This nigga lied to me. The so called "evil post-modernists" and "cultural marxists" are actually ten times more critical of post-modernity and society that he ever could be.

File: 351 KB, 1000x750, Jordan-Peterson-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:01:03 2020 No.16952349 [Reply] [Original]

This nigga lied to me. The so called "evil post-modernists" and "cultural marxists" are actually ten times more critical of post-modernity and society that he ever could be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:03:29 2020 No.16952372 das it mane

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:04:02 2020 No.16952379 >Jordan Peterson is a fraud In other news, water is wet

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:04:18 2020 No.16952381 >>16952349 glad u saw the light now read adorno

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:04:55 2020 No.16952390 >>16952349 He definitly overstepped his range when he began talking about postmodern neomarxist whateverthefuck should have kept it with the lobster stuff

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:05:32 2020 No.16952395 >>16952349 it just looks that way to you because you didnt eat enough meat and benzos

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:07:39 2020 No.16952416

>>16952390
This. He can get away with the Jungian psychoanalysis, since it's obvious he's at least read the texts he talks about, but his take on anything outside the field of psychoanalysis is unbearably cringe. In his debate with Zizek he admitted he had never read anything by Marx until the debate, and he had only read the Communist Manifesto. There are literally college sophomores more qualified to talk about neo-post-cultural-Marxism or whatever than he is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:09:28 2020 No.16952426 >>16952349 nice, you saw the glimpse of the real light keep on studying anon

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:28:02 2020 No.16953002

>>16952349
>>16952390
"Postmodern neomarxist" was a buzzword he made up and I have no idea why he arbitrarily chose the Frankfurt School to be the boogeyman. I don't think he could meaningfully tell you anything Benjamin or Adorno actually believed I'd his life depended on it, because Peterson's a hack and hasn't read anything they wrote

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:30:54 2020 No.16953028 >>16952349 Never forget https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsz6ijXWS3A

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:49:19 2020 No.16953163 >>16952390 Kinda hard to stay in check when you are taking massive doses of benzos every day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:50:56 2020 No.16953173 File: 39 KB, 415x470, 2l0ahe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Yep, any retard who actually read Baudrillard, Derrida, Adorno and Debord already knew that. Peterson is really a complete, utter brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:51:54 2020 No.16953187 i remember lit the day the debate aired live. petersonfags were in absolute shambles. WHERE ARE THE sniff MARXISTS, PETERSON?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:54:02 2020 No.16953203

>>16952349
In a way it is being very generous to leftists to imagine there is a deep philosophical underpinning under all their social media virtue signaling. They are just retards and narcissists. There is literally nothing behind them it is only pure retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:56:11 2020 No.16953223 >>16952349 >This nigga lied to me. If you believe what anybody on a screen tells you, you are the problem. Just you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:58:57 2020 No.16953239 >>16953203 Filtered

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:00:48 2020 No.16953253 >>16952349 >>16952390 >>16952416 >>16953002 >>16953173 >>16953187 are you guys willfully ignoring that foucault /marx serve as the intellectual backbone of all the major humanities except philosophy or are you pretending to be retarded?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:00:58 2020 No.16953254

>>16953203
You're free to see that as true but you won't convince a single leftist that you're right about that being true unless you're willing to engage with their explicitly stated beliefs with intellectual honestly. What you're doing here is bad praxis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:02:44 2020 No.16953271 >>16953253 You're a fucking retard who's never read Foucault or Marx. Filtered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:04:25 2020 No.16953286 >>16953253 Explain to me which exact principles of Marx and Foucault serve as the backbone for modern humanities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:05:25 2020 No.16953296 >>16953253 people will reply to this bait and there will be many such cases, sad!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:05:48 2020 No.16953302 >>16953253 >>16953271 >>16953286 Not only has the poster never read Marx or Foucault, they've clearly never passed a college class

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:07:57 2020 No.16953318

I'm not a leftist, but the biggest crime is that Peterson started a movement that smears an entire intellectual tradition. He's used a position of authority to scare some dissatisfied young men from reading things that really cast a light on society.

These intellectuals aren't a monolithic hive-mind where reading one entails transforming into a tankie. I really don't understand how people with conservative social values find nothing of value in texts by Baudrillard or De Bord, for example. Modern neoliberalism is no-one's *team* unless you're a 60 year old investment banker.

>>	doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH Sat Dec 5 16:09:10 2020 No.16953320 >>16953318 based I suspect Peterson might actually share some affinity with Derrida

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:10:44 2020 No.16953333

As a right winger (not braindead /pol/ variety, at least I hope so) I actually find it more productive and intellectually enriching to read leftist thinkers even though I may disagree with a lot of what is being said by them than anything written by self-proclaimed "reactionaries" who just regurgitate the same banal shit over and over again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:11:09 2020 No.16953339 >>16952349 Okay. Where do they criticize fag marriage, lgbt diversity and tranny propaganda? Oh wait, they don't because most of them are degenerates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:11:20 2020 No.16953341 >>16953318 People have to have boogeymen to vent out on, especially if you're a conservacuck, who has to find an easy explanation for why there are new things you don't like

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:13:12 2020 No.16953356

>>16953318
This is true of the whole /pol/ slash trumptard movement, except with democracy.
They are constantly feeding into the insecurity of weak or vulnerable people, saying that their opponents are just lying. And no one who is weak or vulnerable, can check it.
But it's always nice to know that if you only follow orders, everything will be alright.
The opposite. The American, the Liberal, ideal was, think for yourself, question, and make up your own mind.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:19:08 2020 No.16953385

>>16952349
No, they are not. "Postmodern neomarxism" is just the phrase he uses to describe retarded leftoid pseuds working/studying in academia who push intersectional socialism (aka radical liberalism). The only thing these people criticise society for is not being gay and black enough. Where Peterson shows his meme nature is that he attacks those people in order to defend the moderate liberal status quo, which he understands as a good in itself. This, of course, is untrue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:19:32 2020 No.16953389 >>16953253 Ah yes adjunct nerds who need to work 2 jobs and make 30k a year and who's department's funds are constantly getting cut are destroying the western civilization. Rightists belong in camps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:23:41 2020 No.16953417 >>16953389 Cope

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:24:20 2020 No.16953419 >>16953389 What are you on about?

