/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10629785]

is it not the funniest thing of all time this average iq show business intellectual has gotten 'postmodernism' in the common vernacular? Everyday I'm hearing the normies squawk about postmodernism with having no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10629791]

I hate it

[Anonymous No.10629798]

Peterson is the first philosopher/thinker who's ever been ruined for me by his fanbase. I am probably completely incapable of taking anything he says seriously at this point, simply because I have such deep hatred of his idiot fans. Even teenage Nietzsche fans aren't this annoying.

[Anonymous No.10629804]

postmodernism is literally only marxism but for gender and stuff. it has made no other contribution to philosophy or art. yes im in high school so what

[Anonymous No.10630154]

>>10629785
Alright then tell us about all the amazing things you know about post modernism since you're the expert

[Anonymous No.10630171]

I love it.

[Not OP No.10630175]

>>10629785
Is there a better word for it?

[Anonymous No.10630197]

>>10629804
If that's as far as your understanding of postmodernism goes then you have quite a bit of reading to do. Also no one asked about your age you fucking idiot. Though it makes sense seeing as how you haven't had enough time to take in a breadth of postmodern works

[Anonymous No.10630208]

>>10629785

It's not fair. I complained about postmodernism without knowing what it was back in 2003

[Anonymous No.10630213]

>>10630175
Yes idiot

[Anonymous No.10630228]

>>10630213
No you clown

[Anonymous No.10630244]

The irony is he plays more fast and loose with the idea of truth than the real postmodernism. The truth is whatever works bucko, religion is useful therefore it's true, save your dad!

[Not OP No.10630245]

>>10630213
You just don’t know it?

[Anonymous No.10630298]

>>10630245
Don't project your stupidity, Intersectional deconstructionism is the most accurate label
Post Modernism is a broad artistic/literary/philosophical category
Post-Structurialism is more accurate but defines the French philsophers in response to structuralism
Neo-marxism is already a thing and relies on interpretation of orthodox marxism, obviously
Cultural Marxism is Gramsci Hegenomy based on class
If you misuse any if these terms, like Peterson, you lack a fundamental understanding of 20th century thought and deserve to be embarassed then ignored.

[Anonymous No.10630331]

>/lit/ poster calls someone who lectured at harvard average iq
oh my sides

anyway, his definition of postmodernism is right on, only tards disagree

[Anonymous No.10630357]

>>10630331
>anyway, his definition of postmodernism is right on, only tards disagree

[Anonymous No.10630365]

just another hack for 16 year old boys like harris and dawkins
he doesn't even buy his shit, its manufactured for maximum pseud audience

[Anonymous No.10630366]

>>10630357
go ahead and supply the true meaning of the word then

[Anonymous No.10630370]

>>10630244

I get your point, I but I always sense in the way he talks that he's not saying, "Because it's useful, that's why it's true," but rather trying to convey the idea that, "It exists because it is useful."

[Anonymous No.10630371]

iq is a shit meme

[Anonymous No.10630375]

>>10630366
>>10630298
Idiot, this stuff is intuitive
What Peterson is doing is like calling Marxism Modernism

[Anonymous No.10630377]

>>10630197
Are you too dense to pick up on sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.10630386]

>>10630375
He often uses the both words to describe the same people, but never in the same sense. In all of these threads bitching about Peterson, I've never come across a single working definition or sense of the word more accurate then his.

[Anonymous No.10630392]

>>10630370
He could speak clearly, he's deliberate obscurantist about it.

[Anonymous No.10630400]

Didn't David Foster Wallace get the word "postmodernism" to the mainstream? Everyone was using it in like 1998.

[Anonymous No.10630401]

>>10630392

I don't get that impression at all. He puts a lot of value in things that have survived through hundreds of generations because, if they were not valuable and useful and practical, it's a fair assertion that they would not continue to exist.

[Anonymous No.10630413]

>>10630386
That's because it's a broad label, like Modernism, that's how it functions, but becomes even more loose because it's defined by breaking convention. Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about, then brings a bunch of newfaggots who know even less, then assume thats normal. The ultimate irony of Peterson is his entry level understanding of Nietzsche, who exerted a massive influence on Focault's theory of power in superstructures and Derrida's conception of truth. The latter comes from the same place as Petersons own notion of truths. It's frankly an embarassing level of misunderstanding for an otherwise intelligent academic

[Anonymous No.10630433]

>>10629785
>normies squawk about postmodernism with having no idea what the fuck they're talking about
Postmodernism has always been like that.

[Anonymous No.10630468]

>>10630413
>That's because it's a broad label, like Modernism, that's how it functions
Great, then stop puling about his use of the word.
> is his entry level understanding of Nietzsche, who exerted a massive influence on Focault's theory of power in superstructures and Derrida's conception of truth. T
Nietzsche influenced everyone from Derrida to Jack London to HL Mencken. His reading Nietzsche isn't any sound accurate than theirs.

[Anonymous No.10630486]

>>10630401
That's a fair point, but he refuses to use the proper language. Just say useful instead of true.

Listen to the first podcast he did with Harris, pure sophistry and deliberately so.

[Anonymous No.10630490]

>>10630468
>Nietzsche influenced everyone from Derrida to Jack London to HL Mencken
Entirely different you fucking moron, you have no idea about French Nietzscheism and it is getting annoying to have to deal with Peterson newfags who are completely ignorant about 20th century philosophy but still feel they have the right to vaguely weigh in. Imagine someone doing that whatever it is you actually know about. Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10630501]

>>10630490
>Imagine someone doing that whatever it is you actually know about. Fuck off
Nothing you said goes beyond the obvious. Mencken and London also had interpretations of Nietzsche's theories respecting truth. Does that mean they can't criticize each other?

[Anonymous No.10630528]

>>10630501
I don't believe Peterson actually engages with Derrida's work, otherwise link me an essay or article Peterson has written actually adressing the theories of any of the French PostStructuralists, Peterson's vague and innacurate condemnation through video gets about 100 times as many viewers as the scholars who actual write about them

[Anonymous No.10630545]

>>10630528
This is what Peterson says about Derrida in his latest book:

According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed). Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical. Derrida claimed that divisiveness and oppression were built right into language—built into the very categories we use to pragmatically simplify and negotiate the world. There are “women” only because men gain by excluding them. There are “males and females” only because members of that more heterogeneous group benefit by excluding the tiny minority of people whose biological sexuality is amorphous. Science only benefits the scientists. Politics only benefits the politicians. In Derrida’s view, hierarchies exist because they gain from oppressing those who are omitted. It is this ill-gotten gain that allows them to flourish.

