/lit/ - Literature

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571575]

>But that wasn't real post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.11571577]

>>11571575
wtf is his deal with pomo?

[Anonymous No.11571585]

>>11571575
Who are you quoting?

>>11571577
It's garbage.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571586]

>>11571577
What the hell is pomo?

[Sage No.11571622]

>another retarded tripfag I have to filter

[Anonymous No.11571705]

>>11571586
posmod

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571755]

>>11571705
Probably because it's a pathological doctrine designed to instantiate into the minds of its followers a sort of low-resolution ad hoc ideological precept which can be applied to any and every situation regardless of context or actuality.

Like, say, "Any interpretation is valid, because there is no canonical interpretation of anything."

Which is obviously a retarded solution.

[Anonymous No.11571759]

>>11571755
t. has not read any pomo and gets everything he knows about pomo filtered through bad faith third-hand sources like Peterson.

[Anonymous No.11571778]

>>11571577
He uses it as a disciplinary boogeyman because we know it happened but we don't really understand what it did but I can talk about it enough to convince people who no nothing about it that it is present enough to be a pinata for their anger to motivate them to build a better life.

Same thing with feminism and patriachy/white men. The 08 financial crisis was a small group of people failing society as a whole who were then let off the hook by Merkel and Obama. Someone has to take the peoples frustrations and since capital is so stratified the people in charge are too powerful/distant to be used so we say everyone is benefiting off the nebulous process of the system and is therefore a valid target.

>80% of Americas wealth is in the hands of 20% of the boomers
>Hurr durr young white men

[Anonymous No.11571785]

>>11571778
what the fuck are you even talking about? I asked what's his deal with post modernism.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571786]

>>11571759
I've asked literally 50 individuals here on this website, while anonymous without a trip, who were criticizing that particular assessment of the post-modernist ethos to give me a simple, explicit, rebuttal in the form of their own personal definition and not a single person has done it.

So, it's 50:0 at this point, buddy. Maybe you could make a fool out of me?

[Anonymous No.11571791]

>>11571778
Meant to add these disciplinary boogeyman are used to regulate society. Women are encouraged to critique patriachy because it doesn't threaten the money and power, it also keeps the men from organising against the old men who destroyed their futures.

It's relation to the liberal media and the frightened cyberserfs is one of codependency. a self regulating system means something else entirely when you are the one being regulated.

[Anonymous No.11571795]

>>11571785
I told you, he uses it as disciplinary boogeyman. He hasn't read the french theorists at all.

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

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571801]

>>11571791
>>11571795
Typical post-modernist, everybody.

[Anonymous No.11571807]

>>11571795
Is he wrong?

[Anonymous No.11571822]

>>11571575
I'll just say I though he was exagerating when he said some fuck though only about powers.

[Anonymous No.11571834]

>>11571801
I didn't use anything post-modern, you're basically proving my point.

>>11571807
Peterson? Yes.

[Anonymous No.11571838]

>Post-modernists do X
>See, this a problem with post-modernism because it leads to...
>No, that isn't a correct definition of post-modernism; if you had read this French philosopher you would know that...
>But I'm responding to things that are actually occurring
>No, that doesn't matter; your definition is wrong so the thing you're responding to is immune to criticism, hehe ;)

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571844]

>>11571834
Typical post-modernists usually avoid discussing or using post-modernist doctrine at all costs because sub-consciously they realize it's completely retarded and only serves as a tool to accumulate power over the people silly enough to trust that another human being surely couldn't actually be so idiotic as to hold such a retarded presupposition.

For example; >>11571786

[Anonymous No.11571858]

>>11571822
Making the screenshot text bigger and adding retarded wojaks is not an argument.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11571864]

>>11571858
>Making no argument at all is the best form of argument, for me, the post-modernist, because it's as valid to me as making a compelling argument which trumps my opponents ... except I don't even have to expend the energy or invest the intellect into constructing it.
>Then I win by default.
>Hooray.

[Anonymous No.11571871]

>>11571858
t. neo marxist

"I'm tired" isn't a political phrase no matter what that retard might say.

[Anonymous No.11571882]

>>11571822
Theorizing about gravity is not political.

[Anonymous No.11571896]

Isn't modernism something of a total meme too?

[Anonymous No.11571901]

>>11571844
>EVERYTIN IS POMO EVEN IF ITS NOT EXPLICITLY POMO
who the hysterical pseud out of the sensory deprivation tank?

[Anonymous No.11571904]

>>11571896
this is the statement that ushered in pomo

[Anonymous No.11571907]

>>11571896
modernism is absolute garbage
at least pomo gave us pynchon

[Anonymous No.11571953]

>>11571822
This is just a facet of ideology and seeking it to be found in every aspect of life so one can continue to assert their ideology to themselves and others.

[Anonymous No.11571968]

>>11571822
Why do people post on neogaf?

[Anonymous No.11571979]

>>11571864
>>11571871
What? Are you schizophrenic?
>"I'm tired" isn't a political phrase no matter what that retard might say.
In their worldview it is. Try to argue it instead of screaming "NOOO!!! WRONG!!"
Depending on the context, saying that you're tired may have these or political implications. If it is an expression of discomfort, and you're a slave under a particularly harsh and demanding slave owner, it will be at least a symbolic act of resistance towards the existing power structure. If you're a black living today in US, being able to say this casually and freely is also a consequence of politics and greater freedom.
I do find this approach to viewing the society to be too reductive, but it is logically consistent enough to make branlet wojaks an insufficient "argument" against it. Attack this idea's premises instead instead of screeching autistically.
Btw, many anti-pomo /pol/acks will have a similar worldview. To many such people, say, putting a toilet into a museum as a work of art is a political message, a rejection of western tradition and culture. So there's that.

No, I'm not really much of a marxist, I've never read Marx, communism failed way too much in the past to take the ideology seriously, and the current democratic governments are actually working quite well imo.

[Anonymous No.11571989]

>>11571844
Peterson's rhetorical use of "post-modernists" is a category mistake. It's an intentionally vague term which, in its initial coinage simply referred to an epistemological break from the pre-WWII era, before European moral leadership had been delegitimated. See the opening chapters of McEvilley's sculpture in the age of doubt for sober a historical rundown. As an umbrella term it encompasses metaphysical physical reductionists, idealists, political realists, really the whole spectrum, from hermeneuticians like Gadamer to structuralists like Lacan or deconstructionists like Derrida. It really flowered after the literary turn post 1976, and went off the rails in the 80's with the birth of third wave feminism and the rise of an academic crypto-idealism - the metaphysicalization of structural linguistics - masquerading as marxist social critique.

So Peterson employs the term in order to ad hominem pretty much everyone he doesn't like, like this anon said, >>11571778
and the media eats it up because it falls along the lines of acceptable discourse which gives the illusion of debate while reifying the status quo in every significant way. Which, by the way is exactly what pomo has been doing since the 80's.

[Anonymous No.11571992]

>>11571979
*may have these or those political implications.

[Anonymous No.11571999]

>>11571882
Theorizing about gravity is political because it privileges science over non-scientific indigenous understandings of physical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11572001]

>>11571786
post-modernism is an incredibly loose umbrella phrase invented by marxist writers to categorize various completely unrelated disciplines that emerged which could not realistically be called 'modernist'. the term does not really mean anything apart from 'shit that happened in this time period' and as a result attempting to dismiss it all as if it were a single, unified thesis is pseudointellectual rambling of the highest tier

[Anonymous No.11572005]

>>11571979
> communism failed way too much in the past to take the ideology seriously
technological failings are not ideological failings

[Anonymous No.11572012]

>>11571844
Please lay out concretely the presupposition of postmodernism

[Anonymous No.11572045]

>>11572001
>post-modernism is an incredibly loose umbrella phrase invented by marxist writers
no post modernist called themselves pomo
>to categorize various completely unrelated disciplines
no?
>that emerged which could not realistically be called 'modernist'.
that were built on the understanding of the limits of language and the consequent failure of the use of it to built a coherent worldview
> the term does not really mean anything apart from 'shit that happened in this time period'
you're contradicting yourself, you just gave an explanation to what it is
>attempting to dismiss it all as if it were a single, unified thesis is pseudointellectual rambling of the highest tier
>dismissing all of pomo
yeah, obvs

[Anonymous No.11572046]

>>11571838
the thing you are responding to is likely not representative of 'post modernism' so you should stop trying to call it 'post modernism' because then it makes you look like 'an ill educated moron' who 'has no idea what they are even arguing against'

[Anonymous No.11572063]

>>11572045
plenty of pomo authors wave that flag proudly anon you should try reading a book some time.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572075]

>>11571989
>As an umbrella term it encompasses metaphysical physical reductionists, idealists, political realists, really the whole spectrum, from hermeneuticians like Gadamer to structuralists like Lacan or deconstructionists like Derrida.
The problem here is that you're adhering to the, well, academic definition of the term and only accepting the category of definition which sits in between the modern conceptualization of the term, and the previous incarnations of the terminology used to classify a specific set of ideas as post-modernist, by definition, at prior dates.

