11354630
I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR NUANCE GIVE ME MORE MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE!!!!!

>>11354626
>I've studied postmodernism pretty intently
spent hours on youtube

>>11354626
obviously the intent to misconstrue it

>>11354626
>I've studied postmodernism pretty intently
>being this pseud
disgusting really

>>11354614
>People should be forced to be nice even though they don't want to

Choke on your niceness faggot.

>>11354698
that's rude

>>11353209
>Responding to copypasta seriously.

Jesus Christ lads.

>>11354707
Yes it is. But rudeness, is thankfully not illegal.

Yet.

>>11354717
>Yet

chills.

>>11354698
nice misrepresentation of what I wrote, really makes the neurons go VROOM VROOM
nobody's asking them to be NICE, they are asked to serve customers without regard for their color, creed or sexual habits

>>11354393
The left has has networked every major institution except for a few governmental ones and some declining industries into a cohesive force. This has essentially granted them a form of social omnipotence, and I'm not exaggerating with the use of that term. Leftists are essentially social gods, and academia is the nexus of their power. They've demonstrated time and time again that the social power they have is far more important than whatever paltry governmental power they lack.

>>11354735
>IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

okay, when did you losers start posting here?

>>11354733
>they are asked to serve customers without regard for their color, creed or sexual habits

Why stop there? Why not include hair color, eye color, being drugged, being drunk, being old, being upper class, being working class, being Hutu, having rheumatoid arthritis, having primary alopecia, wearing a suit, being an identical twin, being the President, working in a shoe store, having large eyes, having a cleft chin, looking like Murray Bookchin, cracking jokes about Jews while being Jewish, working for the DEA, sucking on a icecream shaped like a cock, being a fan of the "wrong" football team.

I'm pretty sure I covered everything that can be discriminated against.

>>11354759
false equivalency, but yes people shouldn't be discriminated based off their eye color either, but being disorderly in public is illegal

>>11352495
>i am curious to know what a modern reactionary country would look like

https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/10/jacobite-why-bother/

>>11354435
I think most people ~80 IQ could be professors like Peterson.

>>11354745
I wouldn't really call it a conspiracy. People whose goal is social reform just pursuing social reform. These are highly intelligent people, and they know how to consolidate power.

>>11354786
so only the left attracts intelligent people? good to know

>>11354777
>but being disorderly in public is illegal

Why? What if being disorderly is part of my identity? I do have problems keeping my office clean.

If you want a serious response though, why is class hatred allowed but racial hatred not? Serious question.

>>11354759
yeah I can remember when having a cleft chin meant you were gonna have to drink at a different fountain, get arrested by cops under "cleft chin" laws, be forbidden from education, or burned alive at the stake

you fucking dullard

>>11354791
>If you want a serious response though, why is class hatred allowed but racial hatred not? Serious question.
>why is it acceptable to hate the guy who steals from me but not the people who get born with a mole on their ear? I'm a deep thinker.

>>11354240
kill yourself

>>11354733
Why should you be forced to serve anyone? They want one less customer then that's just tough shit.

>>11354791
>What if being disorderly is part of my identity?
then you get a happy life in prison :)

>>11354810
because if you won't accept somebody's greenbacks then they have the army's permission to take it for free. It's called fiat look it up!

>yeah I can remember when

I get that you're being sarcastic, but you CAN'T actually remember when people had to drink from different fountains or sit in specific buses, because you weren't alive at that time, because you're a faggot millennial raised in a middle class home, with zero worries other than being paranoid you won't be able to afford the next iteration of the Iphone.

>>11354802
>guy who steals from me

Shut the fuck up you commie faggot. Nobody has ever stolen anything from you your entire life, you coddled middle class buffoon.

>>11354812
>then you get a happy life in prison :)

Sounds like discrimination to me. Non-disorderly people clearly are oppressing me.

>>11354790
Academics are among the most intelligent our society has to offer, and they've homogenized the educational class and created a system where education highly corresponds with intelligence. Even intelligent people can be manipulated.

I think it goes to show you that intelligence shouldn't be used to justify a particular social order. Many of our social problems arise from this being a defining aspect of our society.

>>11354820
>Sounds like discrimination to me
yeah and that's because you're a belligerent idiot

>>11354810
lol yes, it's just "one less customer" in your simple mind
what it leads to is whites-only stores, coffee shops, bars, cinemas etc, effectively barring nonwhites from a big part of the economy

>>11354817
cool projecting, homie

>>11354825
>Academics are among the most intelligent our society has to offer,

lol I bet you unironically think this too

>>11354817
>I get that you're being sarcastic, but you CAN'T actually remember when people had to drink from different fountains or sit in specific buses, because you weren't alive at that time, because you're a faggot millennial raised in a middle class home, with zero worries other than being paranoid you won't be able to afford the next iteration of the Iphone.
the guy who wants to bring whites-only water fountains is lecturing me on the hardships nonwhites went through

>>11352226
How about you use your brain, and make some of your very own up?

>>11354833
Every bit of evidence seems to indicate this. I'd wager that the average academic involved with a given field is more intelligent that the average person working in that field outside of academia.