[Anonymous No.10630550]

>>10630545
> Reducing Derrida to a SJW

[Anonymous No.10630554]

>>10630550
honestly, that's flattery for someone like him

[Anonymous No.10630572]

>>10630545
He's conflating Derrida's transvaluation of Binary into contemporary intersectionality, which is similar. I'll actually respond this at length when I get off work, might make a post about it. Think if someone used Nietzsche's famous example of deconstruction of the good and evil binary, then blamed him for idiots missapropiating it

[Anonymous No.10630593]

>>10630572
Piss poor writing like this is probably why peterson neglects to read derrida and his fans

[Anonymous No.10630598]

>>10630593
Right back at ya buddy, we're on a anime imageboard

[Anonymous No.10630606]

>>10630331
there’s literal fashion bloggers and rapper who lecture at harvard

[Anonymous No.10630614]

>>10630598
>>10630606

[Anonymous No.10630620]

>>10630606
What does that have to do with anonymous imageboards

[Anonymous No.10630621]

>>10629785
IQ doesn't equal right ideas, good writing, or even interesting thought. It's essentially just mathematical power in thinking.
All you have to do is listen to some of the 200-IQ people who advocate dumb shit: pure autism which detracts from the core of an argument, advocating nuclear power, gambling to settle other planets while this one rots, JUST SEND THE GARBAGE INTO SPACE BRO!
These people tend to run away with rationalisation rather than take a moment to contemplate the situation. And these are the people pushing out the great mind problems BUT WOULD YA HIT DA SWITCH N KILL ONE PERSON INSTEAD OF 5 BABIES?
Basically retards with a status allowing them to manage evil.
AI IS A DEMON WHICH THREATENS HUMANITY.
GUESS WE SHOULD PUT AI CHIPS IN EVERY BRAIN THEN!

[Anonymous No.10630624]

>>10630545
There's an article out there pointing out both how wrong this is, and (even more damning in my eyes) that he doesn't actually cite any Derrida texts for this- he cites a single, critical, secondary source. It's called something like 'Postmodernism did not take place'.

[Anonymous No.10630633]

>>10630624
>damning in my eyes
lol

[Anonymous No.10630635]

>>10630545
>mfw Peterson has to go on Oprah, I mean Joe Rogan, and publicly admit that he doesn't understand Derrida's works

[Anonymous No.10630642]

>>10630633
Damn you in my eyes

[Anonymous No.10630647]

>>10629785
*dabs*

[Anonymous No.10630665]

>>10630545
that’s where he exaggerates derrida. he never claims who should tear apart hierarchies, he just wanted to say we should listen to the weaker part of every binary. you can as easily exaggerate him as a taoist.

[Anonymous No.10630669]

>>10629798
I wish people would keep their wokness to themselves

[Anonymous No.10630670]

>>10630665
derrida literally wanted foreigners to vote, we all know what "listen" means lad

[Anonymous No.10630676]

>>10629785
>Make a bunch of 201 level tier courses free on the internet to get people interested in learning
>This triggers the /lit/fag

Interesting

[Anonymous No.10630684]

>>10630670
He was a "foreigner". His main works were written while Algeria was at war with France, you can't forget that.

[Anonymous No.10630692]

>>10630684
point is that the man's actual desires for society probably weren't far from what peterson ascribes to him. Only exception would be the extremist zhe/zher pronoun people. The rest, he would probably have agreed with, or criticize for going too softly

[Anonymous No.10630694]

>>10630670
The 60s were a different time desu that is the first thing you learn about French neo-marxist progeny

[Anonymous No.10630703]

>>10630670
i’m not denying he was a rovent leftist, just not the delirious caricature some make him.

[Anonymous No.10630711]

>>10629798
Jesus you're the epitome of a hipster.

>I won't listen to this artist because their fans are so annoying

I bet you're some boring twat who intellectually masturbates all day.

[Anonymous No.10630713]

>>10630621
>advocating nuclear power
>space exploration
>bad things
I think you may be the actual idiot, lad

[Anonymous No.10630717]

>>10630692
>probably
>would probably

Seems that Peterson is talking about things that Derrida never said.

[Anonymous No.10630718]

>>10630717
true, why would someone with marxist leanings favor marxism today. Peterson btfo pedantic /lit/ halfwit

[Anonymous No.10630720]

>>10630545
>hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed)
I'm sure this is a misinterpretation of Derrida, but it also seems kind of incoherent. How could hierarchies only include 'beneficiaries', and exclude 'everyone else'? Surely if a hierarchy oppresses people, it has to include them (at the bottom), not exclude them.

[Anonymous No.10630726]

>>10630692
nope! pomos weren’t enablers of forced acceptance. they weren’t “we must call things this and that” types, they didn’t believe in a sort of social fiat via changing words, they just understood how meta narratives and the mediatic power of tv, radio, books etc could shape people. which is the same of what flymon of peach activist/anti sjw/gamer gaters/alt righters state, in a sense that the right wingers now recognize how medias lie and people are eager to believe it.

[Anonymous No.10630730]

>>10630726
>pomos weren’t
the statement alone shows a complete lack of understanding

[Anonymous No.10630732]

>>10630400
Peterson is more reknowned for talking about PM in a more political sense whereas DFW spoke more of it's providence in general, modern attitudes, how it manifested itself in culture etc.

[Anonymous No.10630735]

>>10630718
>bad sarcasm

You should talk to people, you'll see a lot of ex lefties bashing on identity politics.

[Anonymous No.10630741]

>>10629785
Christ a mod just make Peterson a sticky by now? Every fucking day more Peterson threads clog up this board when it's better off for /his/ or a singular thread to contain everything

[Anonymous No.10630746]

everything leftist brought to its extreme consequences ends up in destroying equally everyone

[Anonymous No.10630748]

>>10630718
>marxism as something homogeneous

[Anonymous No.10630749]

>>10629785
>is it not the funniest thing of all time
no, blazing saddles was probably funnier

[Anonymous No.10630758]

>>10630730
show me please

[Anonymous No.10630768]

>>10629798
Where are you seeing his fans? I haven't seen any. Stop watching the comments on his YouTube or stop going to reddit. Also stop being a whiny bitch.