SAGE Sat Dec 5 16:25:29 2020 No.16953428

>>16953318
>These intellectuals aren't a monolithic hive-mind where reading one entails transforming into a tankie. I really don't understand how people with conservative social values find nothing of value in texts by Baudrillard or De Bord, for example. Modern neoliberalism is no-one's *team* unless you're a 60 year old investment banker.

JP is a liberal Ontarian upper middle-class through and through. These people are obsessed with the "accumulation" of social currency. They truly believe that achieving some rare degree of intellectual or cultural posteriority is the equivalent to being one of the top one percenter of society. And in a sense he is somewhat correct, it will allow him to ascend the social echelons and gravitate toward these top 1 percenters, but it is a system of value entirely built on the goodwill and good faith of those he serves. As such he can never appear to be in opposition to them, nor does he really need to actually produce something of great value. It's a show.
Also, given how cringe and soulless his home is, there is no way he could truly read the System of Objects and not feel ashamed the whole time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:25:29 2020 No.16953429 I'm a big Peterson fan. Debate me

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:25:34 2020 No.16953430

>>16953385
their critique of modernity is that it's not left wing enough, they hate capitalism but they're absolutely fine with its consequences, the transes, the open borders, the corporate censorship, etc. look at Zizek, what's his solution to the world's problems? global government

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:26:54 2020 No.16953443 >>16953429 How do we solve the gay question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:26:56 2020 No.16953444 File: 81 KB, 567x561, 1606778337495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I wish marxists and post-modernists were as close as rightists make them out to be

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:27:43 2020 No.16953452 >>16953318 what's novel about the ideas of Baudrilliard and Debord, it's all old hat now, everyone instinctively knows that everything is fake and gay.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:28:02 2020 No.16953454

>>16953429
Why?
>>16953430
They don't even really hate capitalism, they just want to be rich, in charge and really fucking gay. Their focus is minority rights and homosex, not the material conditions of the broad masses. Ever heard of the term "class reductionist"? Very popular with that crowd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:28:24 2020 No.16953458 >>16953443 What gay question? I don't think he has anything against homosexuals

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:29:28 2020 No.16953464 >>16953454 Because he's a genius and probably because i'm a psychologist and know where he's coming from

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:29:36 2020 No.16953465

>>16953385
No one disagrees that there are a few crazy radlib academics and students in universities. The socialist club at my uni is full of idiots who barely read and do drugs every weekend. The problem is using the word "Postmodern neomarxism" implies:

1.that they're all well read on with these thinkers
2.their choices are always in line with the thinkers
3.these thinkers are "socially progressive" in the corporate rainbow logo sense

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:29:39 2020 No.16953466

>>16953385
Everyone in academia is a "leftoid pseud"
The world is left. America is the nation of Liberalism. Theory is Marxist. Chomsky, who is the great /pol/ bugbear, wrote the theoretical text on Mandarins. Mandarins use the language of power, for place. For tenure.
Your English professor, needs to get published to teach. There is zilch actual material that anyone gives a shit about to publish. So he does a Foucault study of the late Alzheimer's stage of Trump's tweets. And everyone claps their little hands and gives him a job.
It's not about left and right. You are stupid, and he is not. So he gets paid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:33:04 2020 No.16953481 File: 1.93 MB, 868x2580, slippery_slope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16953458 So his critique of transgenderism remains surface level? You can't solve the tranny question without solving the gay question first.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:34:33 2020 No.16953494

>>16953464
Oh that explains it I guess. Read the Traditionalists instead, though I doubt a ps*chologist would be able to overcome his Enlightenment biases to actually comprehend spirituality and myth.
>>16953465
>No one disagrees that there are a few crazy radlib academics and students in universities.
>a few
Haha. Nice one.
>1.that they're all well read on with these thinkers
It doesn't and Peterson doesn't claim this at all.
>2.their choices are always in line with the thinkers
Not necessarily.
>3.these thinkers are "socially progressive" in the corporate rainbow logo sense
This can definitely be argued.
If you are actually interested in the position of Peterson on the question, read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/
>>16953466
Genuinely can't tell if you're criticising academic grifters or telling me that I should be a grifter too if I have the "smarts" for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:35:21 2020 No.16953505 >>16953481 He's not attacking trannys directly. He said Bill-C 16 was a violation of free speech and that interfering with the free use of language and punishing those who do not abide is a potential road to oppressive regimes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:37:02 2020 No.16953517 >>16953494 You do know many psychologists are spiritual though, right? Peterson included. Also, have you heard about this Jung guy he talks a lot about myth.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:39:20 2020 No.16953535

>>16953517
They're not really spiritual, because they turn spirit into some sort of Darwinist device that has been keeping humanity in conformity with the laws of nature in order to ensure biological survival. Total inversion of the Traditional view. It's helpful in reigniting the spark of soulless materialist bugpeople - the chief demographic in modern times - but you have to move on or suffer the consequences.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:39:45 2020 No.16953539

>>16953505
>not against gays
>not against trannies
>just against being told to use pronouns
If you can't solve the tranny and gay question first, you don't deserve free speech in the first place because you are an enabler of degeneracy. It's shocking how such an intelligent man is so socially inept that he can't figure this out. But that's probably just the 'tism.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:41:21 2020 No.16953555
File: 126 KB, 1920x1541, fad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16953494
>Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.
>You can see this playing out in practical terms in fields such as gender studies and social work (as well as literary criticism, anthropology, law, education, etc.).