>>11354830
Lmao.
So what? have a whites only cafe.
The cafe across the road picks up all the black business as well of the business of those who love black people.

You're not entitled to my labour faggot.

>>11354614
Why don't you try responding in a way that doesn't make you look like a passive-agressive cunt?
Individual bakers having the option of not baking a cake for a certain occasion is no worse an avenue for discrimination than a situation in which those bakers are made to to comply with a government regulation forcing them to bake anything anyone wants them to bake if it meets certain criteria.
>>11354630
If you want to play that game, wedding cakes are expressions as well (that's what I would argue anyway). A wedding cake is a product which is created for a specific occasion, as a signifier of that occasion. It serves a similar function to a seal, as one of the ways of certifying that 'this is a genuine wedding'. That's probably why that christian baker did not want to make one for a gay couple - because it would mean expressing something he does not believe in. The way to change that is giving people reasons to abandon certain views, not enforcing certain modes of behavior by law.

>>11354840
yeah, and who writes the IQ tests...

wake up

>>11354836
>the guy who wants to bring whites-only water fountains

Where have I ever argued for such a thing?

>>11354845
>Individual bakers having the option of not baking a cake for a certain occasion is no worse an avenue for discrimination than a situation in which those bakers are made to to comply with a government regulation forcing them to bake anything anyone wants them to bake if it meets certain criteria.

not when the reason for those bakers refusal is based off discrimination.

>>11354842
>So what? have a whites only cafe.
>The cafe across the road picks up all the black business as well of the business of those who love black people.
you are a literal child
the only reason why you think this way is because of the same laws forbidding discrimination that you're now crying about

>>11354854
why don't you try reading the rest of that post, adhd-kun?

>>11354855
Infantile level comeback lad.

>>11354827
>yeah and that's because you're a belligerent idiot

Well are you denying it would be discrimination? Because it clearly is.

The fact is that you "leftists" actually like discrimination. You don't like racial discrimination, or sexist discrimination, but you do like class discrimination, and you especially like ideological discrimination.

In fact, I would argue that if you had the power to do it, you would probably make separate water fountains with lead-infused water for Republicans, liberals and centrists, and clean water fountains for leftists, communists and anarchists.

This whole socially enforced monogamy thing is such fucking bullshit. Shows how much the rights views regarding women match up pretty well with Islamic views.

>>11354860
i did though. the government regulation is normally designed by committee to promote a democratic and fair society and if you don't like it there are plenty of legal avenues for petition. But screeeing like a moron on the 4chains is hardly going to gain any converts

>>11354862
It's not descrimination if you are "discriminating" against physically destructive behaviour like a drunk on a warpath (or a tightrope)

>>11354845
>Individual bakers having the option of not baking a cake for a certain occasion is no worse an avenue for discrimination than a situation in which those bakers are made to to comply with a government regulation forcing them to bake anything anyone wants them to bake if it meets certain criteria.
if it "meets certain criteria" then it by definition isn't "anything anyone wants them to bake"
>>11354850
why would you argue for it when you can just set the ball rolling and watch it happen? your "I didn't specifically say that" schtick doesn't work.
>>11354861
what kind of comeback is there supposed to be to a moron like you? your way has been tried and it was so bad that an explicit law had to be made so dick cheese like you could be forced to exhibit basic human decency. your dumbfuck opinions can exist as they are only in your own thoughts because the moment they get implemented in the real world they get crushed by the fact that reality isn't made of perfectly round objects and perfecrtly straight lines but out of irrational people dealing with each other in irrational ways.

>>11354862
>but you do like class discrimination
when did I even say that anyway? I just said it's okay to discriminate against disorderly conduct

>>11354874
When did the validity of the process by which government regulations come into existence get dragged into this conversation? Where did I claim that there's no way to reverse a decision like this? Who are you talking to?

>>11354899
why don't you try reading the rest of your post :p

>>11354882
>you can just set the ball rolling

What exactly are you talking about? So because I care about individual liberty more than I care about your inflated arrogance about oppression, this means I support Jim Crow laws?

Because I don't. Jim Crow laws would clearly be totally against my own beliefs.

>>11354906
quote me, faggot

>>11354873
The right's more concerned with aesthetics than anything else. That's why there's plenty of room to tolerate similar policies if it has the correct look to them.

>>11354889
Well i've been trying to be sarcastic. I thought you would get my point about discrimination, e.g that I can just invent forms of oppressed/oppressor dynamics at a drop of a hat, all the same shit arguments people use for it will apply all the same.

>>11354882
>Tries to have an actual discussion
>Immediately collapses into hysterics.