The modern definition is currently in a state of contest, and so, argument. Peterson's, let's say, "interpretation", of the term and his "articulation" of the definition, is by modern, and prior incantations, of the definition of post-modernist, by post-modernist philosophy, a justified interpretation. Which is the source of, in my opinion, a great deal of conflict which arises between people who accept the prior academic definitions as canonical without consulting the modern canonical academic interpretations.

In simple language; the definition of post-modernist has shifted because post-modernists classify themselves as X, and hold Y beliefs. The confusing part, for post-modernists, is that part of their self-classification and beliefs preclude any ability for them to accept definitional shifts outside of their interpretations, because canonical interpretaion is impossible to them.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572082]

>>11572001
You can't really claim that the true definition of the word "Blue" isn't really the color blue, simply because at some point in the past it didn't mean that.

[Anonymous No.11572083]

>>11572063
>Postmodern
>Postmodernist
hmm they do look the same ..

[Anonymous No.11572091]

>>11571786
autism :)

[Anonymous No.11572096]

>>11572045
>no post modernist called themselves pomo
doesn't contradict the claim that the term was placed upon them by marxist thinkers initially
>no?
yes?
>that were built on the understanding of the limits of language and the consequent failure of the use of it to built a coherent worldview
Lyotard does not use this definition, Foucault is not particularly noteworthy for writing on the limits of language, Zygunt Bauman never touched the subject, many such cases!

>>11572082
what are you talking about you abject pseud, if blue was a word used to group both the things in the attached image then perhaps i might point out that blue is not an adequate category yes

[Anonymous No.11572101]

>It's a tripfag is retarded episode

[Anonymous No.11572105]

>>11572075
Right, anon. The cognitive slipperiness of postmodernism is captured in the term. It's not a substantive, but a 'post'-X "condition." So yeah, it's been thoroughly elucidated both within pomo and from without, and you're right that, due to the fact that they're operating within a metaphysics of "only discourse and power," then really any definition can work. I was just trying to inject some historical consciousness into this conversation because peterson dweebs use the term as if they're talking about a monolithic hyperobject like the catholic church or something. And without that object, Peterson really doesn't have a message, so the pomo boogeyman is totally vital to providing dogmatic unity and rhetorical fire to the burgeoning peterson™ industry

[Anonymous No.11572111]

>>11572105
dude lobsters lmao

[Anonymous No.11572113]

>>11571834
At what is Peterson wrong?

[Anonymous No.11572118]

>>11571822
>undiscovered species aren't political
Okay then, so this person is a speciesist bigot. Got it.

[Anonymous No.11572122]

>>11572113
read the article

[Anonymous No.11572124]

Peterson in my opinion does not argue honestly, he uses the blanket, dismissive "post-modern neo marxist" catchall because he thinks the ideas of these theorists are dangerous to society and perhaps not refutable, so he simply discourages people from looking into it to maintain a state of order (as opposed to the chaos he explicitly fears). He certainly does not want the populace to realize how chaotic our existence is and would prefer to impose order via shared belief in various inherited ideas and classifications.

[Anonymous No.11572130]

>>11572105
If he doesn't have a message, then why are you so absolutely assblasted? Just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.11572134]

>>11572130
Because retards like OP keep popping up. Go to redd*t if you want a hugbox

[Anonymous No.11572136]

>>11571822
I mean it's not wrong, it just uses a vapid and useless definition of "political".

[Anonymous No.11572138]

>>11572122
No. At what is Peterson wrong?

[Anonymous No.11572139]

will Peterson be the next Sokal in continuing to cause such tremendous ass anguish for decades to come?

[Anonymous No.11572142]

>>11572096
im not contradicting it its meant to give it clarity, they didnt call themselves postmodernists because its not a school of thought but a change derived from schools of thought, "post modern thinkers" are interdisciplinary thinkers covering many fields (related) but aren't inherently postmodernists they're just looking at all the things encompassed by it
>Lyotard does not use this definition, Foucault is not particularly noteworthy for writing on the limits of language, Zygunt Bauman never touched the subject, many such cases!
well yeah okay, but in addition tothat the emergence of pomo and shift from modernism did arise from the examination of modernist narrative inconsistencies
im agreeing with it just wanted to give it a better explanation

[Anonymous No.11572144]

>>11572138
>comes to /lit/
>doesn't read

checks out.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572150]

>>11572105
Honestly. I appreciate the response, I really do. I can tell you know enough to hold the conversation competently, which is a nice surprise.

>Peterson really doesn't have a message, so the pomo boogeyman is totally vital to providing dogmatic unity and rhetorical fire to the burgeoning peterson™ industry
I take opposition to this at a principle level because modern post-modernist doctrine, which, I will define myself as being any doctrine which is founded on the presupposition that reality is relative to interpretation, is a serious problem in modern philosophy and politics because it allows one to lie about everything to anyone, in service of anything. And the different ideological doctrines which have sprung up around this presupposition only disagree one a single thing; what is the best way to get what we want through lying, and what should we want?

It's a mad dash to exercise tyrannical authority over culture and society before anyone else figures out the correct series of lies. It's utterly debilitating to political discourse and social cohesion. So, to say that Peterson is somehow characterizing post-modernism incorrectly is something I disagree with vehemently.

[Anonymous No.11572154]

>>11572130
I'm not assblasted anon, I like talking about this stuff. And actually the fact that Peterson doesn't have a message makes him even more interesting as a cultural phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.11572160]

What's the appeal of this guy? no one would bump a thread about Prager on /lit/, why does Peterson get a free pass even though he's parroting the same talking points as the latter

[Anonymous No.11572162]

>>11572130
because his cult morons keep migrating to this board and spamming their misunderstandings as if they were astute observations

[Anonymous No.11572163]

>>11572124
You know people believe in a flat Earth? The mass aren't exactly a brilliant people.

[Anonymous No.11572164]

>>11572150
That's not what post-modernism is though

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572168]

>>11572164
You can say that all you want, I call it like I see it. And that's what I see.

[Anonymous No.11572169]

>>11572168
>If I define pomo to be something really stupid then you can clearly see that it is really stupid

wow

[Anonymous No.11572177]

>>11572134
Then don't reply. You are still assblasted over man you claim has no message and spend many letters to do so. Why? If he has no message you have nothing to fear and can just ignore him and OP.

>>11572124
>He certainly does not want the populace to realize how chaotic our existence is
But that's completely backwards. He spends a lot of time telling how chaotic everything is. It's one of his main talking points. He is definitely not hush hush about it. Rest of your post can be ignored because you demonstrate on this point that you are parroting what you read at HuffPost opinion pages, nothing more.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572178]

>>11572169
Don't call your own doctrine stupid, you're making me feel bad for you pomos.

[Anonymous No.11572179]

>>11572168
How pomo of you

[Anonymous No.11572180]

>>11572169
>replying to tripfags
your fault

[Anonymous No.11572182]

>>11572150
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.11572184]

>>11572180
true

[Anonymous No.11572188]

>>11572160
is this real?

[Anonymous No.11572196]

>>11572150
Yeah, I see your point anon, and I suppose I could say Peterson isn't necessarily characterizing postmodernism incorrectly, he's characterizing it insufficiently. He's basically created a gnostic system wherein there are these postmodern archons in the academy indoctrinating youth into a pernicious nihilism, etc., and the job of the jungian-gnostic initiate, as in something like Zostrianos or whatever, is to call the archons by their names and topple them. So he's telling a compelling story, and that's a large part of his appeal (aside from being the surrogate father to a generation of effete numales raised on multiculturalist cartoons), but the characters in his story are flat, one-dimensional, and un-historicizied.

Like I sad in an earlier post he's simply making a category mistake. It's a doxographical error. Which is an admittedly pedantic observation, not something that the troglodytes who populate his youtube comments section would be even remotely interested in.

[Anonymous No.11572205]

>>11572144
You refuse to tell what Peterson is wrong about but claim point-blank he is.

>>11572154
Yes you are. Do you act like that every time you see person without message? Go on butthurt rampage every time when cashier at shop didn't have any message? I doubt it.