Holy shit, this nigga really doesn't read. He's going off Wikipedia & basic google searches at most

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:42:18 2020 No.16953560 >>16953539 I don't really understand what the "tranny" question is, let alone what "solving" it would mean. Care to elaborate? >>16953535 So your problem with them is that they rely on a scientific method instead of baseless opinions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:43:39 2020 No.16953571 >>16953539 Why would someone have to do a full analysis of the social phenomena that affects lawmaking in order for a bad policy to be struck down? Do you understand how these things work?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:47:42 2020 No.16953599

>>16953555
I would be happy to hear your arguments on that, anon. For what it's worth, I do think that "being soaked in the same patterns of thought" is a bit of a tenuous connection on the level of ideas, but there is obvious pragmatic value in rehashing the old class rhetoric into the current oppression Olympics.
>>16953560
>So your problem with them is that they rely on a scientific method instead of baseless opinions?
Kind of, though I can see already that you are an unswerving believer in liberal epistemology so there's no point in me disagreeing with you anyway. For my part, I am profoundly satisfied with the standard of logical rigour exercised by the Traditionalist school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:49:24 2020 No.16953612 >>16953599 Alrighty to each their own. There was a point in my life when I realized philosophy is much better at asking questions then answering them. Science is where the answers really come from.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:50:35 2020 No.16953626 >>16953612 Philosophy is where science comes from retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:50:57 2020 No.16953627 >>16953612 "Science" can not answer any "philosophical" enquiry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:52:26 2020 No.16953636 >>16953627 Because "philosophical" inquiries are like having your friends over to smoke a blunt It's, all cool, man, and duuuude what if

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:53:59 2020 No.16953647

>>16953626
Lol that's what I said. It's asking the question not answering them.

You should have learnt how to comprehend sentences by now, seeing how you're on a literature board and all.

>>16953627
It can and it has, many times over.

What it might not be able to do is answer "every" philosophical enquiry

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:57:12 2020 No.16953676 >>16953636 And that makes scientists pretend it does not exist, paradoxically making Philosophy much more important to people for their everyday life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:58:16 2020 No.16953685 >>16953636 No? >>16953647 No, science has never answered any "philosophical" questions. At best it has provided people with justifications to assume a philosophical position without defending it with rigorous philosophical arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:58:42 2020 No.16953692 >>16953253 t. high school senior or community college midwit

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:58:57 2020 No.16953693

>>16953560
Transgenderism is a social phenomenon that is detrimental to public health. Ending this social phenomenon should hence take priority.

>>16953571
Anon, it's not about one bad policy. Bad policies arise because there is social demand for them due to public degeneracy. 12 rules for life are the band aid for a normopathic society, they don't address the problem at the root which is normalized narcissism in a capitalist context (see Lasch).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:59:01 2020 No.16953694 >>16953612 >>16953647 Retard. If answers come from science, and science comes from philosophy, then answers come from philosophy.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 16:59:10 2020 No.16953697

>>16953339
> fag marriage, lgbt diversity and tranny propagand
Adorno was already dead when those things started being relevant.
See:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History
>Historians variously trace the beginning of the modern movement in support of same-sex marriage to anywhere from around the 1970s to the 1990s.

Adorno died in 1969. First country to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. Before that tranny talking points were all but invisible to the mainstream.

Think before you post ffs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:00:21 2020 No.16953705 File: 60 KB, 625x773, 1590858161550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16953555 Gives no counterargument other than: this man is wrong and is dumb, therefore I am right

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:00:45 2020 No.16953712 >>16953693 You vastly overestimate the common man. Rate is the person who has the courage and intelligence to disseminate the types of messages you’re thinking of. Rare too are the people who accept the truth of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:01:50 2020 No.16953721 >>16953685 All the questions, that the sciences have provided an answer for, were originally philosophical questions. But I'm sure you can see that many of them have been answered so far?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:02:43 2020 No.16953726 >>16953444 Your whole post is a thing of excellence in an otherwise shit thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:03:09 2020 No.16953727 >>16953694 and here I was thinking /lit/ was a higher IQ board. It's literally like I'm talking to emotionally unstable adolescents

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:03:45 2020 No.16953731 >>16953721 That’s because philosophers developed empirical means of gathering and organizing knowledge for some level of objectivity to be agreed on. At its root, science is still philosophy you fucking dimwit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:05:47 2020 No.16953747 >>16953694 The scientific method is not the philosophical one. Just because humans are a species of bipedal mammal, it don't make us all chimps. Though it does make us feel better about being related to types like you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:05:53 2020 No.16953749 >>16953727 You are clearly the exception to the high IQ trend. Go read some philosophy of science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:06:28 2020 No.16953752 >>16953389 >>16953444 >Rightist This word is cringe, stop using it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:06:36 2020 No.16953756 >>16953731 So philosophers developed microscopes, statistics, telescopes and psychometric tests? Sounds to me like you're an insecure brainlet with a philosophy degree

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:07:01 2020 No.16953762 >>16953747 What strain of thought do you think birthed the scientific method, retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:07:30 2020 No.16953768 >>16953721 What questions would those be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:07:39 2020 No.16953771 >>16953749 Go read anything that isn't philosophy. Trust me it's good to widen your horizons

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:07:59 2020 No.16953775 >>16953762 There you go again with your shitslinging Back in your cage, now, orangotard