>>11354907
lol no, you support every man's right to decide to enact jim crow in his own business, that's the big difference
you're burning with righteous indignation against the big boot of the government while yearning for the dozens of boots of big business and a million little boots of small-to-medium businesses

>>11354934
>tries to strawman
>gets told to fuck off
>cries uncontrollably

>>11354912
okay
>a government regulation forcing them to bake anything anyone wants them to bake if it meets certain criteria.

you implied would be discriminatory (i.e. poorly implemented given that our government doesn't set out to discriminate against its own citizens)

>>11353970
Haha are you serious? This shit is inaccurate in every detail.
1.) Karl marx an enemy to JBP?
2.) >French intellectuals may be notoriously hard to understand, but their historians aren’t. A number of excellent historians and biographers precisely capture the French political and intellectual milieu that Peterson deems so reprehensible.
Peterson has said nothing about the millieu during this time - he has critizied the hypothetical future outcome of following the ideas that was invented during this time...

So this idiot is saying since peterson is critizing the americated and perverted version of destructualism he is not correctly judging it´s merits and therefor the critique is invalid... Well, that statement is invalid as fuck. for the dumb: Since peterson is articulating what he percieves as faulty in french thinking and specifiy what kind of error he think is being made, relabeling the sum of those hypotheticals still does not protect the specific critique, call it what you will...

>Cusset argues, among other things, that a tendency towards identity politics is not inherent in the original French works, which is something that Peterson routinely suggests.
JBP is more detailed than that.


Can´t be bothered to read more. This is just generic leftist apologetics...

>>11354929
>I can invent my own dumb theories which makes the theory of gravity invalid

>>11354945
>things that didn't happen.

>>11354929
hey you can be stupid all you want but you'll only attract other stupid people

>>11354950
>This shit is inaccurate in every detail.
>1.) Karl marx an enemy to JBP?
yes

>>11354968
>things that happened, are happening and will continue to happen because I'm an internet retard who gets his knowledge from youtube videos

>>11354941
>lol no, you support every man's right to decide to enact jim crow in his own business

I support a private business' right to deny service to anyone they like, just like I can deny anyone the right to walk on my lawn.


>>11354954
>Radical social theories about oppressor/oppressed dynamics are actually laws like the law of gravity

>>11354978
Watch that blood pressure.

>>11354980
>>Radical social theories about oppressor/oppressed dynamics are actually laws like the law of gravity
The primary purpose of the social sciences is to make it so this seems like the case.

I think that the whole cake situation boils down to the fact that humans don't act based on logic, but on morality, the gut feeling of what is right and what is wrong.
Trying to equate religious views about gays to racial segregation just doesn't work on real life, and it think the same principle applies to other areas; there is only so much that education can do to curb the individual's natural tendencies.

>>11352764
Please elaborate

>>11354980
>I support a private business' right to deny service to anyone they like, just like I can deny anyone the right to walk on my lawn.
in other words, you support jim crow in private businesses
>>11354980
the point wasn't that social theories are like gravity, it was that the fact that your dumb applications of the oppressed/oppressor dynamics don't fit well doesn't mean the oppressed/oppressor dynamics don't exist
get some reading comprehension

>>11354934
Yup, I don't think there have ever been this many hysterical, condescending crybabies on /lit/.

>>11354946
Believing in the possibility and general tendency of fair government in a certain country and criticizing a particular hypothetical law for being discriminatory are not mutually exclusive, you know.

>>11355006
>The primary purpose of the social sciences is to make it so this seems like the case.

Just because the primary purpose of social science is to try to make scientific laws, doesn't automatically make them correct nor right.

>>11355020
and even if they are right that does not make them correct.

>>11355018
>doesn't mean the oppressed/oppressor dynamics don't exist
They really don't. It amounts to a shallow moral evaluation of social conditions. If emancipatory politics aren't part of your agenda, the terms lose all their meaning.

>>11355018
>in other words

No, not in other words. I literally told you what I support. You simply want it to mean something else.

>your dumb applications of the oppressed/oppressor dynamics don't fit well doesn't mean the oppressed/oppressor dynamics don't exist
>don't fit well

I never said they don't "fit well", I said they are stupid, and the arguments for them are shit.

I can prove to you if you want that people who are over 6 feet tall actually make more money than people who are shorter.

Does that mean we should reorganize society such that every single employer has to hire at least 40% men and women who are shorter than 6ft, or is this a kind of discrimination you accept?

We could argue we need to do violent redistribution of capital from Google and Amazon to all men who are shorter than 5ft 7.

>>11355030
if "emancipatory politics" isn't part of the agenda of a political party then oppression doesn't exist? what the fuck does that mean?

>>11353019
>nothing to do with reactionary/liberal debate. I agree that he is a fucking hack that is trying to enjoy his influence and fame for as long as possible before the normies realise that he has nothing of value to tell them that their parents didn't tell them as 10 year olds
Based

>>11355049
Yes. The notion that an individual or group can have the condition of being oppressed is entirely dependent on a sense of justice deriving from empancipatory politics. The condition is an illusion of your mind.

>>11355045
>No, not in other words. I literally told you what I support. You simply want it to mean something else.
and both your interpretation and mine are true, that's the magic of words

as far as the "tall man" thing goes, stop being fucking obtuse, or are you seriously trying to tell me there's no racial discrimination cause you found a statistic about tall people

>>11355057
lol what
this is "think happy thoughts" level of delusion

>>11355072
"You see, the only reason why you think we should have anti-rape laws is because you believe rape is bad. This is an illusion of your mind."