[Anonymous No.10630778]

>>10630768
implying a world exists outside the internet

[Anonymous No.10630780]

Post-modernism is the purposeful subversion of the values and ideas that were dominant in western civilization up until the 50/60s. Are you faggots seriously going to deny this?

[Anonymous No.10630791]

>>10630780
BUT THAT'S JUST A THEORY

[Anonymous No.10630794]

>>10630780
it’s the understanding of that subversion due to death of god and defragmentation of authority (due to technology and capitalism)

[Anonymous No.10630816]

>>10630794
>due to technology and capitalism
Also do the actions of the ruling elite.
The elite have agency, faggot.
And it's more than just an explanation, the post-modern have logically pushed this breakdown even further, for various reasons, some of them do it because they just hate the west, others want to further destabilise the system, and so on.

[Anonymous No.10630821]

>>10630816
great bait

[Anonymous No.10630824]

>>10630816
Post-modern left**

[Anonymous No.10630832]

>>10630748
Who said it was? You people have nothing but desperate nitpicking

[Anonymous No.10630833]

lmao you guys living entirely in your 4chan-redditsphere bubble. i haven't met a single person outside of an English literature class who talks about postmodernism and I've never heard anyone talk about Jordan Peterson IRL. i'm even from his country. stop taking the social media posts of radicals and larpers to be a good measure of the masses. it's only giving you brain damage.

[Anonymous No.10630840]

>>10630816
i’m not saying there wasn’t resentment on their parts but if you think the words of philosophers actually change the curse of history you’re being solipsistic. the shithole of a wolrd we have now is because of uncontrolled technological advancement and mass alphabetizion which makes people even more guillable than when they were just listening to the church. but if you really think people become trans because they read the cyborg manifesto than ok... it’s up to you

[Anonymous No.10630849]

>>10630840
Math is a philosophy

[Anonymous No.10630854]

>>10630840
You keep nitpicking, you desperate twat. Post-modern leftists are the cancer of the world, just as JP says.

[Anonymous No.10630858]

>>10630849
thank you for the ontological reduction, we’re clearly talking about the verbose pomos. i’m sure you’re already knowledgeable at how good lacan and deleuze were at maths.

[Anonymous No.10630864]

Why is people missing the point? He's a psychiatris, he's trying to make people live a happier life, not solve western philosophy

[Anonymous No.10630865]

>>10630854
yeah sure it’s not the marketing and the cap which just want to make us happy and customized

[Anonymous No.10630870]

>>10630821
>implying I'm wrong
>>10630840
The people in power are in the same mileu as these philosophers. Same schools, same dinner parties, same newspapers, etc. Additionally many of our rulers were exposed to these ideas as students in the 60s, 70s, and now they have the levers of power.

[Anonymous No.10630884]

>>10630870
exactly, they’re all ruling class. the ruling class isn’t an homogeneous blob, it’s made by billions of different interests in contrast opposition square and so on but they all agree on something fundamental which is... the very contour of the wolrd...

[Anonymous No.10630894]

>>10630884
You should stop posting, you didn't disprove me.

[Anonymous No.10630898]

>>10630741
tried making a peterson general a few days ago and it got 404'd

[Anonymous No.10630903]

>>10630486

Yeah, they both admitted that it bogged down the conversation. Their second conversation was really good though.

[Anonymous No.10630916]

>>10630894
disprove what? you think i’m defending post modernism when i’m just trying to say they hadn’t the symbolic power you and Peterson ascribe to them.

[Anonymous No.10630921]

>>10630916
But they did, though.

[Anonymous No.10630929]

>>10630921
tell one thing you think they ruined beyond the general “western civilization”

[Anonymous No.10630932]

>>10630858
hey man I'm just saying

[Anonymous No.10630945]

>>10630864
>What's the big deal? Haven't you ever not known what you were talking about?

[Anonymous No.10630954]

i dont think postmodernism even applies to today's society, we're at least postpostmodern now

[Anonymous No.10630960]

>>10630864
because his preach is often rooted in philosophical critiques which are dilettantesque

[Anonymous No.10630972]

>>10630960
Not in any fundamental way

[Anonymous No.10630978]

>>10630954
deep...

[Anonymous No.10630980]

>>10630954
i think the internet with its general vigilante mindset of sjw and political correctness actually put us a step back. we’re a global village now in the sense that we have to control ourselves more than ever, very authoritarian ethic

[Anonymous No.10630990]

>>10630972
kek he calls marxists “idealists” which is at odds with every accepted definition ever

[Anonymous No.10630998]

>>10630990
Except the word idealist, like many other words, has more than one sense

[Anonymous No.10631020]

>>10630197
fucking moron

[Anonymous No.10631046]

>OMG HE MISINTERPRETED DERRIDA

who gives a shit, there's no a single summary of Derrida that wouldn't be accused of misinterpretation by some pompous academic

anyways derrida literally signed a petition against age of consent laws

[Anonymous No.10631049]

(((age of consent laws))) are literally a jewish psyop

[Anonymous No.10631126]

>>10631049
yeah, this

[Anonymous No.10631165]

>>10630606
>dismissing the intellect of an 'average iq' businessman that has spent years on clinical practice and research about psychology and its broader influences
>comparing him to libtards and rappers that only get their 'lectures' because of recognition

If you're so sure that you have a better understanding of the topic than him then why don't you fully lay it out? He wasn't just a UofT and Harvard lecturer for nothing and the fact that he has helped countless people with his clinical practice speaks for itself. Sure, his interpretations of literature might be off in some instances but that doesn't mean that he has an 'average IQ'.

[Anonymous No.10631187]

>>10631165
i’m not the one arguing on his iq, just making a joke about university discourse. just a lacan joke.