>>11572162
And why does it make you so extremely angry?

[Anonymous No.11572211]

>>11572177
and yet he will never delve into exactly what he means by that, the people he speaks to hears 'the world is really chaotic guys' and assume he means 'there are wars and explosions and starvation and shit' rather than 'our systems of categorization are largely not based in any objective reality and many of the patterns we recognize are illusory and only exist to help us succeed in a bizarre jumble of atoms'

[Anonymous No.11572213]

>>11571999

[Anonymous No.11572216]

>>11572205
He linked you an article extensively going in on peterson's faults interpreting french intellectuals
maybe read it retard

[Anonymous No.11572218]

>>11572205
>And why does it make you so extremely angry?
i like using this board to discuss literature with people and when the board is flooded with third hand misreadings of literature it interferes with me being able to use the board in the way that i wish to use it

[Anonymous No.11572224]

>>11572163
and perhaps peterson is useful as a self help guru for people with somewhat average IQ, it doesn't make his suppositions and arguments factual though

[Anonymous No.11572230]

>>11572205
You refuse to read a single article, yet you come on lit, okay.

The problem is he is not well read in philosophy yet acts as if he understands what he talks about completely. But this results in a weak understanding of the people he often talks about like how Jung's work was meant to represent a framework that could continue to evolve with the collective psyche as people when through different phases and what have you, but to Peterson this means some sort of dogmatic reactionism to a static unchanging system, and that could totally be his view, but he then attributes that to Jung!

The guy just lacks rigor in his thought

[Anonymous No.11572246]

>>11572211
He's given severals exemple you dumb fuck.

A chaotic situation for him is an unfamiliar situation. When you find yourself in a completly new situation, when you realize someone lied to you, when something unexpected happen that break your routine, its chaos.

He also doesn't say it's completly bad, as confronting unknown situation can make you stronger.

[Anonymous No.11572249]

>>11572211
You went in two incoherently rambling very angry posts from this
> He certainly does not want the populace to realize how chaotic our existence is
to this
>the people he speaks to hears 'the world is really chaotic guys'

You are insane and very stupid, both at the same time. I recommend helium.

>>11572216
I don't recall Peterson ever discussing French intellectuals anywhere. Do you?

[Anonymous No.11572251]

>>11572246
woah dude you're blowing my mind!!!

[Anonymous No.11572253]

>>11572230
>to Peterson this means some sort of dogmatic reactionism to a static unchanging system

How?

[Anonymous No.11572256]

>>11572249
Foucault?
Derrida?

You thick or something?

[Anonymous No.11572262]

>>11572246
>in a completly new situation, when you realize someone lied to you, when something unexpected happen that break your routine, its chaos.
not all of us have autism lmao

[Anonymous No.11572264]

>there are people on this board who have invested any time into jordan peterson's "teachings"
deary, deary me

[Anonymous No.11572265]

>>11572249
are you literate?

whether or not he admits the world is chaotic, he certainly does not want the people who hear him speak to think about HOW chaotic the world is. that is why he doesn't delve into the subject. he is happy for people to interpret 'chaos' in as reassuring and ordered a manner as they please.

[Anonymous No.11572268]

>>11572253
That's what MoM is about and part of how he justifies his 12 Rules thing. That there are identifiable and singular structures in our unconscious substrate that need to be adhered to or striven toward

[Anonymous No.11572272]

>>11572262

[Anonymous No.11572276]

>>11572262

[Anonymous No.11572280]

>>11572246
>A chaotic situation for him is an unfamiliar situation. When you find yourself in a completly new situation, when you realize someone lied to you, when something unexpected happen that break your routine, its chaos.

so in other words he absolutely fails to address the fundamentally chaotic nature of the material universe

[Anonymous No.11572285]

Ah yes, noted anti-pomo intellectual jordan peterson

[Anonymous No.11572286]

[Anonymous No.11572290]

>>11572286
jesus
my leftist nihilist room is cleaner than his

[Anonymous No.11572293]

>>11572290
>leftist
>nihilist

Yes but how clean is your *soul*?

[Anonymous No.11572294]

>>11572286
>this is what 50,000 a month gets you
is life really this bad anons?

[Anonymous No.11572300]

>>11572293
does this look like the face of someone with a clean soul?

[Anonymous No.11572304]

>>11572300
to be fair that is a rockin bod

[Anonymous No.11572306]

>>11572218
You can always sage and hide threads you don't like. But you don't. You go out of your way to bump thread over and over again spending your time angrily convincing people that "nothing to see here, Peterson has no message". Why?

>>11572230
Let's assume criticism that Peterson is not well read enough in philosophy and fails to understand Jung something something is correct. He is fallible, unbelievable, stop the press. He has readily concededed again and again that he does not have all the answers. Now what? What changed?

[Anonymous No.11572308]

>>11572293
>soul
spooky
>>11572300
literally baiting in daddy's mouthbreathers
gotta admire the grift though

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572317]

>>11572196
He's not consciously constructing a narrative in the manner I believe you're interpreting it. I think that narrative simply exists as a logical endpoint to the presuppositions of the diametrically opposed philosophical positions.

Postmodernism is a singular entity in some senses because you can use the definition to categorize people who operate their philosophical ideologies with identical substrates. It's no different to classifying cultural Marxism as, well, cultural Marxism. Because it takes the Marxist presuppositions of group identity and the oppressor/oppressed interpretations and uses them to form the foundation of the philosophy. Now, if you go to wikipedia you'll see that the term Cultural Marxism, and indeed most academic literature describing Cultural Marxism, either disregards the term or argues against its use as. That doesn't change the fact that it's Cultural Marxism.

And the way they justify that blatant self-mischaractarisation is through the post-modernist ethos of infinitely variable, and equally justifiable, interpretations of reality. Hence Cultural Marxism is easily identified as post-modernist. Despite the fact that both post-modernists and Cultural Marxists vehemently oppose those classifications. Why? Because they're allowed to lie to you, according to post-modernist and Cultural Marxist doctrines.

See the reason you shouldn't trust these people?

[Anonymous No.11572318]

>>11572268
How is that wrong though? Does he takes everything from Jung? Identifiable structures in our unconscious that we need to strive forward isn't exactly a very precise belief.

>>11572280
How?

>>11572262
Well obviously not every single unexpected event will throw off your routine. Imagine you get told that you have cancer. This will fuck you up. When some random guy attack you for no reason, this throw you into a chaotic teritory because one of your most basic assumption, that random people on the street aren't hostile, out of the window.

Maybe try tp think woth nuance you fucking autists, don't you read books?

[Anonymous No.11572319]

>>11572306
>Let's assume criticism that Peterson is not well read enough in philosophy and fails to understand Jung something something is correct. He is fallible, unbelievable, stop the press. He has readily concededed again and again that he does not have all the answers. Now what? What changed?

so he's merely pretending?

[Anonymous No.11572322]

>>11572306
because i believe it to be true based on hearing him speak and having familiarity with the thinkers he aims to malign

[Anonymous No.11572325]

>>11572318
>Does he takes everything from Jung?
yes

Not just identifiable, but singular...

[Anonymous No.11572327]

>>11572306
Im just trying to get shots off while I can before the thread is blasted into oblivion by the mods. Always fun to laugh in the face of obnoxious pseuds lol

[Anonymous No.11572328]

>>11572318
because every single category is man made and based on superficial pattern recognition, material phenomena cannot be objectively categorized in any real way.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572330]

>>11572328
It can be objectively inferred through deductive processes, however.

[Anonymous No.11572331]

>>11572256
Namedropping isn't convincing me. Let me repeat: I don't recall Peterson ever discussing French intellectuals anywhere. Do you?

>>11572265
I'm more literate than you are sane. You did complete narrative reversal three posts in a row.

[Anonymous No.11572333]

>>11572317
>Marxist presuppositions of group identity
imagine unironically typing this

[Anonymous No.11572341]

>>11572331
>I want to talk about postmodernism a little bit. That’s Michel Foucault in the middle [of the PowerPoint screen] and a more reprehensible individual you could hardly ever discover or even dream up no matter how twisted your imagination. Foucault and Derrida I would say—there’s more—but I would say they’re the two architects of the postmodernist movement. In brief, I think what they did was in the late 60s and early 70s they were avowed Marxists way, way after anyone with any shred of ethical decency had stopped being a Marxist. …[various ad homs] … Foucault in particular, who never fit in anywhere and who was an outcast in many ways and a bitter one and a suicidal one his entire life, did everything he possibly could with his staggering IQ to figure out every treacherous way possible to undermine the structure that wouldn’t accept him in all his peculiarity. And it’s no wonder, because there would be no way of making a structure that could possibly function if it was composed of people as peculiar, bitter, and resentful as Michel Foucault. … He did put his brain to work trying to figure out A) how to resurrect Marxism under a new guise, let’s say, and B) how to justify the fact that it wasn’t his problem that he was an outsider [and] it was actually everyone else’s problem.