>>11355019
>Believing in the possibility and general tendency of fair government in a certain country and criticizing a particular hypothetical law for being discriminatory are not mutually exclusive, you know.
When did I imply otherwise?

>>11355069
>are you seriously trying to tell me there's no racial discrimination cause you found a statistic about tall people

I have never said there is no racial discrimination.

What I will say however, is that the cure for racial discrimination is not to stop bakers making cakes for fag weddings, making the topic taboo unless you tow the absurd college Leftist political line, or Communist anarchism, or Marxist-Leninism.

>>11355045
>SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS

>>11355077
your dumbfuck philosophical outlook doesn't work in real life
that's why noone sane follows it
it only leads to more discrimination and discord

>>11355057
>white privilege: the post

>>11355072
Tell me then, what does it mean to be oppressed? s there anyway to define it that doesn't presuppose a certain sense of justice?
The attention given to this relationship is nothing more than a result of the disgusting individualism that marks our times. The condition of society itself is far more important than any group or individual, and the relationship that should concern us is whether or not those groups or individuals are harmful or not to society or civilization at large. Whether they fell bad at the moment doesn't deserve a smidge of attention.

>>11355110
sure thing, fascist

>>11355107
People like you are already sowing discord and discrimination.

>>11355110
>and the relationship that should concern us is whether or not those groups or individuals are harmful or not to society or civilization at large.
that's you

>>11355132
whites became a threatened minority so subtly i never even noticed!

>>11355132
pic related is actually shilled by your capitalist colleagues who always try to shift the burden of environmentalism on the individual instead of on the true polluter - big business
that's why retards in newspapers tell people they should have less kids, so general motors or whoever can keep pumping shit into the atmosphere at the same rate it already is (or even more)

>>11355142
and that's a good thing

>>11355076
>the government regulation is normally designed by committee to promote a democratic and fair society and if you don't like it there are plenty of legal avenues for petition. But screeeing like a moron on the 4chains is hardly going to gain any converts
A-are you okay? Are you still following our conversation? You brought up the process by which governments design regulations out of nowhere, I asked you what you were doing, you quoted the part of my posts which you believe your response related to, and in the comment you quoted just now I showed you that the first quote was concerned with whether or not a particular hypothetical law might be discriminatory, rather than a commentary on the general validity of our system of government.

>>11355109
Could you not answer my question? As far as I can tell, "oppression" is an empty buzzword in the truest sense reified (well, as much as it can be) by a great deal of academic spending. Is there anything else to it.
>>11355134
I don't know, the mere fact that I'm concerned wit it seems to indicate otherwise. The primary group of harmful individuals are anarchists, everyone else lags so far behind them that they're practically irrelevant.

>Still talking about Peterson

How is 60s new age boomerism and conservative values so interesting to people? It's been in the mainstream for 60 years...

>>11355142
>that's why retards in newspapers tell people they should have less kids

Well they aren't telling anyone to have fewer kids. They are telling specific people to have fewer kids. And why do you think that is?

Well clearly it is because the new generation of journalists have degrees in feminist dance therapy and sociology, and think that if you have white skin you are an oppressor, and god forbid you create more little mini-oppressors.

>>11355148
no, you or the guy i replied to brought it up when he said any government regulation would be discriminatory to justify a business' right to total self governance in the interest of "fairness"

>>11355155
it certainly hasn't been mainstream in the humanities. for instance, conservatism hasn't been relevant to literary criticism since new criticism was btfo, and we've been stuck in pomo-intersectionality-land ever since. that's what the big buzz is about.

>>11355149
>As far as I can tell, "oppression" is an empty buzzword in the truest sense reified (well, as much as it can be) by a great deal of academic spending. Is there anything else to it.
yeah, because you're likely white and sheltered

>>11355157
>They are telling specific people to have fewer kids. And why do you think that is?

confirmation bias

>>11355165
How is it relevant now? Link me some work.

>>11355165
>we've been stuck in pomo-intersectionality-land ever since.

who's this we you're talking about? Papa Peterson's populist view of academia?

>>11355173
>confirmation bias

Produced by what? Occam's razor will say their college classes.

>>11354647
>>11354640
Good rebuke.

Solid, really well articulated. You'll be cited in my next paper. If that's ok with you two geniuses.

>>11355187
you're unlearned brain

>>11355189
I'd rather not be associated with your nonsense, thanks

>>11355192
>you're unlearned brain

Okay dude.

>>11355189
fold that paper into an origami crane and then stick it up your ass

>>11355201
pic related is the definition of confirmation bias dumbass

>>11355201
what? Are you telling me someone said something stupid on Twitter? Call the paper

>>11355167
Tell me. I'm not denying disparities in material conditions, but what exactly makes it immoral or unjust? Sorry if this goes against the sense of narcissism and and entitlement ubiquitous among marginalized people, but there's nothing about you that indicates you shouldn't exist this way or that you deserve something else. We're witnessing the total breakdown of the construct that is humanity, and it's coming from all sides.

So please explain to me what it means to be oppressed? If you can't communicate it to me, I have little reason to believe it's more than a myth.