[Anonymous No.10631188]

This piece defends both postmodernism and Peterson. Peterson's problem is that he generalizes postmodernism to be obscurantist post-structuralist Marxism trash, which is like 2% of it.
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/01/25/historiography-wars/

[Anonymous No.10631200]

>>10631046
Derrida is absolute garbage, this is confirmed. He's tactical deconstructionism: the person.
When it's something he doesn't like:
>inscrutable obscurantist pseudointellectual trash
when it's something he does like:
>guys we need to think about the single mothers and the wealth inequality

so god damn boring

[Anonymous No.10631372]

>>10630413
>The ultimate irony of Peterson is his entry level understanding of Nietzsche
This. What really gets me is that Peterson would probably much sooner/more effectively achieve his presumable social goals if only he truly grasped the scope and implication of the "Nietzsche event", the general consensus among secondary sources in "Nietzsche studies", and such.

He seems to basically hold the opinions of Nietzsche that otherwise well read, well meaning but all too selfassured Anglophones have usually ended up arriving at after a passing reading of BGE, TGS, Zarathustra, and maybe one or two of the later works, and perhaps BOT: that of the typical post Kaufmann America centric Nietzsche revival, where the reader is so highly impressed by a certain third of Nietzsche's text, which resonates so powerfully with them that they end up overlooking the fact that they've really passed over a significant amount of whole aphorisms for which they had not context, and so have really overemphasized some aspects of Nietzsche's thought while entirely missing other crucial parts.

Each of those more widely read works start to read very different once one has the context of an extended foray into the early notebooks and philological ruminations, the untimely essays, and some of the more illusive side streets and backways of early/middle works like HATH and especially Daybreak. If someone like Peterson could comprehend Nietzsche's oeuvre in its complete context, including its (especially Francophone) precursors (La Rochefoucauld, Montaigne etc), he would truly be able to combat the especially pernicious contemporary negative/negating affects of intersectional deconstructionism.

But I really don't think he'll be able to do that without truly comprehending Nietzsche, because Nietzsche's oeuvre really is the keystone in that lineage of postwar theorizing, and only with its proper placement could one hope to dispel the incessant tendency to intentional dysalignment and desecration continually brought on by the academic Derrideans, "postmodernists", "SJWs", "cultural Marxists" or whatever you want to call that resentment fueled rabble which plagues us today.

[Anonymous No.10631399]

STOP READING PYNCHON

[Anonymous No.10631416]

>>10631399
He actually says a lot in common with Pynchon. Philosophical and Literary movements may share names, but that doesn't really make them the same thing

[Anonymous No.10631466]

>>10629785

Lmao, this is the typical leftist playbook of claiming that your opponent hasn't defined your position properly. I can spot this from a mile off.

Even when JP argues against specifics, like the retarded trans bill, you guys attack him.

It makes no difference what the label is as long as he argues against specifics.

Defend the trans bill. Defend shitty philosophers like Foucault who claim trivialities as profundities. Oh wait you won't, no one will. You will hide in your shell claiming "Lalalala, you can't define me!" And then when your opponent's back is turned you will claim that Foucault's theories clearly justify sex changes for 2 year olds or something like that. Or in other words, this is the typical motte and bailey style used by soyboy leftists and women

[Anonymous No.10631471]

>>10630244
IVE BEEN FOUND OUT!

[Anonymous No.10631474]

>>10631466
respecting people's pronouns is just basic decency. If you don't like it just ignore them :)

[Anonymous No.10631494]

>>10631046
>anyways derrida literally signed a petition against age of consent laws
>implying
Why hate what you don't understand

[Anonymous No.10631506]

>>10630490
>Imagine someone doing that whatever it is you actually know about.
s-sure

[Anonymous No.10631530]

>>10631494
honestly, I would hit that.

[Anonymous No.10631564]

>>10631372
Goodpost

[Anonymous No.10631591]

>>10630413
>an otherwise intelligent academic
there is no need to continue with this meme any longer.

[Anonymous No.10631855]

>>10631530
Don't talk about my girl like that!

[Anonymous No.10632148]

>>10629785
everytime somebody says Peterson doesnt understand post modernism they never explain what is wrong with his explanation and if they do they just reiterate what he said with a positive spin. Also most post-modernists were also marxist sympathizers.

[Anonymous No.10632293]

>>10629785
There is nothing new under the sun. You think JBP made people talk about postmodernism because you went off to college around the same time as Peterson got famous, and that was the first time you were around people who were trying nearly as hard as you are to appear brainy.

[Anonymous No.10632339]

>>10629785
I'm in the somewhat odd position of being a committed fascist and antisemite yet I agree with postmodernism. I can't say that everyone should objectively be pro-White. Because Jews want to exterminate the White race. That's alright. That's their prerogative. It's all subjective based on who you are.

[Anonymous No.10632350]

>>10632148
Read his thread you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.10632356]

>>10632350
*this thread
>>10630298
>>10630413

[Anonymous No.10632416]

>>10629785
>postmodernism is not in the common vernacular
>Canadian prof who lectured at Harvard is an average iq show business intellectual
What

[Anonymous No.10632420]

>>10630624
It's true that Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism, but I find very amusing when Derridafags cry because Peterson doesn't read Derrida the way they deem correct.

Anyway, people overreact about Peterson being a brainlet about postmodernism, which he is, but he's not a philosopher. He's clinical psychologist who saw that postmodernism (in fact a bastardized and americanized version of postmodernism, although Peterson doesn't seem to know that) had an unhealthy influence over dumb american and canadian kids. He isn't talking to you. He's talking to those kids and they honestly need it. Would it be better if he knew what he's talking about? For philosophy, absolutely; for those kids's mental health, I'm not so sure. But I know this, with all his faults, Peterson is most certainly preferable to your average ideologized teacher of social studies.

This whole situation, whinning about Peterson for not getting postmodernism, is a bit like when a father tell his son videogames are bad for him but the son thinks the father is a brainlet for thinking Link's name is Zelda or for calling all videogames Nintendo or whatever. It doesn't matter, bro. It doesn't matter if Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism. He understand that what this kids, like the Evergreen kids, are being taught is insane, and he, as a psychologist, is more qualified to help them than a philosopher who gets Derrida right.

Peterson is just a psychologist trying to help dumb kids. That's not so bad. Who cares if he's making normies think Derrida is evil? Universities aren't going to stop teaching him because of that.

[Anonymous No.10632584]

LMAO at all the Peterson fans getting triggered ITT. You're a joke just like your daddy.