Literally cited in the article linked in the beginning of the thread

[Anonymous No.11572342]

>>11572331
Have you not listened to Peterson at all?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572346]

>>11572341
Peterson really rekt that nigga, damn.

[Anonymous No.11572348]

>>11572328
Some categorization are much more worthile than other. Exemple, categorizing a bear into a dangerous animal is better for your life than categorizing it into an harmless animal.

[Anonymous No.11572349]

>>11572346
sure he did

[Anonymous No.11572350]

>>11572341
Wow this Peterson guy sure is retarted

[Anonymous No.11572351]

>>11572005
Reverse it though. Would sufficient technology being present (and working) mean that an ideology is a success? Hell no.

[Anonymous No.11572352]

>>11572331
>You did complete narrative reversal three posts in a row.
you certainly are illiterate

>>11572124
"He certainly does not want the populace to realize how chaotic our existence is"

>>11572211
"he will never delve into exactly what he means by that"

>>11572265
"whether or not he admits the world is chaotic, he certainly does not want the people who hear him speak to think about HOW chaotic the world is"

find one contradiction between these three positions, there absolutely isn't one you illiterate retard. nowhere did I claim that Peterson will not admit the world is chaotic, my original claim was that he doesn't want his audience to think about how chaotic the world is, hence my second point that he completely glosses over any examination of the chaotic nature of the universe. with comprehension skills like these i am not surprised that you have to rely on third rate non-philosopher self help gurus to generate an understanding of reality!!

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572353]

>>11572349
Thankyou for agreeing.

[Anonymous No.11572358]

>>11572353

[Anonymous No.11572359]

>>11572319
>He has readily concededed again and again that he does not have all the answers.
>so he's merely pretending?
So he actually is infallible? But your entire attempt at criticism is based on claiming that he is fallible.

>>11572327
(You) pic related

[Anonymous No.11572367]

>>11572348
if a bear was heavily tranquilized and you were performing medical research on it that was likely to lead to a medical breakthrough that would save you from a disease then would it be better for your life to categorize it as a dangerous animal?

[Anonymous No.11572375]

>what is true is what is beneficial to humanity

>i hate post modernism!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11572376]

>>11572367
Yes? The fact that you had to sedate him proves you consider it a dangerous animal you cuck. Now you can also categoriae him as a useful animal for medical science.

[Anonymous No.11572380]

>>11572376
it isn't dangerous when it is heavily tranquilized

[Anonymous No.11572383]

>>11571575
Postmodernism has never existed

[Anonymous No.11572386]

>>11572341
Is he wrong? afaik cultural marxism was developed in Frankfurt university by a bunch of jews and one sabboth goyim.

>>11572342
Does it play a role in him being roughly speaking right about things? No.

>>11572352
No. You did three times in a row complete reversal in narrative. You are insane.

[Anonymous No.11572392]

>>11572386
>moving the goalposts

>developed in Frankfurt university by a bunch of jews and one sabboth goyim.
the mask slips

[Anonymous No.11572393]

>>11572359
stay tarded lol

[Anonymous No.11572394]

>>11572386
:^D

[Anonymous No.11572395]

>>11572383
neither did modernism but post modernism still existed more than modernism

[Anonymous No.11572397]

What impresses me the most is how much these so-called thinkers are admired when their acolytes when they can’t even justify their presence. It seems that continentals are so desperate to be perceived as intellectuals that they’re willing to defend the indefensible.

[Anonymous No.11572400]

>>11572386
>Does it play a role in him being roughly speaking right about things? No.

Why are you discussing him if you don't even listen to him

[Anonymous No.11572401]

>>11572386
Could you point me to the cultural marxism manifesto, kind anon?
Marxists sure like their declarations

[Anonymous No.11572403]

READ ADORNO YOU FUCKING RETARDS

[Anonymous No.11572404]

>>11572380
Yes, when it is tranquilized but most bear aren't.

As a general rule of thumb you know that being that are sedated are safe to go near to, because you categorize them that way. You also know that if the bear wasn't sedated he could ripe your head off, thus making him dangerous.

We have many categories that we uses, some more useful than other. Saying they are all equal is being a brainlet of the highest order.

[Anonymous No.11572409]

>>11572403
Don't you know?
lobsters don't read

[Anonymous No.11572413]

>>11572404
they are all equally constructed and not accurate objective measures of reality, a category being useful to your survival does not make it a true thing and your indefinite survival is not a realistic life goal

[Anonymous No.11572420]

>>11572403
>jazz is bad
no thanks

[Anonymous No.11572424]

>>11572392
I'm definitely hyper-right white nationalist polack, so? However I haven't moved goalposts. I presented what I know of subject which was your claim of Peterson not understanding French intellectuals. You copypasted one redacted out of context paragraph. Is he wrong on that paragraph?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572425]

>>11572401
Read the communist manifesto and then replace "class" with anything you'd like and there ya go, buddy. Hope I helped.

[Anonymous No.11572431]

Post-modernism is gen x tier goofy gooba

Why does this Canadian beat a jackoff thought pattern that was maximized at peak with American Psycho.

[Anonymous No.11572433]

>>11572424
>Is he wrong on that paragraph?
Yes, the article goes into great depth to demonstrate that. Maybe read it?

[Anonymous No.11572436]

>>11572431

[Anonymous No.11572438]

>>11572425
So I get to create it on my own?
Sweet!

[Anonymous No.11572448]

>>11572413
>a bear being dangerous is not accurate
>a sedated bear being safe is not accurate

You know, people posses things called brains that allow them to switch between the most relevant categorizations. It doesn't always works but it brought is here, today. It's not because you're a retard that everyone else is.

>a category being useful to your survivam does not make it a true thing

No but it make it much more useful than one who is likely to get you killed.

[Anonymous No.11572449]

>>11572431
>BEE
>Peak anything

lol

[Anonymous No.11572454]

>>11572425
>Marx, the man to whom the whole
gender of Europe and America owes more than to any one else
>all history has been a history of race struggles
>has now reached a stage where the
exploited and oppressed sex (the female) can no longer emancipate itself from the class
which exploits and oppresses it (the male)
surprise surprise look at that it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.11572456]

>>11572448
its only useful if you have a reason to be alive rather than dead

[Anonymous No.11572460]

>>11572454
i dunno sounds pretty true to me

[Anonymous No.11572463]

>>11572460
you have no historic reference points do you, one of those live in the moment types

[Anonymous No.11572468]

>>11572456
Alright, I'm done.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572470]

>>11572454
You literally just quoted every introduction to feminist theory lecture that has been held for the past decade, buddy.

[Anonymous No.11572472]

>>11572400
Well does it?

>>11572401
They don't have any as far as I know, I could be wrong.

>>11572397
What makes a real thinker?

[Anonymous No.11572473]

>>11572468
some people dont you toilet boy, the category is not objectively useful it is subjectively useful

[Anonymous No.11572476]

>>11572460
>being this simpleminded

[Anonymous No.11572484]

>>11572472
Yes obviously, given he uses this interpretation to justify his thoughts

[Anonymous No.11572486]

>>11572470

[Anonymous No.11572497]

>>11572433
Does Peterson being more or less wrong about French intellectuals make him 100% wrong about everything?

[Anonymous No.11572498]

>>11572497
no

[Anonymous No.11572500]

>>11572497
No, but he's wrong about most things not relating to Jungian psychoanalysis and who cares about that anyway

[Anonymous No.11572503]

>>11572484
What were you even replying to? Doesn't fit to any chain there. Get off your meds maybe.

[Anonymous No.11572505]

>>11571795
no one will die wishing they had read more french post modernist theory

[Anonymous No.11572509]

>>11571577
He is postmodern. Almost all of his fans are postmodern. You can't be a pop media critic that gives a fideist argument for some vague God's existence based on theism being instrumentally necessary for epistemology and existential meaning without being a postmodernist. He just uses it as a shorthand for "things I dislike about modern society" or "cultural relativism". His usage of cultural Marxism is similar but is pretty much just a dogwhistle for "Jews". It always is.
His whining about Zizek saying that facts are not always relevant was contrived. Zizek was saying that even if something is factual - the amount of attention we dedicate to a fact can be based on arbitrary or subjective considerations, not that truth doesn't exist. He ignores also that Zizek himself, while being somewhat postmodern, has many critiques of it, as do many prominent leftist thinkers like Chomsky.