>>11355211
>basic human rights are narcissistic

okay

>>11355211
lol


"Hey don't discriminate against people, fuck off"
"WE'RE WITNESSING THE TOTAL BREAKDOWN OF THE CONSTRUCT THAT IS HUMANITY"

>>11355216
It's the creations that arise fro human society that give any justification for life continuing to exist. The belief that life (especially your own) has any value (especially value of civilization and its fruits) is among the most narcissistic thoughts our brains can produce. The notion that humanity should be the basis for rights is also pretty damn narcissistic.

>>11355227
>It's the creations that arise fro human society that give any justification for life continuing to exist.

That's pretty narcissistic right there

>>11355210
>College professor
>calling for genocide
>"simply stupid"

Meanwhile, in the real world, if someone simply doesn't want to bake a cake for faggots, the State comes knocking on the door.

You guys are delusional. Probably because you agree with him.

>>11355236
>universities can only teach what I want!

Again, you're just zeroing in on instances where people say things you don't like

>>11355236
>calling for genocide
lol

>>11355225
Most peoples are starting to come to the conclusion that whatever differences we have between us are more meaningful that whatever it is we share as a species. This was the inevitable result of decolonization and the vacuum left by the fall of the USSR.
>>11355233
On what basis? I'm more than willing to admit that I'm inherently worthless, and any worth I can have comes through sacrificing whatever benefits me personally to do so. How could that be seen as narcissistic in anyway when juxtaposed with the notion that consciousness in and of itself is so valuable that those who possess it are deserving of comfortable material conditions?

>>11355252
>Most peoples are starting to come to the conclusion that whatever differences we have between us are more meaningful that whatever it is we share as a species
bullshit

>>11355239
Calling for genocide isn't simply "things I don't like".

If he said "All I want for Christmas is Black Genocide" on Twitter, he would first be banned, and he probably be arrested and charged under the only First Amendment exception that exists, which is the incitement to violence exception.

>>11353317
Actually you CAN give very complex social phenomenae understandable explanations, (albeit not the first plausible). 06-21

It´s based on what logic you´re coming from. If you value life (and gentleness not barbarianism and tyranny) - then the building blocks of what we take into account when we say we "value life" is what should be accounted for - as long as you want to critique peterson.

Coming closest conceptually to this sense of "life" (what we mean when we say we value life) is simple hedonism. Letting this device guide our intentions, you see which scientific models brings you nearest the maxims of the model that "values life and which one brings you furthest from iy. (you have to rely on science to affirmate that you indeed value life, and accept life is synonymous with living eg. life expectancy)


Which ideas, scientifically comes closest to examening the values that we value when we say we "value life" - that´s right. Evolutionary logic, ethology and biology (eg. stress equals death equals shorter life expectancy)

We know egalitarian societiys thrives based on these criteria - and so we look for what states of the world guides us to this great egalitarity (among other qualites we deem desirable).

This happens to right now be capitalism - so jbp is saying: before you tare it down, please consider the options.

THIS is also why i´m so afraid of the youth of today, they have lost contact with the fragility of maintaining the system that keeps these (to this point) most developed methods of achieving "life valuing"-qualities, and thinks since it´s hard to maintain it can´t be valid - this inturn neglects their adhernece and belief in the truths that values life!

- End of autism

>>11355270
it's almost like there's some kind fo context for why people don't get all up in arms when someone writes an obvious joke about "white genocide" whereas they do when the same thing is done about "black genocide" or "another shoah"
it's almost like reality doesn't work on 1/0 YES/NO black/white logic, you fucking simple jack

>>11355271

>>11355267
Outside of major metropolitan areas in western countries and college campuses, this is very much the case. The human paradigm is of little worth to to major powers in a post Cold War world, and they're doing very little to maintain it.

>>11355282
The difference is, you slimey and evasive fuck, is that if people joke about "protected minorities" they get both the state and the pitchforked mob after them.

Just realize that there's certain groups in society that you're allowed to hate and want dead, and that's white people. Especially in the U.S.

>>11355291
so all the genetic trash, good to know

>>11355294
>slimey and evasive fuck
the only slimy and evasive fuck here is you, the guy pretending not to know why people would be sensitive to genocide inr egards to nonwhites with a history of concentration camps for certain ethnicities, slave auctions, arrests, whole bodies of discriminatory law etc etc
and you compare that to a FUCKING JOKE, something that we all know will never happen, that is laughable to even think about - white genocide

that's slimy, you turd of a man
and nobody got pitchforked for joking about minorities you dumb cunt, why lie about something dumb like that??? because you're pathologically dishonest like all of your kind.

fuck off

>>11355311
>nobody got pitchforked
missing "by the state" here

>>11355297
That's a rather extreme case of elitism and biological determinism. Seems like you're enjoying the breakdown of this construct as much as anyone else.

>>11355311
>and you compare that to a FUCKING JOKE

He wasn't joking. And the fact you believe that is what makes you slimey and evasive.

Do you think the ANC in South Africa is joking too when they voted recently to expropriate white farmers of their property with no compensation?

Don't bet on it.