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:08:26 2020 No.16953778 >>16953756 You are a reductionist faggot that is ignoring hundreds of years of philosophical thought. Go read up on how biochemistry and cellular biology originated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:08:43 2020 No.16953783 >>16953775 Kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:09:15 2020 No.16953790 >>16953778 Shifting the burden is disingenous. kys before you post again

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:09:45 2020 No.16953793 >>16953778 From biology you absolute moron

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:09:45 2020 No.16953794 >>16953697 Dude, is Adorno synonymous with all the post-modernists and cultural marxists OP mentioned? Think before you post. That being said, Adorno was tendentially based and I wonder what he had to say about homosexuality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:10:56 2020 No.16953810 >>16952379 No it isn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:11:58 2020 No.16953822 >>16953793 Where did biology come form, anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:12:01 2020 No.16953823 >>16953790 >>16953793 >biology comes from biology absolute braindead moron

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:13:00 2020 No.16953830 >>16952390 The lobster was him overstepping his range bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:14:43 2020 No.16953855 >>16953822 >>16953823 See >>16953721 Look I get it you like philosophy that's cool and all. But you have to realize at some point there's other things in life too,

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:15:58 2020 No.16953870 >>16953855 Like telling retards that their claims are wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:16:59 2020 No.16953877 >>16953721 What questions have been answered, shit for brains?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:17:14 2020 No.16953879 >>16953870 Haha yeah. Well I'm bored and haven't been here for quite a while.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:17:55 2020 No.16953886

>>16953712
True for the common man. Yet where is the rare man that thinks so within the confines of reason? All opposition to this nonsense comes from without our public institutions and all support from within. What does it mean to live in a society where narcissism is the state enforced ideology? This goes beyond the issue of policy,

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:18:10 2020 No.16953890 >>16953855 Anon you still haven't answered my question. >>16953768

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:18:13 2020 No.16953892 >35 unique IPs sad thread a bunch of worthless would be communists pretending to speak 'black' to each other while posturing as intellectuals at the same time

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:18:45 2020 No.16953896

>>16953599
I agree that calling it a "tenuous connection" is the most charitable interpretation you can give. If asked, Foucault would deny he was a Marxist- he was a member of the French communist party early in his life, but that period didn't last very long.

>Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare.
This part made me laugh. Off-handedly equating structuralism and historical materialism is intellectually irresponsible. The latter influenced the former, sure, but they're no where near the same thing. Foucault, as far as I'm aware, didn't really even believe in the possibility of meaningful systemic change, which is wholly un-Marxist. The below characterizes some of the ways Foucault butted heads with Marxists & Marxist ideology better than I can:

>These claims led Foucault onto a collision with French Marxism. This could not have been entirely unintended by Foucault, in particular because in the book he specifically accuses Marxism of being a creature of the nineteenth century that was now obsolete. He also concluded the work by indicating his opposition to humanism, declaring that “man” (the gendered “man” here refers to a concept that in English we have come increasingly to call the “human”) as such was perhaps nearing obsolescence. Foucault here was opposing a particular conception of the human being as a sovereign subject who can understand itself. Such humanism was at that time the orthodoxy in French Marxism and philosophy, championed the pre-eminent philosopher of the day, Jean-Paul Sartre, and upheld by the French Communist Party’s central committee explicitly against Althusser just a month before The Order of Things was published (DE1 36). In its humanist form, Marxism cast itself as a movement for the full realization of the individual. Foucault, by contrast, saw the notion of the individual as a recent and aberrant idea. Furthermore, his entire presumption to analyse and criticize discourses without reference to the social and economic system that produced them seemed to Marxists to be a massive step backwards in analysis. The book indeed seems to be apolitical: it refuses to take a normative position about truth, and accords no importance to anything outside abstract, academic discourses. The Order of Things proved so controversial, its claims so striking, that it became a best-seller in France, despite being a lengthy, ponderous, scholarly tome.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:21:32 2020 No.16953917 >>16953517 Is this bait?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:21:53 2020 No.16953918
File: 187 KB, 680x430, 928.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16953877
This is getting out of hand.

Literally anything we've figured out so far.

What constitutes life.

What is matter made out of.

How did our Universe come about?

How babies are made.

This is you btw

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:22:28 2020 No.16953922

>>16953705
Brandolini's law
I'll argue when someone seems genuinely interested, like the guy I'm responding to
>>16953896
>Yet, Foucault’s position is not quite as anti-political as has been imagined. The explicit criticism of Marxism in the book was specifically of Marx’s economic doctrine: it amounts to the claim that this economics is essentially a form of nineteenth century political economy. It is thus not a total rejection of Marxism, or dismissal of the importance of economics. His anti-humanist position was not in itself anti-Marxist, inasmuch as Althusser took much the same line within a Marxist framework, albeit one that tended to challenge basic tenets of Marxism, and which was rejected by the Marxist establishment.

>>16953555
>You can see this playing out in practical terms in fields such as gender studies and social work (as well as literary criticism, anthropology, law, education, etc.).
I really fail to see how Marx's ideas, or historical materialism, have had a direct causal or wholly defining impact on the contemporary political left. Some of that contemporary ideology may have been influenced by other ideologies that were influenced by Marx, but there's better sociological and historical explanations for why leftists are they way they are than conspiratorial top-down accounts of academics indoctrinating students with Marx.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:23:16 2020 No.16953928 >nooo you havent read enough jewish psychobabble to comment on it! >adorno was actually defending the west when he said loving your parents is fascist!