The biggest pioneers in postmodernism today are not caricatured academics, but alt-right nerds spreading ambiguously ironic memes based heavily on references to other media, carrying subtexts of nihilism and vague critiques of the modernist notion of progress with it.

[Anonymous No.11572520]

>>11572498
>>11572500
Then why devote so much time and effort convincing others that Peterson to some extent is fallible when it comes to 20th century French philosophy? That hardly seems relevant or interesting, it's expected. My professor was wrong about his own specialty when he acted as my thesis supervisor. Nobody is infallible about anything.

[Anonymous No.11572521]

>>11571755
Why do you even believe that definition of post-modernism to be true?

[Anonymous No.11572524]

>>11572509
>good post with a meme pic

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572531]

>>11572505
Literally laughed.

[Anonymous No.11572533]

>>11572520
>Then why devote so much time and effort convincing others that Peterson to some extent is fallible when it comes to 20th century French philosophy? That hardly seems relevant or interesting
Because it's his largest crutch for his political views, which is the reason he's gained a following in the first place

[Anonymous No.11572536]

>>11572503
His bullshit interpretation of french intellectuals harm his arguments because they are justified by that interpretation, keep up.

[Anonymous No.11572538]

>>11572294

He's not spending it on himself.

[Anonymous No.11572544]

>>11572524
>bad post with a bad pic

[Anonymous No.11572545]

>>11572520
Why spend so much effort following an "intellectual" who doesn't do basic research?

[Anonymous No.11572550]

>>11572403
>my fath-uuhhhh i mean fascism is just GAYLOL!!1 - adorno

[Anonymous No.11572554]

>>11572509
Postmodernism ends with the rise of the Information Revolution. We popomo now

[Anonymous No.11572555]

>>11572536
He is pretty much point on when talking about what sjws are like though. That the thing that interest most people

[Anonymous No.11572556]

>>11572538
He hides how much he earns from patreon now, and has he shown ANY evidence that he's spending it on whatever bull honkey he's selling to his patreon goys?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572559]

>>11572545
Peterson is in the top 1% of cited scientists, actually.

[Anonymous No.11572560]

>>11572544
>dubs with a meme pic

[Anonymous No.11572562]

>>11572555
And he's terrific at overstating the influence these people have

[Anonymous No.11572563]

>>11572538
how do you spend 600k a year on other things than yourself, there isnt enough time

[Anonymous No.11572565]

>>11572559
I don't know if that's true, but that would be in his field of clinical psychology anyway, not this half baked philosophical screed he's used to bait his legion of moronic followers

[Anonymous No.11572566]

>>11572509
>His usage of cultural Marxism is similar but is pretty much just a dogwhistle for "Jews". It always is.
Kikes like you always get revved over antisemitic dogwhistles when anyone even mentions something that is overwhelmingly jewish in negative light. It's hilarious. You know for sure kikes have stake and influence in something when they come out of bushes in their hysterical paranoia screaming antisemitism.

[Anonymous No.11572567]

>>11572538
Oh honey no...

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572568]

>>11572562
Yet here we are, on 4chan, the last bastion of free speech and conservative political opinion on the internet having to educate half the participants in the basics of postmodern doctrine and the dangers of the application of Marxist economic models to racial categories.

[Anonymous No.11572570]

>>11572562
Yeah it's not like some guy at google got fired over that.

[Anonymous No.11572571]

>>11572559
and what field of """""""""science""""""""" might that be?

[Anonymous No.11572573]

>>11572568
>tripfag

[Anonymous No.11572578]

>>11572555
wow really need to pretend to be an intellectual to point out some forms of campus activism are cancerous

[Anonymous No.11572579]

>>11572570
yeah and he deserved it

[Anonymous No.11572582]

>>11572568
>the last bastion of free speech
AHAHAHHAHAHA
get over yourself

[Anonymous No.11572583]

>>11572555
>SJW: The Elusive Boogeyman
this is the most obvious red flag that they have no content of substance

[Anonymous No.11572586]

>>11572568
he claims his free speech has been impeded, but what evidence is there to support that claim exactly? if anything he's living proof that you can have bizarre opinions (and nothing more) without being lynched.

[Anonymous No.11572588]

>>11572568
yamete reddit

[Anonymous No.11572591]

>>11572559

[Anonymous No.11572599]

>>11572586
To be fair, that Lindsay shepherd interrogation is pretty damming, but I went to Waterloo so I may be biased ;)

[Anonymous No.11572600]

>>11572570
Well thats a widespread phenomenon if I ever saw one

[Anonymous No.11572604]

>>11572568
>and conservative political opinion
rofl

[Anonymous No.11572605]

>>11572586
peterson is very much pic related

[Anonymous No.11572609]

>>11572566
why antisemitic people like you always get angry for being called what you are? thats the real hilarious part

[Anonymous No.11572611]

>>11572570
Some SJW got fired too, not long ago. Google just doesn't like political drama in their company

[Anonymous No.11572616]

>>11572611
Who?

The top chiefs at google said that what the giy wrote was false and sexist and that's why he was fired. That was completly bullshit. The giy didn't even made his.memo public one of the guy who read it did.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572617]

>>11572571
Psychometry.

[Anonymous No.11572623]

>>11572533
>>11572536
Hm... you believe that, and by extension, you believe everyone else believes that too, in which case you have deduced that attacking what you imagine is main pillar of his thinking brings the rest of it crumbling down. Correct?

>>11572545
I don't consider completely infallible understanding of anything mere basic research. I'm more interested in hysteria Peterson manages to produce in lefties. Trying to understand that.

[Anonymous No.11572629]

>>11572556
>>11572563
>>11572567

This is retarded. Not only are you proving him right, from the little I've heard him speak about resentment, but you're a caricature of yourself. You embody the very thing he hates about certain Leftists and Postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.11572631]

>>11572617
So like I said >>11572565

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572632]

>>11572586
I did not claim my free speech was impeded.

[Anonymous No.11572636]

>>11572566
>Kikes like you
This is a convenient ad hom for stormfags. Over the internet it's basically impossible to falsify without doxxing yourself since most Jews are visually indistinguishable from non-Jewish white people. It also helps them dismiss arguments without addressing them while simultaneously reinforcing their view that their enemies are omnipresent and primarily motivated by ethnicity rather than ideology. I wish I was banking it for sharing my autistic political views like this, but the boring reality is that I do it for the same reasons you do.
>hysterical paranoia
I couldn't sum up the far-right in two words any better. But really, I don't see what's so hysterical about a single sentence calling it a dogwhistle, considering you yourself basically just admitted that's what it is. It's my tone that triggers you because I imply antisemitism is bad, not the content anything I actually said.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11572640]

>>11572631
You don't know what psychometry is, do you?

[Anonymous No.11572650]

>>11572629
>he's not spending it on himself
>[citation needed]
>you just resent him!!!!!
got me :P

[Anonymous No.11572653]

>>11572629
He really is standing up to hedonistic materialism!

[Anonymous No.11572658]

>>11572616
Tim Chevalier

[Anonymous No.11572670]

>>11572640
Nothing to do with the half baked screed used to bait his moronic following

[Anonymous No.11572671]

>>11572629
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11572676]

>>11572609
>stupid goy and your dogwhistles
>oy vey goyim knows
>shut it down
Why change subject hmm? Both cultural Marxist philosophers (especially Frankfurt school) and media are overwhelmingly jews, and whenever either is described negatively, jews come out their holes in full hysteria screaming antisemitism. Agreed?

[Anonymous No.11572684]

>>11572676
Okay stormcuck

[Anonymous No.11572697]

>>11572658
Seems like he was sacrified to give them an edge on the upcoming trial.

[Anonymous No.11572702]

>>11572676
Jews just have bigger iqs on average

[Anonymous No.11572709]

>>11572697

[Anonymous No.11572716]

>>11572676
>i call it a dogwhistle
>you agree
>he agrees but basically calls you a faggot
>this triggers you somewhy
>"OY VEY GOYIM THE SHOAH SIX MILLION HOLOHOAXES THE THULOIDS KNOW"
The internet has ruined your brain dude.

[Anonymous No.11572723]

>>11572709

[Anonymous No.11572738]

>>11572636
It's highly probable that anyone kvetching about dogwhistles when talking about any organization, institution or school of thought that is either massively overrepresented by jews and/or has jewish origins is a jew. It's an observed pattern. Whether it's polack on lit talking cultural Marxism, or Musk on twitter talking about media, or Trump mentioning banks, the hysterical kvetching begins among jews immediately.