>>11355252
>whatever differences we have between us are more meaningful that whatever it is we share as a species
please elaborate

>>11355332
yes, he is joking, but even if he isn't it doesn't change the fact that you answered the previosu poster's argument of confirmation bias with a post from a college professor, which is an example of confirmation bias
that's how dumb you are

>>11355311
>something that we all know will never happen, that is laughable to even think about - white genocide
Eh, I doubt it ever would, and at the moment the idea is nothing more than a fever dream of white supremacists, but the West is declining in power, and a many peoples are itching for revenge. I don't think it would take the form of genocide, but I also don't think it would be pleasant.

>>11355341
The differences that we have used to break each other into groups (regardless of their origin or basis, it doesn't really matter if they're socially constructed) will matter more to people than our our common humanity with regards to how they wish to live in the future.

>>11355468
if you're a sad polcuck maybe

>>11355348
Talk about derailing the discussion. If my posts are examples of confirmation bias, his posts are examples of paranoid conspiracies theories.

>>11355194
Because you're so intellectually gifted and academically well versed in the subject, would you mind explaining to the audience what you think postmodernism is in the ways in which jordan Peterson misinterprets it?

Thanks, cupcake.

I look forward to reading it.

>>11355489
nothing he said was a paranoid conspiracy though lol

>>11355512
youtube already did :) >>11353920

>>11355517
Oppressor/Oppressed dynamics border on the delusional and conspiratorial.

>>11355525
lol okay

>>11355530
Well no one has tried to justify their legitimacy. They seem more like an axiom necessary for certain types of discourse rather than a meaningful condition.

>>11355537
what?

>>11355547
No one's explained why "oppression" (with all the social and moral baggage the term has) is a legitimate characterization of social disparities.

>>11355559
pick up a history book, dude.

>>11355566
That would only help if I were questioning the disparities themselves. I'm merely questioning the validity of the dynamic used to describe them, and why this should be the foundation for both our understanding of society and any reforms we desire.

>>11355576
so you're saying it's okay to have an oppressed class?

>>11353998
The anon you're responding to is arguing that Peterson has the diagnosis wrong; it has nothing to do with the current character of Leftism, which is a symptom of the bigger problems, namely, Taylorism applied on such a massive scale such as to steal away the power of the populace and make it dependent on managerial types and experts. Part of the result of this is a lack of identity of self with what one does, or a proper appreciation of social masks, where now the mask is all we are, and we're transformed into narcissists desperately holding onto what identities we can, hence the identitarian character of both the Left and Right now.

That's all Christopher Lasch, and I think he comes far closer than Peterson to seeing the real problems without distortion.

>>11355588
Not him, but answers like that is precisely why everyone hates people like you, and it's also why reactionaries are growing in number.

The fact that you people always assume the most base hostile or evil motives to people whenever they question your ideology makes you a psycho.

>>11355588
I think the concept of oppression necessitates that social disparity is inherently unjust. I don't necessarily think so, so I don't really see how an oppressed class can even meaningfully exist.

>>11355523
How embarrassing. This man, ladies and gentleman, deferred to a YouTube video when asked to give a very specific opinion.

I wonder what you do for a living.

Oh wait, you're unemployed. Because its midday on a fucking Thursday.

Or even worse, you're not American. Absolutely reprehensible that non Americans are allowed to post on a board like this.

>>11355604
so you are, okay. Thankfully the civilized world has moved on

>>11355605
nope, I'm posting from my desk at work, lel.

>>11355611
Either the civilized world is very small, or it really hasn't.

>>11355620
Utterly humiliating; what sort of a man posts on 4chan during work hours. And not even properly projecting his opinions or engaging in sincere dialogue, just intellectually meandering back and forth between deferment to and deflection of requests for proper engagement, and outright idiocy.

Get back to whatever remedial task you've been assigned, you degenerate.

>>11355645
>what sort of a man posts on 4chan during work hours

a guy with a desk job and internet access? What are you doing posting at this hour?

>>11355634
too small, unfortunately.

>>11355603
I'm pretty sure a larger number of people hate polfags more, she did win the popular vote :)

>>11355468
yeah... people are getting very polarized, it's sad

>>11355671
>Using Hillary as an argument

Good job using a corporate Democrat warmonger to prove anything. You're a true leftie.

>>11355605
>Or even worse, you're not American.
Neither is peterson lol.

Jordan Peterson in any case is a post-modernist, which is why he invents a contextual definition of philosophical truth and makes abortive attempts to quote Heidegger. JP's "philosophy", were one to be charitable enough to consider it cogent enough to critique, is even reacting against modernism with almost the exact same motivations as post-modernists... because he is one himself. His whole neomarxist post modernist rants are basically just an intra-postmodernist squabble.

>>11355702
prove me wrong

>>11355705
but he's not a post-modernist, he said so himself

>>11355716
if a duck is walking and quacking like a duck but says "no no i am a horse", you just sort of smile and think to yourself "what a weird duck"

>>11355709
Prove what wrong? That more people hate polfags than people like you?

Of course. Hating Nazis is literally the easiest thing in the world, and it costs nothing socially.