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:23:29 2020 No.16953930

>>16953896
>I agree that calling it a "tenuous connection" is the most charitable interpretation you can give. If asked, Foucault would deny he was a Marxist- he was a member of the French communist party early in his life, but that period didn't last very long.
To be fair, your second sentence is also addressed by Peterson in the quote you provided.
I am aware of the clashes between Foucault/the postmodernists and orthodox Marxists. This does not change two facts:
1. That the postmodernists, like the Marxists, sought to overturn society in favour of a "less oppressive" and more humanitarian mode of existence.
2. That academics with leftists political opinions very often co-opt ideas from both traditions to push their agenda regardless of how nonsensical such a synthesis may be. This is also addressed in Peterson's statement on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:25:30 2020 No.16953939 >>16953892 Yeah, they won't convince me until they tell me how they plan to solve the "gay question" aka public degeneracy in our normopathic society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:27:06 2020 No.16953953 >>16953939 If you see homosexuality as public degeneracy it seems to me like you're the problem in the equation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:27:07 2020 No.16953954 >>16952349 No, they’re not. You all just try so desperately to play semantics with this man that you totally miss his arguments. He is a finger pointing to the moon, and here you are focusing on the finger...

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:27:17 2020 No.16953956
File: 164 KB, 1600x900, big floppa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16953286
>>16953286
they don't use principles per-se, they just accept key points of analysis as a starting point and draw further conclusions based on those

some of these key points of analysis include

>material/power relations among people form a "society"
>"society" creates subjects through many disciplinary forces
>many different power relations play a role in determining one's desires, goals, what one will know or not know, esp what is considered to be true or accepted fact
>many of these disciplinary forces are oppressive, especially divisions among race, gender, and especially class

although these are imprecise points, these points of analysis are found in any sociology curriculum and its variants as xyz-studies. then, other disciplines like linguistics, anthropology, lit/film studies, history, more than anything use sociological "evidence", categories like power relations, gender/race/class to support their analysis "through an xyz-lens".

some examples:

anthropologists will perform their research through "ethnographies" - ie, personal interviews over the course of months with a handful of Poor Brazillian Lesbians of colour, and make broader statements about LGBT rights in brazil

Historians will examine Rome through the lens of class tensions, the Plebians vs the patricians, and perhaps uphold Caesar because he made advancements for the poor working class.

The ultimate point doing this kind of "research" is justified politically, through claims of freeing marginalized groups from oppression. Which is what Peterson generally refers to when he talks about the shift "pomo-neomarxists" undertook after marxism stopped being as popular [/spoiler

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:28:06 2020 No.16953962

>>16953918
>Literally anything we've figured out so far.
That's not an answer, anon.
>What constitutes life.
What constitutes a life form and its duration? Maybe. What constitutes life? I don't think so.
>What is matter made out of.
What is it made out of, anon? Atoms? Quarks? Strings? We'll probably get another innovative theory sometimes soon.
>How did our Universe come about?
Same as the above.
>How babies are made.
This isn't a philosophical question? Pretty sure even dogs know this one.
>>16953922
>I really fail to see how Marx's ideas, or historical materialism, have had a direct causal or wholly defining impact on the contemporary political left. Some of that contemporary ideology may have been influenced by other ideologies that were influenced by Marx, but there's better sociological and historical explanations for why leftists are they way they are than conspiratorial top-down accounts of academics indoctrinating students with Marx.
The chain broke down sometime in the 80s. Until then, Marxism was the main source of ideology but then American college students stopped reading theory + the Soviet Union collapsed. That's when the whole gay disco ideology started to gain traction. Check out communist youth movements in the 70s and 80s and you'll see the transition for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:28:09 2020 No.16953964 >>16953954 Based

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:29:06 2020 No.16953973 >>16953917 >Stupidity must be bait

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:32:08 2020 No.16953994 >>16953962 What this anon said. I’m the shitslinging anon. The retard(s) I’ve been singling out have no idea what they’re talking about whatsoever. Read and think more, faggots.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:34:00 2020 No.16954012

>>16953892
Cry more. If you're offended by people outside your echo chamber, go back to /pol/ where you belong.
>>16953794
I've seen a lot of posters on /pol/ equate the Frankfurt School with """postmodern cultural Marxists"""
>>16953939
You can solve it by not caring
>>16953930
1. That's a really broad umbrella, you can say that of any leftist movement that's ever existed. What leftist hasn't wanted to change & improve the social order? Also, I don't think Foucault even fits this definition. Foucault didn't believe in a teleological conception of history, or progress, and he didn't even think that radical societal change would create a utopia or remove the oppressive elements of power structures.
2. Academics cite academics, so? Some citations don't mean that those citations are the defining aspect of whatever the work citing them is, and I don't see much compelling evidence that it is, so name-dropping Foucault and Marx as the underlying boogeyman doesn't feel justified. If they're only being coopted to serve a different agenda anyway, why call the people coopting those ideas Marxists in the first place?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:34:56 2020 No.16954022

>>16953953
Wrong In a normopathic society, the propagation of something so sterile as homosexuality as normal is highly counter-productive to the public understanding of family-generating stable social relations. No wonder Aristotle likened it to "eating dirt".

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:35:19 2020 No.16954023

>>16953962
I'm not sure what the definition of a philosophical question is. But my point was that anything can be a philosophical question until it's answered.

and while some of the questions I mentioned might not have a final answer. Each of the answers are an answer at a level of analysis and we are coming closer and closer to the bottom of things.

So while philosophical inquiry perhaps started the process (by the way why call it philosophy at all, why not call it a deep inherent curiosity intelligent beings such as ourselves possess) the answers are coming from the scientific methods of other fields.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:36:40 2020 No.16954035 >>16954022 >Caring what a 2000 year old boomer thinks about modern society

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:37:59 2020 No.16954053 >>16953896 dont effort post to people who haven't done their homework

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:40:17 2020 No.16954072 >>16954012 You sound butthurt, this thread is the definition of an echo chamber.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:40:39 2020 No.16954080

>>16953956
Historians especially have assimilated some of Marx and Foucault to a degree, sure, but I guess I take the 4 initial points for granted. What's a compelling alternative view?