>single sentence calling it a dogwhistle, considering you yourself basically just admitted that's what it is
Term dogwhistle is used to downplay something that is true to make it appear untrue, as in "cultural Marxism is dogwhistle for jews", as if jews had absolutely nothing to do with it. I state without any doubt of factual incorrectness that cultural Marxism is overwhelmingly jewish represented line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.11572739]

It's a stormcuck unironically tries to invoke jbp in an attempt to bring legitimacy to his racism episode

[Anonymous No.11572750]

>>11572738
Yeah the problem here is that your definition of cultural Marxism is based on feefees and lacking any rigor.

[Anonymous No.11572780]

>>11572650

Neither of the replies made any arguments.

>>11572556

This one asks if he has shown any evidence that he's spending it on what he's selling to this patreon providers. How would I, or anyone else, know this? Since he has a reasonably high output and more importantly, his output is of reasonable quality, I would assume this is evidence enough that this is what he's spending it on.

>>11572563

This one is a non sequitur from a mouth-breather just mashing his keyboard. "There isn't enough time".

Just go back to shitposting about Nick Land and James Joyce. My God.

[Anonymous No.11572786]

>>11572684
Cool that you agree. Do you always call anyone who presents irrefutably factual statement a stormcuck?

>>11572702
Let's assume so. Then out of all the possible philosophical orientations, why did jews choose Marxism to vastly over-represent? Why was there no slight but even jewish representation in all the philosophical fields? They were even completely absent from European new right (Benoist etc).

[Anonymous No.11572788]

>>11572780
Both much smarter than Peterson btw

[Anonymous No.11572796]

>>11572786
No I call idiot racist migrants stormcuck lol

>>11572786
>why did jews choose Marxism to vastly over-represent?
Confirmation bias

[Anonymous No.11572803]

>>11572750
You didn't even read or address what I wrote so I'll just repeat it all:

It's highly probable that anyone kvetching about dogwhistles when talking about any organization, institution or school of thought that is either massively overrepresented by jews and/or has jewish origins is a jew. It's an observed pattern. Whether it's polack on lit talking cultural Marxism, or Musk on twitter talking about media, or Trump mentioning banks, the hysterical kvetching begins among jews immediately.

>single sentence calling it a dogwhistle, considering you yourself basically just admitted that's what it is
Term dogwhistle is used to downplay something that is true to make it appear untrue, as in "cultural Marxism is dogwhistle for jews", as if jews had absolutely nothing to do with it. I state without any doubt of factual incorrectness that cultural Marxism is overwhelmingly jewish represented line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.11572807]

>>11572780
Imagine being so stupid you think you need over half a million a year to "produce" the kind of garbage memerson spews

[Anonymous No.11572812]

>>11572803
Again, no rigor, just "I feel".

Take it to wordpress

[Anonymous No.11572828]

>>11572738
>It's highly probable that anyone kvetching about dogwhistles
I literally had to google this word - not that you'll believe me. Either way, a single post mentioning a dogwhistle is hardly consistent complaining. As I said before, you basically agreed with me.
>when talking about any organization, institution or school of thought that is either massively overrepresented by jews and/or has jewish origins is a jew
Lmao. You actually find it more likely that I'm Jewish when jews are like 0.2% of the entire world population than me just being a white guy who is somewhat left-leaning. Statistically, the chances aren't on your side, but you just lean towards the less probable identity because it reaffirms your confirmation biases. Not to mention this entire point is based on an implicit association of judaism with leftism, which I reject. The western left, in general, is strongly anti-zionist, which is a sentiment I share. I just think people like you are retarded because it becomes a homogeneous conspiracy you can pin all your opposition on in order to delegitimize them.
>Whether it's polack on lit talking cultural Marxism, or Musk on twitter talking about media, or Trump mentioning banks, the hysterical kvetching begins among jews immediately.
Of course it seems that way, because you just assume anyone who disagrees with you is jewish. It's the most blatant example of circular reasoning there is. Like you actually think you represent all white people and anyone who disagrees with you can't be white, lmao.
>Term dogwhistle is used to downplay something
It's used to signify coded language, which is exactly what it is.
>"cultural Marxism is dogwhistle for jews", as if jews had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Cultural marxism is an oxymoron.
>I state without any doubt of factual incorrectness that cultural Marxism is overwhelmingly jewish represented line of thinking.
I don't really care what you doubt. The Frankfurt school weren't considered marxist by anyone but themselves. They're the mormons of the ideology but the far right just exaggerates their influence because it enables them to conflate marxism with banal liberal progressivism - which lets them portray virtually all of society in a grand unified conspiracy against them.

[Anonymous No.11572831]

>>11571896
If you put it like that, then the entire idea behind the historical use of the word "Enlightenment" is a total meme too.

Come to think of it, the idea of a linear development of history is a total meme too.


But if you go deeper than that, you'll realize that the entire history of Western European thought post-Fall of the Western Roman Empire is one huge meme based on germanics larping as ancient greeks and romans

[Anonymous No.11572850]

>>11572807

I don't see where need was mentioned but most of his public critics of equal or greater wealth and have produced nothing. And most of his common critics can't even put sentences together or conceive of things like investment.

[Anonymous No.11572855]

Have you ever noticed that Jews without fail start to be pissy the moment you start saying anti semetic shit? Wtf is up with that lol

[Anonymous No.11572905]

>>11572424
>self avowed /pol/fag refuse to read
Checks out

[Anonymous No.11572913]

>>11572500
>wrong about most things not relating to Jungian psychoanalysis
He is pretty wrong about Jungian psychoanalysis too desu

[Anonymous No.11572919]

>>11572913
Well nobody's perfect

[Anonymous No.11572934]

>>11572568
>last bastion of free speech and conservative political opinion on the internet
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11572940]

>>11572796
I've stated irrefutable facts that anyone can verify. I know that living in factual world that makes sense is exclusively reserved to far-right. Very telling that you used word "idiot racist" to describe me giving verifiable facts.

>>11572812
You didn't even read or address what I wrote so I'll just repeat it all:

It's highly probable that anyone kvetching about dogwhistles when talking about any organization, institution or school of thought that is either massively overrepresented by jews and/or has jewish origins is a jew. It's an observed pattern. Whether it's polack on lit talking cultural Marxism, or Musk on twitter talking about media, or Trump mentioning banks, the hysterical kvetching begins among jews immediately.

>single sentence calling it a dogwhistle, considering you yourself basically just admitted that's what it is
Term dogwhistle is used to downplay something that is true to make it appear untrue, as in "cultural Marxism is dogwhistle for jews", as if jews had absolutely nothing to do with it. I state without any doubt of factual incorrectness that cultural Marxism is overwhelmingly jewish represented line of thinking.

>>11572828
>>Whether it's polack on lit talking cultural Marxism, or Musk on twitter talking about media, or Trump mentioning banks, the hysterical kvetching begins among jews immediately.
>you just assume anyone who disagrees with you is jewish
I wrote nothing like that. I was describing a recurring phenomena that happens like a clockwork. Do you agree with that observation or no?

>It's used to signify coded language, which is exactly what it is.
Stop. Let's take context you tactically dismissed back in play and let you reply to observation in its full context:
>Term dogwhistle is used to downplay something that is true to make it appear untrue, as in "cultural Marxism is dogwhistle for jews", as if jews had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Question I'm particularly interested in: Can you point out any so-called dogwhistle where this observation is not true?

Rest of your post is combination of psychopathic me me me thinking extrapolated to everyone plus taking argument to semantics where nobody ever wins, so I'll ignore it as jewish diarrhea it is.

[Anonymous No.11572947]

>>11572940
lol

[Anonymous No.11572948]

>>11572780
>Neither of the replies made any arguments.
None of them were, only asking for you to give some proofs for your assertion

[Anonymous No.11573012]

Christ what a shit show. The JBP posters destroyed /lit/ on this. all anyone can say is that his definition is wrong, or he misunderstood some thinker, or he makes conclusions from his premises that arguably don't follow, all faults of virtually every public figure, but the reason for the unique vitriol on Peterson is that he is rightwinged and doesn't want to radically change the system. And he has a following of average people whom don't have the time, the money, or the intelligence to study all of these subjects in depth but still feel affected by Peterson. That is the reason leftists hate him and it's way some other thinker like Butler whom makes the same mistakes is never brought up. "He said lobsters have hierarchies and humans have hierarchies, lmao he wants humans to be lobsters!" Who is the intellectual pretender now?