>>11355663
Utterly humiliating; defending his lack of ambition and capability.

Shirking blame for his failure as a man onto an anonymous poster who has thus far decimated his every thought and attempt at refutation.

Just sad.

>>11355705
You lost me at the incorrect statement that Peterson is a postmodernist.

>>11355724
>You lost me at the incorrect statement that Peterson is a postmodernist.
But that's because you don't know what postmodernism is.

>>11355722
so then i guess it's not exactly true when you say "everyone" hates people "like me", in fact it seems to be quite the opposite, huh

>>11355724
so, what ARE you doing posting at this hour then?

>>11355724
also, I don't think that's how a semicolon is used

>>11355727
He flatly rejects, and acts as if he rejects, the fundamental premise of postmodernism. Can you quote anything from him which would indicate he supports the academically agreed upon philosophical definition of postmodernist ideology?

If you cannot, I will have to assume you're just being obtuse to amuse yourself.

>>11355733
I'm posting on 4chan, you fucking retard. Jesus christ.

>>11355740
That's because you're stupid.

>>11355733
>so then i guess it's not exactly true when you say "everyone" hates people "like me", in fact it seems to be quite the opposite, huh

Well people are waking up.

>>11355754
>I'm posting on 4chan, you fucking retard.
so that makes you a humiliating failure too by your own logic as you either have no job or are bad at it?

>>11355758
WLU's a party school anyway, Waterloo's where it's at

>>11355762
I'm not working.

If I were at work, I wouldn't be posting on 4chan. Because I'm not a fucking failure, like you are.

>>11355777
If you're so successful, why aren't you working on a work day?

>>11355789
Because I'm successful enough that I can work when I want.

You're only going to make yourself feel like a bigger loser than you already feel like you are by continuing this conversation.

You're a failure.

Live with it, or take control of your life.

Fucking failure. It's people like you that make me ashamed to be human.

>>11355801
>Because I'm successful enough that I can work when I want.

Hey, I am too, that's why I'm posting on 4chain rn

>>11355809
You're a failure.

And this is the last time you'll ever speak to anyone of my calibre again. And you wasted the opportunity by trying to convince yourself that you're not a failure.

Which is exactly what failures do.

>>11355754
>Can you quote anything from him which would indicate he supports the academically agreed upon philosophical definition of postmodernist ideology?
Sure anon. Peterson rejects the grounding of truth in a universal setting; succinctly said by him he believes truth is "Truth is that which serves life." As he more lengthily expands on, usually inconsistently but whatever, is that truth ought to be grounded in a sort of Darwinian sense of that which enables survival or advantages it moving forward. Of course this concept of "truth" leads to individual truth statements may evaluate different at different times and contexts. That which serves life for man at this moment is different than that which serves life on a hot vent in the Mariana's Trench and different than served man in small tribes 45,000 years ago. In other words truth is contextual and human existence is *not* being scientifically driven by universally true truths. That last claim about universally truths driving human existence is very modernist and is a vital part of modernist schools of thought like Marxism, classical economics, logical positivism, structuralism etc.

Reacting against that, as Peterson does, is what postmodernists do. Lyotard's famous single line definition of postmodernism revolves around this: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives". Metanarratives in this case refers to the modernist striving to find universal structures underpinning humanity. Peterson too is incredulous toward that aim, which is why he rejects universalism and embraces contextual truth and why he, like most fellow postmodernists, misquotes and mangles Heidegger and Neitzsche.

>>11355819
>And this is the last time you'll ever speak to anyone of my calibre again

hopefully

>>11355820
You've conflated metaphysical truth with actuarial truth and constructed an abstraction out of the amalgam of the two concepts. Which has led you to misinterpret his statements as being akin to justified true belief, instead of as a philosophical interpretation of a poorly understood set of principles within the epistemological assessment of value judgements as true or untrue.

When he says something is true, in metaphysical terms, he's saying that specific interpretations of the infinite range that are possible are more true than others with respect to the systems and mechanisms that humans use to interpret the instantiations themselves.

For example;

Burning all of your money is a possible solution to a financial crisis you're having. The postmodernist says that if you believe this solution to be true, then it becomes JUST AS TRUE as any alternate solution.

Peterson says that while burning all your money is just as VALID an interpretation as investing it wisely, and creating budgets to deal with your financial crisis, it's certainly possible to prove that burning all your money makes you retarded and wrong if you believe it will solve your financial problems.

They're diametrically, fundamentally, opposing ideas.

>>11355864
mate, you've written a long post that is the point I made. This is classic JP stuff where you reinforce what I said but phrased it as if it were a disagreement.

>instead of as a philosophical interpretation of a poorly understood set of principles within the epistemological assessment of value judgements as true or untrue.
This is how I interpret him lol. This is postmodernist.

>When he says something is true, in metaphysical terms, he's saying that specific interpretations of the infinite range that are possible are more true than others with respect to the systems and mechanisms that humans use to interpret the instantiations themselves.
This is postmodernist.