And I agree with the anthropologists in your example being silly, there's plenty of poor studies like that being used to justify politicized conclusions. If anything I think that's more a product of the corporatization of academia than anything else, academics setting out what they intend to prove before doing the necessary research to form more robust views, and a system that rewards that sort of research. Which is all the more ironic, because the best critiques of that sort of commodification were offered by the Frankfurt school.

As for the Rome example, in every history class I took the professor offered multiple schools of thought to approach a given subject. Analyzing it based on class relations was sometimes one of those, given the extraordinary wealth inequality in Rome at the time, I think analyzing it through class conflict can help enrich your understanding of the period.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:41:28 2020 No.16954085

>>16954012
>I've seen a lot of posters on /pol/ equate the Frankfurt School with """postmodern cultural Marxists"""
Your first mistake was to assume I post on /pol/. Your second was to equate one dead thinker of the Frankfurt School with the whole of them.
>>16954012
>You can solve it by not caring
In accordance with enlightenment values, the pursuit of the public good is the duty of every citizen. I dispute that homosexuality is conducive to the public good since it does not generate anything, hence its legal and discursive privileges rest on shallow idpol handouts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:41:50 2020 No.16954089 >>16953028 Peterson is winning...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:43:55 2020 No.16954111 >>16954089 By the way Peterson won the debate and I don't understand how brainlets don't see it. Žižek never provides any solutions to the proposed problems and is in the public sphere solely because he enjoys the attention like most post-modernists

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:44:11 2020 No.16954115

>>16953286
The Surplus value thing, the reduction of human relations to power dynamics, and conflict theory; all quite heavily figure into sociology, psychology and any 'studies' major.' Without a doubt a lot of the stuff by people like Kimberly Crenshaw, Gayle Rubin, Gloria Anzaldua and Derrick Bell are quite heavily influenced by Marx, Sartre and Foucault. I mean Gayle Rubin's "Traffic in women" is a foundational text of modern women's studies and sociology, and that is an obviously Marxist work.

>>16953318
On poker night I play with a bunch of fairly hard right guys in my philosophy department, and we're all pretty on board with people like Ruskin, Baudrillard, De Bord, and occasionally John Berger. One of my favorite books in Mark Fischer's Capitalist Realism.

>>16953465
> A few
There's more than a few.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:46:26 2020 No.16954131

>>16953271
I've read some of Capital by Marx and the communist manifesto. The master slave dialectic Marx inherited from Hegel has been carried on through to the hierarchical critique in what Zizek calls postmodern revolutionaries.
I don't know why people are so enraged about this point.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:46:32 2020 No.16954133

>>16953994
It really boils down to epistemology, anon. Most people just take liberal epistemology for granted since that's all they know.
>>16954012
That's all well and good, anon, but you'll have to agree that universities are a far left stronghold - especially at the social and also increasingly at the faculty level. An incoherent "anti-oppression" synthesis between socialism and postmodernism is the social glue that perpetuates this hegemony and silences opposing views. Peterson is criticising a very obvious phenomenon, which, while incoherent, is nevertheless really extant. As to why they should be called Marxists, you are correct - there really is no excuse to calling these radical liberals "Marxists". The reason Peterson calls them Marxist is either because of imprecise analysis or because he is trying to mount a defence of liberal civilisation, which is much easier to defend against a nebulous "Marxist" enemy than against what should in all fairness be referred to as "Cultural Liberalism".
>>16954023
Here's the thing, anon - these "answers" aren't answers at all. They are just different ways of sidestepping the question. The "scientific" solutions to philosophical problems PRESUPPOSE necessarily having to overlook the philosophical nature of the question itself. To claim that Enlightenment era scientific materialism can answer every philosophical question necessarily means that you have already adopted philosophical materialism as the ultimate truth - you simply sneak it in through the backdoor as to not have to justify yourself.
>>16954035
Nice argument, you really btfo'd the other guy. Imagine thinking that something old can be credible! LOL. Everybody knows that old things are necessarily wrong.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:47:59 2020 No.16954142

>>16954085
/pol/ is the only place on the internet I see defenses of Peterson, so it's my only source of information on what his fans believe. I've never seen anyone namedrop Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, or more recent openly Frankfurt School-influenced publications, just the name as a throwaway "example"
>>16954085
You misused conducive, I think you meant something like detrimental. Smoking, masturbation, and me sitting on my ass playing video games all day are all legal yet they do nothing for the public good. What's the difference? Also, what the hell did you mean by discursive there? I'm trying to approach you charitably here instead of assuming you shoehorned in a big word to seem smarter than you are.
>>16954089
If you haven't read any of the authors they mentioned, I can imagine why you might think that
>>16954111
Marxists have always been great at critique, not so great at solutions. Peterson's solution is incredibly flimsy though
>>16954053
Good point I should probably stop

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:48:05 2020 No.16954144 >>16954111 1. Neither of them won the debate. 2. It wasn't even a "debate", it was a polite disagreement at best. It's just the fanboys sperging out over "who won" when neither of the two men seemed interested in confrontational rhetoric at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:49:30 2020 No.16954154 >>16954131 >The master slave dialectic Marx inherited from Hegel That's Nietzsche you clown

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:51:51 2020 No.16954171

>>16954133
I'm not sure where the alternative to science brings you in the end. Is it just circle-jerking for fun? Is it a self-esteem boost to feel you're above the silly academics trying to find concrete answers?