[Anonymous No.11573017]

>>11572509
>The biggest pioneers in postmodernism today are not caricatured academics, but alt-right nerds spreading ambiguously ironic memes based heavily on references to other media, carrying subtexts of nihilism and vague critiques of the modernist notion of progress with it.

Those a people who use what the post-modernists have deconstructed in order to build something new from that.

>>11572554

Basically this

[Anonymous No.11573053]

>>11573017
>what the post-modernists have deconstructed in order to build something new from that.
How are they are the descendants of pomo instead of its modern equivalent? There isn't much distinction between them.

[Anonymous No.11573071]

>>11573053
Third way feminists are a good example of how everything is relative, there's no absolute truths, there's no systematic way to produce evidence based on a top down approach to explaining experience other than personal experiences, which create personal truths and therefor it is *genuine* truth.

People who react to that sort of thing are using the same means as them, by making everything relative and instead concentrate for the creation of a collective truth that some people subscribe to.

[Anonymous No.11573102]

>>11573071
But then you just said that these people are just like third way feminists that are pomo.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573130]

>>11573012
Honestly, I'm shocked how many leftists, as in pathological leftists, there are on 4chan. Not that they realise that's what they are; but that's exactly what they are.

[Anonymous No.11573134]

>>11573102
Nah, Peter says a lot of bullshit, but the biggest of them all is the fact that he wrongly classifies people who use post-modern means in their conceptualization of their own personal and collective realities, which kinda makes them post-post-modernists? Metamodernists or whatever. The people who react to 3rd wave feminism are no different than them when they use the same means to achieve their own collective version of truth

[Anonymous No.11573154]

>>11571999
I know many anons want to dismiss this as silly, but this is straight up true, and was part of the political program of the enlightenment. That's to say that the Enlightenment development of science was meant to combat the church's political authority, in order to create a world where religious wars were a thing of the past. Even the "religious scientists" of the period, like Newton, by claiming God to be an ontological cause of gravity were combating the idea of a personal deity that governs political life with revealed laws and morals.

[Anonymous No.11573158]

>>11573134
Their methods and means are too similar to third way feminists to be considered post-pomo desu. And metamodernists aren't really that defined IIRC.

[Anonymous No.11573168]

>>11573130
literally how new

[Anonymous No.11573188]

>>11573012
There are plenty of well-regarded and well-argued responses to the same subjects and phenomena peterson argues against.
Peterson didn't get popular because of his intellect but because he "owned the libs".

[Anonymous No.11573210]

>>11573012
>The JBP posters destroyed /lit/ on this
All I see is a tripfag making retarded statement after retarded statement and a /pol/fag refusing to read sources but shifting the discussion to be about jews.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573231]

>>11573168
I've been here for a long time, anon. A long, long time.

[Anonymous No.11573241]

>>11572150
I think you might be right on that point, but some of those points are already embedded in Nietzsche (and Foucault, at least, properly read, is an moralist Nietzschean through and through), but also in Enlightenment figures like Machiavelli and Francis Bacon who equate knowledge with power. (If you're open to a book recommendation, check out Stanley Rosen's Hermeneutics As Politics, which shows how what we call postmodernism is actually the logic of the enlightenment taken to its conclusion. I think it also offers a much stronger critique of postmodernism than what Peterson offers, in part by taking seriously the relationship of pomo to enlightenment thought.)

There might be risks with the argument by definition; check out https://samzdat.com/2018/08/03/slightly-less-than-truths-iv-v/ for a blistering account of what we might be missing.

[Anonymous No.11573244]

>>11573158
Post-Modernism stopped being a thing by the 80's tho. Probably even earlier than that.

[Anonymous No.11573269]

>>11571786
>>11571755
Shit channel generally but he managed to eke out some good points against him here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms

[Anonymous No.11573288]

>>11573244
And whatever exist now isn't that different from pomo of the past though?

[Anonymous No.11573303]

>>11572188

You can literally check Twitter yourself.

It is real. I thought it was insane someone would post something that stupid. Had to go through a million other posts of shit to get to it. Fucking Twitter is a blight.

[Anonymous No.11573320]

>>11573012
Oh boy pseud alert!

[Anonymous No.11573334]

>>11573288
It's different in the fact that we see not a single, but multiple collectives trying to redefine the means of achieving a single definition of truth, or what makes for a collective, universal truth.

It's interesting now, because there's all these antagonistic groups with their own versions of universal truths entangled into an ideological battle for the monopoly over universality of certain axioms.

[Anonymous No.11573340]

>>11573334
You could say that about probably any point in human history

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573347]

>>11573241
I appreciate the response.

>which shows how what we call postmodernism is actually the logic of the enlightenment taken to its conclusion.
The problem here, that I take with post-modernism, (by the way, I actually think that the characterization of post-modernism as Enlightenment philosophy taken to an extreme is justifiable, if lacking in implicit proscription of other, equally tenable characterizations) is that you're actually right, in some sense, and that doesn't paint a flattering portrait of post-modernism.

The reason being that Enlightenment era thinking was dominated by the dogmatic precept of the separation of the intellectual faculty from the emotional faculty as taking paramount importance in the pursuit of objective truth. We now know that this is seriously flawed, as the way in which our brains operate depends on the interdependence of the "emotional" faculties and the "intellectual" faculties on the construction of the conscious experience, and of the lymbic systems ability to assign valence judgments to the imagined consequences of the motivational significance assigned to any given thought, and that thoughts significance to motor output.

[Anonymous No.11573355]

>>11573340

Nah, it really started with the renaissance and reached it's peak during the bolshevik revolution.

[Anonymous No.11573358]

>>11573334
When has that ever changed at all? Why do you think pomo was created?

[Anonymous No.11573368]

>>11572160
Oh man he is just slurping up any conservative views at this point of time is he?

[Anonymous No.11573378]

>>11573368
To be fair, he accounts for the contradiction in his analysis
Not defending the rest of the analysis btw

[Anonymous No.11573382]

>>11573358
It didn't really change up until post-modern philosophy emerged. Up until then, the entire intellectual spiritual gist of the west was that, well, history is going in a single direction, and that the direction is progress.

Whatever ideologic battles happened during that period never changed the basis for why it happened in the first place. Left - Right is just different interpretation for the same perspective, one which died with WW II

[Anonymous No.11573389]

>>11573231
All summer?

[Anonymous No.11573396]

>>11573355
Lol okay

[Anonymous No.11573410]

I would be willing to bet December is actually Jordan Peterson if not for the fact that Peterson is probably too busy managing his Patreon wealth to come here and try to discuss things he has no idea about, just like December.
Dude, I get that you agree with Peterson, and are quick to follow his line of thought and argumentation, but that doesn't change the fact that his usage of terms like neo-Marxism, postmodernism and whatever the hell he invents next, is not only historically misinformed, but also internally incoherent. His diagnosis is based solely on ghost stories of the Frenchies plotting against capitalism and the social status quo, stories that he was probably told by Stephen Hicks who himself is to genuine philosophy what Stephen King is to genuine literature. Dude, it's just horror stories.
I think Peterson had benign intentions when he started his movement, but it grew so fast that it's initial good nature gave way to business and all these charades that followed, including the cult-like following, and the 'intellectual dark web' circus with all those intellectual insects from YouTube. This development just reinforces his conviction, the sense of mission and pride, and it's good business as well, but this warrant he's just a celebrity now. I think it's quite understandable for a person of his age, occupying this particular place and time, to have developed a belief that he understood the zeitgeist. All he's been doing is building his social position in face of this belief and has become a circuit for capitalistic conservatism.
The problem is he really didn't understand much and he either lacks perspective to see that or he knows it and chooses to stick with it for some reason. His greatest intellectual sin is that he fails to see that what he criticises was bound to happen with technological development, changing beliefs and social acceptance, as it has already happened countless times over centuries. It's not a bunch of dead academics whom, after all, only a handful of people actually read. If he wants to blame moral rot, he'd have to start with the Greeks and study world history beyond his Solzhenitsyn and 3rd wave feminism to get some actual perspective. There's more worthwhile and important matters to think about and commit to than Peterson's windmills.

[Anonymous No.11573416]

>>11573382
There were counter- movements to the Enlightenment like Romanticism.

[Anonymous No.11573437]

>>11573396
It's hard for a westerner to see the faults of his ancestor's own mistakes. But that's ok, besides, the people behind the renaissance were acting from an unconscious desire to discover reality using the tools of the ancient greeks, no less.