>The postmodernist says that if you believe this solution to be true, then it becomes JUST AS TRUE as any alternate solution.
This is not at all what postmodernism says. The phrase "just as true" is really, really not postmodernist.... I don't know what on earth you think postmodernism is but it's deeply flawed.

>Peterson says that while burning all your money is just as VALID an interpretation as investing it wisely, and creating budgets to deal with your financial crisis, it's certainly possible to prove that burning all your money makes you retarded and wrong if you believe it will solve your financial problems.
This is pragmatic. Postmodernism is not against pragmatism. Richard Rorty is a great American postmodernist philosopher and he's a deeply pragmatic philosopher as well. Peterson would probably really like rorty since he says a lot of Rortian things, but I'm not sure he's read him.

>>11355901
>This is how I interpret him. This is postmodernist.

That wasn't anything. It was a statement of fact about the nature of our limitations with respect to assigning, or identifying, truth and untruth within the realm of value judgements.

You fundamentally misunderstood the basic premise of my rebuke by conflating it with petersons personal beliefs.

As far as I can see you're just saying "that's not REAL postmodernism. Because I say so."

It's very immature.

>>11355864
I'm the same guy here: >>11355901

I re-read and thought over this post again and I want to really emphasize that you have misunderstood postmodernism but that you would probably really enjoy Richard Rorty. Rorty is a pragmatist, politically liberal (as in Enlightenment liberalism, not Democratic party "liberal"), and a postmodernist. If you read a bit of Rorty you will start to understand that postmodernism is, contrary to JP's weird bone to pick, inexorably tied up with leftwing shit and shitty campus SJW shit.

>>11355926
>It was a statement of fact about the nature of our limitations with respect to assigning, or identifying, truth and untruth within the realm of value judgements.
This, by the way, is postmodernist.

>>11355926
gotem

>>11355935
>If you read a bit of Rorty you will start to understand that postmodernism is, contrary to JP's weird bone to pick, inexorably tied up with leftwing shit and shitty campus SJW shit.
This was poorly worded due to a typo. I mean to say postmodernism is NOT inexorably tied up with leftwing shit.

>>11355940
are you telling me that Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about?

>>11355947
>are you telling me that Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about?
depends. He's a really good psychologist. His hermeneutics stuff with myths is also pretty good if you like that sort of thing. He is, however, terrible at interpreting Heidegger and Derrida, so at least with some of the philosophy stuff, yes I would say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>11355940
No, the fact of infinite interpretation potential with a finite set of data is a correct assessment of postmodernist doctrine.

Assigning all interpretations equal truth value, irrespective of context, is straight up nonsense, and it's what postmodernism dictates must occur in the face of infinite possible interpretation. It doesn't even consider if all interpretations may be equally wrong. Because even the possibility of that would dismantle their oppressor and oppressed heirarchical dichotomy immediately.

>>11355961
Well im a total idiot and he could have fooled me!!!

>>11355974

what the fuck are you talking about?

>>11355974
>Assigning all interpretations equal truth value, irrespective of context, is straight up nonsense, and it's what postmodernism dictates must occur in the face of infinite possible interpretation.
This is absolutely nonsensical. This is not at all what postmodernism says and I have no idea where you got this massive of a misinterpretation.

>Because even the possibility of that would dismantle their oppressor and oppressed heirarchical dichotomy immediately.
Postmodernism has nothing to do with oppressor or oppressed. That is not what the philosophy is about at all. The dumb campus SJW's who quote Foucault's statements on power structure might talk like this, but this is not at all what postmodernism is. You asked for academically accepted definitions of postmodernism earlier, which I literally used with an actual postmodernist definition. You on the other hand (and there is deep irony here) use a moronic definition based on misinterpretation and seemingly driven by an understandable dislike of how postmodernist philosophers are misused by SJW campus lefties.

>>11355998
uh, buddy, I've seen all of Peterson's youtube lectures on the subject, I think I know what I'm talking about...

>>11355998
>their oppressor and oppressed heirarchical dichotomy immediately
And btw, to derive a fundamental metanarrative of human existence based on hierarchical dichotomy would be modernist. That's what postmodernist is a reaction *against* (incredulity toward metanarratives, remember?)

>>11355998
I think I've done all I can to dissuade you of your misunderstandings.

Good luck in your future academic pursuits.

>>11354039
>and deny that cooperation between races, genders and ethnicity can take place
Shouldn't they do the exact opposite? Segregation is what we are seeing right now

>>11356094
They should. But they aren't. They are being reactionary racists instead, they just think they have better arguments for why than the racists of yore had.

It's literally retarded:

Old racist

>Black people are inferior, they can sit here, and drink from that fountain.

New idpol college graduate:

>Black people need to be protected from the oppressor white class, so they can have this safe space(sit here), and we also need the administration to buy us drinks and food(new fountains)

>>11353974
His true teachings is in is personality and its transformations lectures - which no one seems to care about. It will be decidedly harder to fend off his ideas after listening to some of those lectures.

>>11356181
>It will be decidedly harder to fend off his ideas after listening to some of those lectures.
not a cult

>>11353859
Holy shit.... Niiice!!

>>11353920
*snap*