[Anonymous No.10632678]

>>10631165
nah, the number of people he's helped in his clinical practice is definitely countable

no more than any other clinical psychologist with his years of experience, I'd wager

[Anonymous No.10632774]

>>10631466
ayy how many years of careful study did it take you to come to that conclusion my guy. truly an unprecedented insight into leftist thinking ;)

[Anonymous No.10633035]

>>10632420
>Who cares if he's making normies think Derrida is evil?
i do. his whole message is about BEING HONEST. it's dishonest to present yourself as being knowledgeable about and reasonably well versed in material that you actually haven't read at all. do you really not see why it's a bad thing to sermonize about how someone is basically the devil when that actually isn't the case? it's just another victim narrative for these kids, except this time it's le evil postmodernists (and also the "cultural marxists", which he's mentioned a few times) who are trying to destroy YOUR beautiful western civilization.

[Anonymous No.10633048]

>>10631046
>anyways derrida literally signed a petition against age of consent laws
based

[Anonymous No.10633296]

>>10631188
Holy hell that blog post is borderline unreadable. Needs an editor.

[Anonymous No.10633306]

>>10629785
>Peterson writes dense academic book: /lit/ ignores it
>Peterson writes dumbed down version for the masses: /lit/ calls him a pseud

Really activates the old almonds desu friends.

[Anonymous No.10633310]

>>10630413
>>10631372

Brainlet here, excuse me.

> they've really passed over a significant amount of whole aphorisms

So what does Nietzche say that Jordan Peterson overlooks? What does Neitzche say that counters intersectional deconstructionism?

[Anonymous No.10633313]

>>10633306
Does his academic book include a proper discussion of what he means by post-modernism? If so, does he maintain minimum scholarly standards by actually citing the texts he argues against?

[Anonymous No.10633316]

>>10629785

You have to be honest, though, nobody has no fucking idea what post-modernism actually is.

[Anonymous No.10633323]

>>10630375
>strawmanning Derrida as a strawman of Foucault
This is some next level shit

[Anonymous No.10633335]

>>10633316
That's why Peterson claiming that he knows what it is, and that it's basically the Devil, is dumb.

[Anonymous No.10633348]

>American hours
>Peterson posting is out of control

>Non-American hours
>Peterson threads evaporate

[Anonymous No.10633628]

"He's stupid!". What if Peterson is purposefully creating a boogeyman? He admits he never read much postmodernist literature, and he tells his followers to not read them either. It was his intention all along to create something similar to masonic conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.10633638]

>>10630197
You can't be this stupid

[Anonymous No.10633699]

>>10632420
I agree on the end justify the means in this case, however he very clearly presents his arguments and positions much differently than how you're doing. With him it's never: "ok, let's take this oversimplification of a thing because that would be useful for your mental health", but rather "that's how things are, get cucked you stupid sjws"

[Anonymous No.10634152]

>>10632293
Jokes on you, I started proselytizing about postmodernism when I first found out about DFW and Stephan Hicks

[Anonymous No.10634243]

>>10629804
(you)

[Anonymous No.10634249]

>>10630244
>pragmatism is postmodernism
frankly embarassing desu. Peterson might be retarded, but less than people like you.

[Anonymous No.10634257]

>>10630468
Nah, Peterson's reading of neetch is objectively wrong. This statement is true.

[Anonymous No.10634377]

Peterson is just a massive structuralist so of course postmodernism would be his enemy of choice.
Postmodernism is the big bad the hero must slay in order to save his father or clean his room or whatever allegorical terms Peterson would love to put it in.

It all mostly stems from the fact that he is essentially a "born again Christian" type.
The type who is at odds with the fact that they are naturally a horrible, self destructive individual and so comes to rely on religion (and in Peterson's case also perhaps the field of psychology) as a crutch to suppress that nature.
The advice that he so often gives is generally a subtle projection of this and so he usually avoids outright telling people to simply turn to religion precisely because he is aware, if only subconsciously, of the manner in which he has used it.
It just makes me laugh any time Peterson calls upon Nietzsche as if he wouldn't be disgusted by this.

[Anonymous No.10634416]

>>10630768
Well his YouTube comments took a sudden and stark turn from having discussions about the content, to nothing but SORTED BOYS REPORT IN and C L E A N Y O U R R O O M posts. It's hard not to be angry at that.

[Anonymous No.10634419]

>>10634377
>The type who is at odds with the fact that they are naturally a horrible, self destructive individual and so comes to rely on religion (and in Peterson's case also perhaps the field of psychology) as a crutch to suppress that nature.
you forgot meds, he's clinically depressed if I remember correctly

[Anonymous No.10634426]

>>10634377
>he usually avoids outright telling people to simply turn to religion precisely because he is aware, if only subconsciously, of the manner in which he has used it.
Or he's aware that he'd lose his audience and the patreonbux if he tried pushing religion on them.

[Anonymous No.10634923]

>>10629785
Funnily enough Nietzsche called out fags like peterson
>If you've gasped the full profundity of this (and I require that you grasp deeply right here and understand profoundly), of the extent to which it simply cannot be the task of healthy people to attend to the sick, to make sick people well, then there's one more necessary matter you understand—the necessity for doctors and nurses who are themselves ill.

Now we understand the meaning of the ascetic priest—we're holding it in both hands. We need to look on the ascetic priest as the preordained healer, shepherd, and advocate of the sick herd. In that way we can, for the first time, understand his immense historical mission. Ruling over suffering people is his kingdom. His instinct instructs him to do that, and in that he has his very own art, his mastery, his sort of success. He must be sick himself. He must be fundamentally related to the sick and those who go astray, in order to understand them, in order to be understood by them. But he must also be strong, master over himself even more than over others, that is, undamaged in his will to power, so that he inspires confidence and fear from the invalids, so that he can be their support, resistance, protection, compulsion, discipline, tyrant, and god.