One of the things that most upsets me about people nowadays is how ungrateful they are for how far we've come as a species, and a great deal of the journey was thanks to none other than "scientific materialism"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:51:58 2020 No.16954173 >>16952349 >The so called "evil post-modernists" and "cultural marxists" are actually ten times more critical of post-modernity and society that he ever could be. You would have to be smoothbrained to come to such a conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:52:55 2020 No.16954180 >>16954144 Agreed "won" was an overstatement. But he did well imo.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:53:41 2020 No.16954186

>>16952349
> The so called "evil post-modernists" and "cultural marxists" are actually ten times more critical of post-modernity and society that he ever could be.
Two things:
1. Post modern marxists are not intellectually consistent, like most atheists
2. The only topics that liberal intellectuals actually care about is that society is not gay enough and that there's rich people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:54:07 2020 No.16954191 >>16954154 It's from the Phenomenology of Spirit you clown. You're thinking of Master—Slave morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:54:22 2020 No.16954195 File: 439 KB, 492x503, 1603890588954.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only people whose critiques have any merit are fascists. It's that simple.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:54:43 2020 No.16954200

>>16953956
Constructivist and structuralist takes aren't unique to Marxism. You have it in IR, which is a more conservative field. You see the post-modern problems of language in Quine and Wittgenstein.

Hell, while analytical philosophy is mostly laid out as a reaction to idealism and a century of Hegelian influence, it was as much about language and constructed meaning.

Critical studies isn't wrong in its critiques. It's wrong in that it puts the cart before the horse because it can't justify it's goals due to the same flaws it finds in more mainstream viewpoints.

The only thing I truly don't like about critical theory on an intellectual level (its advocates are unbearable cry babies,but so are modern MAGA style conservatives) is that it is dishonest by dressing itself up in the clothes of positivism and using the language and work of sciences as a bait, and then switching to arguments that undermine said sciences when it suits them. It's an ontological problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:55:27 2020 No.16954211 He's not very knowledgeable outside his field but tries to get the /pol/ audience by constantly talking about topics they like. Very cringe and likely just doing it for the money if not retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:55:28 2020 No.16954210 >>16954186 >intellectually consistent Unlike Cleetus, here Can you all just take your pol-bait discussion and fuck off somewhere? /Trash/ would be fine, if /pol/ makes you feel like the cheap nazi party-soldiers you all are

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:55:50 2020 No.16954214

>>16954154
That's not what he's talking about, anon. Have you read Hegel?
>>16954171
>I'm not sure where the alternative to science brings you in the end. Is it just circle-jerking for fun? Is it a self-esteem boost to feel you're above the silly academics trying to find concrete answers?
Philosophy is also an academic discipline, though you are to an extent correct that a lot of it boils down to vague speculation - which at any rate I would consider a step up from scientism. With all that said, this is why I prefer metaphysics to philosophy as it is traditionally understood and that's why I recommended the Traditionalist school to you.
>One of the things that most upsets me about people nowadays is how ungrateful they are for how far we've come as a species, and a great deal of the journey was thanks to none other than "scientific materialism"
I give you that much. I think I'm past my "return to monke" phase - civilisation and material progress did offer us a lot, though at a grave cost which will likely result in global collapse or worse. I am thankful for the comparatively materially privileged life I am living. I just wish secular civilisation didn't suffocate the living spiritual traditions we used to have which provided meaning to life, the universe and everything else.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:57:05 2020 No.16954223

>>16954142
>/pol/ is the only place on the internet I see defenses of Peterson, so it's my only source of information on what his fans believe. I've never seen anyone namedrop Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, or more recent openly Frankfurt School-influenced publications, just the name as a throwaway "example"
You may have noticed that I am shitting on Peterson as well.
>You misused conducive, I think you meant something like detrimental. Smoking, masturbation, and me sitting on my ass playing video games all day are all legal yet they do nothing for the public good. What's the difference? Also, what the hell did you mean by discursive there? I'm trying to approach you charitably here instead of assuming you shoehorned in a big word to seem smarter than you are.
No, I dispute its conduciveness. That is not a misuse of the word, since it implies a negation of said conduciveness. But maybe your first language is not English. Yes, Smoking, masturbation, and me sitting on my ass playing video games are all legal. In fact they should be. Homosexuality should be legal as well. I was talking about legal privileges such as the concept of gay marriage with all tax breaks and benefits that entails. Those are legal privileges. Nobody goes around and legally privileges smoking. As for the discursive privileges, it may not have escaped your notice that lgbtq is shilled as the hip thing to be wherever you go.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:57:26 2020 No.16954229

>>16954133
So you admit he's using the term in bad faith so it plays well on the public stage? That's honestly what irks me most about him as a public figure, and why I ever bothered to check out his ideology in the first place, and why I think he's just a half-assed pseudo-intellectual savvy enough to capitalize on the current political climate by using the veneer of expertise derived from his status in academia to justify reactionary ideology.

Universities tend to lean politically left, sure, they always have. But I think lumping all leftists together with the social justice types misses the huge amount of disagreement between different sectors of the left, and it mischaracterizes a lot of people by equating them to a strawman cherry-picked from the most obnoxious elements of a "movement". I don't really support trigger warnings, or campus censorship beyond maybe some very obvious hate speech, but I'm certainly a leftist. This is true across the board: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:57:27 2020 No.16954230

>>16954200
BTW, that Peterson has to resort to the language of conspiracy to explain how pomo evolved, as if the ideas were formed by some cabal as the Soviet Union fell, bespeaks his brainletism. He needs good vs evil Manicheanism to make sense of things, or at least to market them.