>>11573416
Yeah, but it could be viewed as a variation within the spectrum of the overarching, fundamental idea. Romanticism, or other currents which reacted to it, never really changed that fundamental idea of progress. On the contrary, each reaction sought to clarify the aspect of that progress in a particular direction.

[Anonymous No.11573447]

>>11573410
Cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11573452]

Ain't that a spooky thing?

[Anonymous No.11573462]

>>11573437
Do you think that the Greeks were one homogenous society or something?

[Anonymous No.11573474]

>>11572150
i can tell you're one of those types that think they're "intellectual" because they know a few words and watch people talk. Open up some books sometime brainlet

[Anonymous No.11573494]

>>11573462
The fruits of their intellectuals labors in knowledge certainly was.

[Anonymous No.11573499]

>>11573462
they certainly had a lot of homo geniuses

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573504]

>>11573410
Fuck you, I'm not Jordan Peterson. Oh, sure, Jordan Peterson could easily post here, but when you're a world renowned intellectual your time is valuable. And time and effort spent posting about post-modernist Cultural Marxism is a net loss for someone that needs to keep up with the modern psychometric data.

Worst Jordan Peterson would possibly do is a light, harmless shitpost. Like a /pol/ poster commenting jovially about racial superiority. Once he realized where he was he would go back to YouTube.

[Anonymous No.11573505]

>>11573494
Uh wat

[Anonymous No.11573509]

>>11573505
Nevermind ...

[Anonymous No.11573517]

>>11573437
But Romanticism did not proposed a variation into this progress but rather a complete direction elsewhere. I am beginning to think you have created the conclusion and just dismissing whatever counter examples are thrown to you.

[Anonymous No.11573523]

>>11573509
Maybe use proper grammar next me. Are you saying they had a homogenous philosophy also? That there wasn't conflict over what was the true way to go about your life?

[Anonymous No.11573524]

>>11573517
Romanticism is a certain view of aesthetics, and not a philosophy, just so you know.

[Anonymous No.11573527]

>>11573523
*next time

Haha

[Anonymous No.11573536]

>>11573524
So what? Even in philosophy there were many reactionary counters to classical liberalism

[Anonymous No.11573573]

>>11571822
Other than maybe the power privilege bit at the end he isn't wrong, though if he goes on to pretend "it's political therefore it is important" then he would be wrong, since even if political it's still a criticism of a kid's game. In fact what "political acts" you chose to make a big deal of (especially ones that are done very casually and considering unimportant by the ones doing them, as would be the case with a Mario review) is itself an act of political manipulation.

[Anonymous No.11573591]

It's retarded to argue for or against "ideologies" "philosophies" or "movements" like postmodernism, feminism, marxism, etc. I would argue it's pointless to argue against a person as a whole rather than the individual points they make. It is more productive to argue against specific views and opinions as they are presented, rather than arguing against a vague, perceived collection of beliefs and ideas, doing so is like fighting a phantom.

[Anonymous No.11573594]

>>11573536
What does liberalism have to do with the renaissance or with anything i posted above?

[Anonymous No.11573597]

>>11571575
Dr. Jordan Peterson simply couldn't keep up with the mind-scrambling insanity that was finding Crowleyan parallels between postmodernist classics like "Gravity's Rainbow" by Tango "Bananas" Chinacrab, "Finnegans Wake" by Junior "Whoopee" Gladsnake, and "An Autobiography Starting At the Beginning Of My Crush On Mothman" by David Foster Wallace, and on June 19th 2018 Jordan B. Peterson, beloved author of "Wash Your Penis" and "12 Commandments I Scried From the Brown Marks On Pages From 'The Power of Positive Thinking' I Used To Wipe My Ass With" (abbreviated by the introductory essay writer Harold Bloom as "What?"), had a nervous breakdown ending in a psychotic episode unraveling his sense of self and being in a hypermodernist nightmare ranging from Youtube Poop to Rwandan genocide.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573600]

>>11573591
This may come as a shock to you, but all of those things are just collections of specific arguments which people generally agree with.

[Anonymous No.11573605]

>>11573597
>finnegans wake is postmodern

[Anonymous No.11573610]

>>11573594
classical liberalism is the Enlightenment's poster philosophy brainlet

[Anonymous No.11573616]

>>11571999

[Anonymous No.11573617]

>>11573605
Finnegans Wake turned my life into an SJW

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573626]

>>11573616
He's literally not wrong though.

[Anonymous No.11573627]

>>11571999

[Anonymous No.11573628]

>>11573605
>the novel as a practical joke
>not postmodern

[Anonymous No.11573640]

>>11573626
That doesn't mean it's not bait

[Anonymous No.11573645]

>>11573628
>FW was a joke
>joyce was pulling an epic troll on everyone

>>>/cracked.com/
fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.11573649]

The ironic thing is that if Peterson actually read Adorno he would probably agree with him, but he’s too invested in his paranoid cultural marxist conspiracy theory to do that.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573665]

>>11573649
Take a humanities course at your local university.

[Anonymous No.11573668]

>>11573665
???????????????????

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573679]

>>11573668
>Marxist conspiracy theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the default zeitgeist in the humanist.

[Anonymous No.11573692]

>>11573600
If you're not Peterson, you sure talk like him

[Anonymous No.11573704]

>>11573679
If it's not a conspiracy theory, then there is no reason to criticize it the way it's been criticized by the JBP crowd, namely by calling it a 'conspiracy theory' in academia. lmao

[Anonymous No.11573705]

>>11573679
Seems to me that a lot of PoMo is very critical of Marxism and established narrative in general.

[Anonymous No.11573712]

>>11573679
I was referring to the concept “cultural marxism” as the conspiracy theory

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573720]

>>11573705
>>11573712
See >>11572317

>>11573704
>If it's real, then why treat it like it's real?
Ya really got me, bud.

[Anonymous No.11573745]

>>11573610
>Individuality is a product of the enlightenment

Well, i mean, for the descendats of literal collectivist forest nigger primitives it might have been, but thats not unique to the west and certainly not the the ancient greeks

[kinggucci69 !!36GpOxAcrVH No.11573767]

>>11572568
this whole post is a masterpiece of cringe and adolescence

[Anonymous No.11573790]

>>11572246
>>11572265
>>11572280

That's not precisely correct. He absolutely talks at length about the fact that the world is fundamentally a chaotic place. What you'd call an unfamiliar or chaotic situation is what occurs when your routines and limited functional knowledge fail, when they cease to give you an orderly, comprehensible existence. In crisis, the veil of order is torn off and the world is revealed as the chaotic place that exists outside our small, feeble institutions.

But if your beliefs have failed you, then this chaos is the world telling you you were wrong, and need to make change, and so in that chaos lies opportunity for growth.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573794]

>>11573745
The legal presupposition of sovereignty of the individual over any other consideration is actually a uniquely Western tradition.

[Anonymous No.11573803]

>>11572285
>haha never mind that this image is figure 56 a highly unconventional and dense book, a good portion of which is devoted to making sense of these diagrams, don't they look silly and make no sense??
There are smart ways to criticize Peterson and then there are fucking dumb ways.

[Anonymous No.11573815]

>>11571577
pomo nomo acadomono

[Anonymous No.11573823]

>>11573794
The fuck ? That's not the case at all, neither in the circumstances of the glorious revolution neither the french revolution

[Anonymous No.11573836]

>>11573012
>>11573130

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573845]

>>11573823
I said uniquely Western, not that all Western countries incorporate it.

[Anonymous No.11573875]

>>11573845
What's western, you think the US represents the west ? Because that's the only country where that idea was accepted and applied universally, and not to a selected few like in Europe. And jn that case it's a tradition unique only to the US, getting some influence from the mainland but being totally different concepts.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11573879]

>>11573875
All I can say is that you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.11573883]

>>11573368

Marx fails at Empiricism as much as he fails at Reason. The absurdity of his world model is only matched by the absurdity of his principles.

If country A had 1 unit of resources and country B had 2 units, there should be a direct relation between their quantities of resources and their practical capabilities, or at least the observable acumulation of raw materials conducive thereof. Instead, this is the one metric countries or other groups NEVER align by, even when accounting only for known resources and good means of extraction. Marx only hand-waves this away as "confusion". Retard.

[Anonymous No.11573906]

>>11573879
Nice argument. Welcome to my filter

[Anonymous No.11573911]

>>11573883
>trying to change the subject to be about Marx
Is there a limit to how embarrassing petersonfags are?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11574136]

>>11573911
>>11573906
Get out

[Anonymous No.11574667]

>>11574136
wash you're penis

[Anonymous No.11574796]

>>11574136
never should of come here