He has to defend his herd, but against whom? Against the healthy people undoubtedly, but also against their envy of the healthy. He has to be the natural opponent and critic of all rough, stormy, unchecked, hard, violent, predatory health and power. The priest is the first form of the more refined animal which despises more easily than it hates. He will not be spared having to conduct wars with predatory animals, wars of cunning (of the "spirit") rather than of force, as is obvious. For that purpose, in certain circumstances it will be necessary for him to develop himself into a new type of beast of prey, or at least to represent himself as such a beast, with a new animal ferocity in which the polar bear, the sleek, cold, and patient tiger, and, not least of all, the fox seem to be combined in a unity which attracts as well as inspires fear. If need compels him to do this, he will walk even in the midst of the other predatory animals with the seriousness of a bear, venerable, clever, cold, and with a duplicitous superiority, as the herald and oracle of more mysterious forces, determined to sow this ground, where he can, with suffering, conflict, self-contradiction, and only too sure of his art, to become the master over the suffering at all times. (1/2)

[Anonymous No.10634926]

>>10634923
>There's no doubt he brings with him ointments and balm. But in order to be a doctor, he first has to inflict wounds. Then, while he eases the pain caused by the wound, at the same time he poisons the wound—for that is, above all, what he knows how to do, this magician and animal trainer, around whom everything healthy necessarily becomes ill and everything sick necessarily becomes tame. In fact, he defends his sick herd well enough, this strange shepherd—he protects them against themselves, against the smouldering wickedness, scheming, and maliciousness in the herd itself, against all those addictions and illnesses characteristic of their dealings with each other. He fights shrewdly, hard, and secretly against the anarchy and self-dissolution which start up all the time within the herd, in which the most dangerously explosive stuff, resentment, is constantly piling and piling up. To detonate this explosive material in such a way that it does not blow up the herd and its shepherd, that is his essential work of art and also his most important function.

[Anonymous No.10634978]

>>10634152

[Anonymous No.10635009]

>>10634923
>>10634926
how do you fuck up a greetext so bad, jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.10635059]

>college droputs critique a ~150 IQ professor with over 30 years of experince in his field and a PhD
>corresponds to exactly the same point he became popular

[Anonymous No.10635088]

>>10633310
Peterson wholly overlooks (or else outright ignores) the fact that Nietzsche's thought is essentially founded on the premise that there is no possibility of an objective morality and that all moralities are customary systems solidified over time (this premise is most extensively laid out in Daybreak).

But Nietzsche's point here is not to conclude from that premise that all morality is necessarily oppressively constraining (as the crass egoists would conclude) or that every moral proposition is "just an opinion" and so can be held or disgarded at a whim because none are truly more truthful than any other (as the ardent total relativists would say). (I think you could input crass egoism and total relativism together to output a baseline intersectional deconstructionism, although there are surely many disparate topical details in that theory, which I don't take to be a single monolithic dogma.)

In his later preface added five years after the original publishing of Daybreak, Nietzsche made reiterated this point to make it absolutely as clear as he could: his immoralism is not anitmoralism or amoralism, it is the morality of having no ultimately conclusive or fixed ("objective") morality- but much of what has been traditionally considered morally reprehensible is still for him abhorrent, and much of what was praiseworthy is still desirable- but for fundamentally different reasons. Nietzsche's ethical immorality basically boils down to an allegiance to life over nonlife; what is amenable to life is what is praised by his ethics, and what will generally corrupt and degrade living systems is what he opposes (and he elsewhere also stands by the Lamarckian thesis that life has a fundamental impulse towards complexification where ever possible, and so simplification- or deconstruction, is an inherently dangerous- if perhaps sometimes in some ecological circumstances, necessary or unavoidable tactic). But life is never static, and so no fixed morality will ever suffice. Life is always in flux; the only constant is that there is no absolute constants (the basic Heraclitean ontological premise). A true allegiance to life requires an adaptive morality, one that can cope with its own inconclusivity and remains always open to altering/adjusting itself to novel stimuli.

I think Nietzsche would combat "intersectional deconstructionism" on multiple grounds, but most crucially by diagnosing it as the product of primarily resentment fueled antilife tendencies aiming to degenerate healthy individuals by forcing them into a position of equality with the sickly and I don't think Peterson gets that at all. He calls himself a "classical liberal" and from what I've seen, is quite intent on telling us all how evil and sick we all truly are "deep down inside", and I think Nietzsche would call Peterson out here for projecting and universalizing his own personal herd instincts-which is the precisely the same tendency exuded by the "SJWs", "postmodernists" etc.

[Anonymous No.10635163]

I'm ambivalent about Peterson... but good lord, can't you idiot Peterson fags see when you're being baited?
It's hilarious how the common stereotype of Peterson fans is the young male, fatherless, and aimless; he usually responds to criticism with anger; he's extremely confrontational about his views, due to his worldview being informed by the competitive nature he absorbed throughout school, and not having a male role model to counteract it. The reason Peterson gets flack is because of you guys. You misrepresent his views and ideals. You came to him for anti-SJW debate facts to smear all across your facebooks. You're turning intellectual pursuit into another male-infused, lowbrow, competitive and overly capitalistic game.

It was better when you people just listened to metal music and played Call of Duty...

[Anonymous No.10635175]

>>10635088
Are you a Philosophy major?

[Anonymous No.10635476]

>>10635163
>You came to him for anti-SJW debate facts to smear all across your facebooks
I listen to Peterson when I want to hear that live is worth living and that there is truth found in art which is not relative. I don't post anything on social media.

>You're turning intellectual pursuit into another male-infused, lowbrow, competitive and overly capitalistic game.
What's wrong with masculine competition? What's wrong with capitalism if you're not exploitative? Shit, what's with leftists and their hatred for masculinity?

[Anonymous No.10635644]

>>10635476
because the pursuit of capital ultimately leads to a sullying of the product for easier production

[Anonymous No.10635667]

>>10635163

Ok, my father killed himself when I was 8, I didn't know that was hilarious.

>The reason Peterson gets flack is because of you guys. You misrepresent his views and ideals.

Wow, it's almost like, most people have average intelligence. Shocking isn't it?

[Anonymous No.10635987]

>>10634923
>>10634926
i like peterson but this gives me pause
especially since i've gone to twitter and reddit to see what his "followers" are like.

[Anonymous No.10636031]

>>10635667
>he didn't rescue his father from the underworld

[Anonymous No.10636067]

>>10635667
how confrontational

way to prove his point
go back to reading

[Anonymous No.10636075]

>>10629785
>squawk about postmodernism with having no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
It's their culture. I suggest intersectionality in dissecting its meaning.

[Anonymous No.10636093]

>>10634926
>>10634923
But isn't Peterson the perfect "ascetic priest", as he is heavily depressed, but can handle his own life well enough to be successful and operational - and help others along the way?

[Anonymous No.10636095]

>>10636031
Well. he killed himself, so he's LITERALLY in the underworld.

[Anonymous No.10636102]

>>10636093
Peterson has an auto immense disease which gets triggered when ever he ears carbs. His chronic depression has very little to do with the things he's talking about. The entire depression thing is irrelevant when it comes to evaluation Peterson, be it for his fans or his detractors.

[Anonymous No.10636118]

>>10636095
when your dad was in metaphysical hell you didn't rescue him so he killed himself so now he's in real hell. good job, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10636131]

>>10635476
yours isn’t masculinity is bugmen mentality holy shit you think you’re strong because you’re wasting your life for a glimpse of plusvalenza

[Anonymous No.10636150]

>>10636067
>if you disagree with me, that means you agree with me!

When you define it like that, then Duh.

[Anonymous No.10636165]

>>10635088
If he were then he would be citing later works than Daybreak, which is a specimen of Nietzsche's immature thought.
I can't be sure whether or not Peterson fully comprehends Nietzsche, but his idea that there are levels of truth and shades of meaning is fully consistent with Nietzsche's epistemology.

Peterson doesn't believe in objective reality in the sense of that user.

[Anonymous No.10636170]

>>10636102
>undiagnosed, undefined autoimmune disease that his 20 year old daughter with no qualifications found a treatment for
>the treatment is the same fad diet that every 20 year old female blogger is advocating
lol

how do you figure having a disease and being depressed ISN'T relevant to a clinician talking about disease and depression? especially in light of the passage from nietzsche above. do you think peterson is just floating above his own mortal problems and they don't affect his worldview? also btw, though peterson has linked his supposed autoimmune disorder and his depression, he's also mentioned in the past while his symptoms were gone that he was still extremely depressed. it's not a 1to1 even according to the man himself. there is clearly more going on with his depression than consuming carbs.

[Anonymous No.10636174]

>>10636165
meant for>>10635175

[Anonymous No.10636175]

>>10636131
>plusvalenza
Had to look that up. Stop this commie lingo. Also do you leftist faggots really believe people pursue capital for the pure sake of capital? Money is just a means to an end for anyone who isn't a shallow MBA fratboy. My dream is to sit in a basement with a bunch of nerds and spend 5 years making some obscure avant-garde video game, but guess what, in the real world you need to go to work in order to keep the lights on. The only reason I seek to acquire wealth is in order to keep the lights on forever, so that I can finally do what I feel drawn to the most, not just doing what I have to in order to survive. Stupid communist.

[Anonymous No.10636233]

>>10636175
exactly, communists are so fucking shallow and materialists the only use for wealth they can imagine is raiding the gucci store and buying a yacht, bunch of idiots with no vision which is why they want everyone to be stuck in government jobs for life

[Anonymous No.10636338]

>>10636175
please go back to rebbit if you think only a commie can know that word and use it

[Anonymous No.10636420]

>>10636338
Why not just say capital gain? Using fancy words to dress up your argument is for pseudo intellectual teenagers.

[Anonymous No.10636470]

>>10636150
>>10636175
>>10636338
>>10635476

You Peterson fags are just as "ideologically possessed" as the low-hanging fruit he highlights. You build up this strawman, applying this arbitrary left/right dichotomy, and apply that whenever your narrow worldview that Peterson shills is being questioned.

[Anonymous No.10636485]

>>10636470
>arbitrary left/right dichotomy
It's not arbitrary at all.

Left: Hierarchies are evil, unjust and oppressive.
Right: Hierarchies, are natural necessary and desirable.

That's just polsci 101, man.

>You build up this strawman
What strawman? Seriously curse the idiot who came up with naming fallacies. That's what every single argument is always devolving into, everyone just screaming lame fallacy buzzwords at each other. Also consider the fallacy fallacy.

[Anonymous No.10636526]

>>10636485
Are you literally 15?

This is the most blue-pilled shit I've ever seen. This isn't polsci 101 at all. What the fuck...

[Anonymous No.10636534]

>>10636526
Nice argument. How is that not true? Do you even know where the left / right distinction orginally comes from?

[Anonymous No.10636541]

>>10636534
Literally just after World War 2, to feed fear into the burgeoning McCarthy era.

[Anonymous No.10636547]

>>10636541
the absolute sate of /lit/

>The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp". However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.

[Anonymous No.10636548]

>>10636534
It's an ever-changing distinction that relies heavily on the economic and geopolitical equilibrium being maintained.

[Anonymous No.10636559]

>>10636547
>he literally googled it

Jesus Fucking Christ... you actually have no idea what those terms meant in 16th Century Europe.

Are you American?

[Anonymous No.10636561]

>>10636548
No, that's conservative and liberal. Those are relative terms, just like centrist. Left and right are fundamental, they just manifest in different forms over the centuries.

[Anonymous No.10636567]

>>10636559
I didn't google the wikipedia definition because I already knew what it said. Those terms date back to the french revolution and not just post WW2. You're wrong and no amount of deflecting will ever change that.

[Anonymous No.10636568]

>>10636547
This paragraph literally refutes your previous definition...

[Anonymous No.10636572]

>>10636559
He is correct though. It comes from Revolutionary France.

I have no idea what they called in 16th century England, but for a long time their equivalent to Left-Right was Whig-Tory. I think at one point it was Roundhead-Cavalier during the Civil war as well.

It is arguable whether all of this actually fits on a single dimensional axis, but there is some merit to the idea, mostly to do with opinions on hierarchy

[Anonymous No.10636576]

>>10636485
>Left: Hierarchies are evil, unjust and oppressive
lol dude
hierarchies are also present in the left
wtf are you on about ?

[Anonymous No.10636578]

>>10636547
there's literally no distinction between left and right anymore, other than just a bread and circus for idiots to buy shit.

we're all bending towards accelerationism. no matter what side you're on, it's feeding globalism and the MIC.

[Anonymous No.10636582]

>>10636568
I know quoting Wikipedia is for suckers, but I'm continuing to do so until someone here provides a better definition:

>Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][page needed][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism) as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).[1] The term left-wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]

>Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4]:p. 693, 721[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[14]


>>10636576
Because they are in denial. But are you really denying that the left opposes hierarchies?

[Anonymous No.10636585]

>>10636485
this is an example of the ideological, regimented, black and white worldview you get when you buy into the echelon just a smidgen above identity politics...

[Anonymous No.10636587]

>>10636485
>that's just polysci 101, man
t. someone who has never studied politics

[Anonymous No.10636597]

fuck... why can't Noam Chomsky be the meme Academic?

at least you fucks would actually learn something, other than old platitudes that will offer you nothing in the crappy future we're heading towards.

[Anonymous No.10636599]

>>10636578
>there's literally no distinction between left and right anymore, other than just a bread and circus for idiots to buy shit.
Are you 16?

>>10636587
So is wikipedia just wrong then? How? Please explain.

>>10636585
It's an oversimplification for sure, because it doesn't distinguish between hierarchies of unjust power and hierarchies of competence, but the general gist of it seems correct to me.

Right: muh natural law muh divine right to rule
Left: muh human rights, muh freedom and equality

How am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.10636601]

>>10629785
>these are the people bitching about jordan peterson constantly
lol

[Anonymous No.10636608]

>>10636597
I'm a Petersonfag and I've known and respected Chomsky long before I ever heard of Peterson.

[Anonymous No.10636630]

>>10636599
there really isn't...

holy moly, you're a normie.
are you just getting into reading?

[Anonymous No.10636643]

>>10636599

[Anonymous No.10636654]

>>10636582
>Because they are in denial. But are you really denying that the left opposes hierarchies?
whats good in opposing something if you do it anyway,
this hierarchy thing your on about is present in us humans and every fucking living creature
its not something you can pin on these or those people anon

[Anonymous No.10636660]

>>10636597
Chomsky is a simpleton who blames every ill in the world on the U.S..

[Anonymous No.10636677]

>>10636601
>be numale making 92k a month
>still not upgrade your taste in pussy

fucking commies

[Anonymous No.10636686]

>>10636420
that’s the specific term for it? not capital gain which is something you’ll never yield

[Anonymous No.10636693]

>>10636470
wtf why im in this mention? i specifically called for non ideological reduction

[Anonymous No.10636719]

>>10636630
>>10636643
That's actually not a bad argument. Maybe I should reconsider my previous statement. How could I not have seen? Thank you for honest criticism.

[Anonymous No.10636722]

>>10636686
>implying I wont

[Anonymous No.10636752]

>>10634923
>>10634926
Nietzsche was a sickly faggot, what a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.10636979]

>>10629785
A pretty good take on what he gets wrong in his understanding of postmodernism:

https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

[Anonymous No.10637197]

>>10629804

[Anonymous No.10637242]

>>10636752
his sins are not your sins, you're a fucking weakling for sucking up to this faggot

[Anonymous No.10637262]

>>10629785
>listening to anything he says outside of the realm of self-help and psychology
he's a captivating speaker with a lot of good advice for wayward young men, but his constant pomo/cultural marxism strawmanning reveals him to be a pseud pretty much everywhere outside of his area of expertise. just separate the wheat from chaff, like with any thinker.

[Anonymous No.10637290]

>>10636979
>https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

>Shuja Haider is a writer and musician based in Brooklyn.

Oh shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.10637306]

He conflates some terms, but it's well within a verifiable context. "Postmodernism" is no longer an academic phrase. It serves as a passable catch-all for the infinitely metastasizing cancer of social justice philosophy, all of which is based on deliberate misreadings of irresponsible French philosophers, Foucalt particularly.

He's the produce of a movement which openly avows its commitment to destroy people who look like him. Twenty years of radicalism have become ingrained in the mainstream and have labeled people with white skin of being just short of radioactive. If we're going to accuse him of being reactionary, we can only do so systemically. If nothing changes, we can expect more Petersons.

[Anonymous No.10637310]

>>10637290
also a chapo trap house guest lol

[Anonymous No.10637317]

>>10629785
I just finished his book and any part he talks politics and specifically postmodernism it's pretty unbearable, he namedrops Sartre and Derrida, quotes one thing they said and then weakly dismisses them.

It's a shame because I really like his talks and his overall schtick. He just comments too much on stuff that he shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.10637334]

>>10636979
So his essential argument is that Post Modernism and Marxism are distinct and perhaps not compatible so Peterson's identifying of the Postmodern-Neomarxists is non-sensical. Peterson has directly expressed confusion over the allegiance between these two seemingly incompatible ideologies that nonetheless co-occur. So he just didn't understand Peterson's use of the term nor exactly what Peterson refers to with the term.

[Anonymous No.10637338]

>>10634416
NO FUN ALLOWED

[Anonymous No.10637342]

>>10637334
Most of the article is about Peterson's lack of academic sourcing, which is a valid concern but nowhere near a "pretty good take" on any of the philosophical points.

[Anonymous No.10637369]

>>10629785
postmodernism is simply the expected reaction to modernism
all the empty petersonian talk about postmodernism is just a way for modernists to avoid facing the fact that the world they created is dysfunctional and collapsing unto itself

>damn why is the world turning to shit, faced with emancipation women choose to be sluts and men manchildren, there are no real social roles anywhere, economy is a giant ponzi schemes...
>could it be cause we got rid of """oppressive""" social institutions like the patriarchy and state religion thinking morality and tradition will just preseve themselves and the average guy will choose the good thing instaed of what feels good for the moment
>nah its the kids today, they are lazy and irresponsible
just your average senile gen-x drivel, sage and ignore all petersonposters

[Anonymous No.10637388]

>>10636979
>About
>Viewpoint Magazine aims to understand the struggles that define our conjuncture, critically reconstruct radical history, and reinvent Marxism for our time. Viewpoint is therefore neither a socialist news source nor an academic journal. It is a militant research collective.

>This is where Judith Butler follows Foucault, showing how power produces sex and gender, threatening what appears to be a deep-seated insecurity around masculinity that afflicts Peterson and his disciples.

>Judith Butler
This is who and what Peterson detractors defend. Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.10637539]

>>10630990
if you thought for one moment that
>JBP was referring to marxist materialists as something like German Idealists or any sort of idealists
and not (as he sure as fucking hell meant it) as utopianist with ideals or idealists with utopias
then you are so fucking dense that you will soon suck up particles, light, and (You)s

tl;dr: read the FULL entry in the dictionary

[Anonymous No.10637998]

>>10629798
Marx, Foucault, Rand...