He brings out classical liberal appeals to liberty, but then he's happy to pose for pictures with people wearing slogans of the illiberal far right, because he makes money off them. No ethics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:58:13 2020 No.16954234 >>16954214 Alright anon, let's leave it at that. Nice talk. P.S. I think spirituality will make a comeback in the years ahead

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:58:28 2020 No.16954237 >>16954191 Christ I'm an idiot, yeah you're right. My B

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:58:29 2020 No.16954238 >>16954195 Unfortunately it is no longer 1924.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:59:26 2020 No.16954253 >>16954210 Try again, you pretentious cocksucker.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:59:29 2020 No.16954254 >>16954154 to atone your sin you have to drop whatever you're reading right now and read Phenomenology of Spirit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:01:39 2020 No.16954275 >>16954234 >>16954214 By the way I think Peterson would agree with the traditionalists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1e2DfwN5oQ&ab_channel=MCzerna

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:03:10 2020 No.16954289 Threads like these are proof that philosophy rots your brain. Even teenage weebs aren't this spastic.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:03:31 2020 No.16954292

>>16954211
This. I recall one video in particular where he is lecturing wide eyes undergrads who look up with sycophantic glee.

He is trying to make classical liberal arguments for why treating people solely based on their group identity is wrong. He wants to come up with an example of when people were killed for their identity.

Does he go for the obvious example of the Nazis? No. It's got to be the damn commies to advance the larger argument against leftism. He's got to cite the period of the Hodolomor! It is very in vouge at this time, rediscovered thanks to Timothy Snyder's new book.

So he goes with the Polish operation right? People killed just for being defended from Poles, even though it has nothing to do with details of their life. That was during the Hodolomor.

Of course he doesn't. He has to go with the Kulaks. The worst example because being a "Kulaks" was highly malleable. It was an identity made up to facilitate politicide, not the point you were making. But or course, just like he didn't read Marc before debating on him, this retard probably didn't bother actually reading about the Hodolomor. It was "hey, communists did a Holocaust too! It even sounds similar!."

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:05:24 2020 No.16954313 Brainlet is a brainlet, more news at 10pm

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:05:26 2020 No.16954315 >>16954292 >reddit spacing

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:06:53 2020 No.16954329 >>16954238 No. Soon it will be 2024. History is repetitive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:08:05 2020 No.16954340 >>16954223 I just misread your post, sorry about that. I guess your argument just doesn't make sense unless you already hate gays, which I don't, so it doesn't.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:11:22 2020 No.16954369

>>16954229
>So you admit he's using the term in bad faith so it plays well on the public stage?
I don't know if he's using it in bad faith, or if he's just not insightful enough to realise it's wrong or if that's just how it looks through his perspective. I do think he's wrong, but it's hardly some hack job like leftoids claim.
>That's honestly what irks me most about him as a public figure, and why I ever bothered to check out his ideology in the first place, and why I think he's just a half-assed pseudo-intellectual savvy enough to capitalize on the current political climate by using the veneer of expertise derived from his status in academia to justify reactionary ideology.
Liberalism is reactionary?
>But I think lumping all leftists together with the social justice types misses the huge amount of disagreement between different sectors of the left, and it mischaracterizes a lot of people by equating them to a strawman cherry-picked from the most obnoxious elements of a "movement".
Good point anon. I am pretty much as far right as it gets, but honestly I like some traditional leftists. Here's the thing though - atm the social justice types are your vanguard, like it or not. Who's pushing leftism everywhere? What brand of leftism is it? Who brags about it all the time and who hogs all the attention? Intersectional social justice types. I know there are leftists who disagree with them and I know it sucks to be ignored, but unfortunately your historical role is played out and these guys are going to be calling the shots for a long time to come. You can't honestly expect right wingers to pull their punches and have detailed factional analysis of the left when they're constantly engaged in struggle against a single group of leftists, backed by state power and the forces of neoliberalism.
>>16954234
>>16954275
I know he will, but not for the right reasons. He misses the point. For him spirituality, myth, religion etc. are all just means to an end. He doesn't actually understand them, except as some evopsych tool for humanist progress. The Traditionalists on the other hand expound a very different and unique (at least from modernist pov) worldview.
>>16954254
Based Hegelposter.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:12:45 2020 No.16954374

>>16954080
>>16954080
>>16954080
desu i dont want what i'm saying to be a defense of Peterson necessarily, but Peterson is right in pointing out that the politicized conclusions are baked into the theories.

Marx was an especially political thinker, and Foucault was involved with activism in his time. They were both strong proponents of taking theory to the streets, so to speak. It's true that a lot of bad studies are funded through corporatization of academia, but it's not merely a coincidence/misreading that widespread left-activism arises from their thought. Comparatively, i think the nietzsche-nazi relation is just a bad misreading

it's hard to say what an alternate view looks like. I don't really want to offer a view. I guess rather i want to say that using some prepackaged, simple analysis should be avoided, especially when talking about relations between millions of people

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:13:35 2020 No.16954383

>>16954340
Dude, what do you not understand about the fact that homosexuality does not add anything to society that deserves its legal promotion through tax breaks, adoption rights, etc. pp.? But maybe your understanding of the state is that it is a sum of pressure groups that need to be accommodated even in their irrational demands to exist peacefully? That is not my definition of what a state should be. A state should make laws only on the basis of directing its citizens toward the common good. As I said before, homosexual behaviour does not generate anything, it does not produce children and through that social responsibilities, it is sterile.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:14:39 2020 No.16954395 >>16954369 Let me know if this changes your mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUboRYTHP58&ab_channel=ManOfAllCreation

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:19:46 2020 No.16954454 >>16954383 Please get out of your ass and read a paper for a change. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/a0031521

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:21:28 2020 No.16954461

>>16954200
>>16954230
well, i was referring to those specific, sociologically relevant takes. ofc constructivists and structuralists are found across the board. I agree with your point about critical studies pretty much entirely

as for beterson, i agree with most of that except,
1. the far right hates him and calls him juden peterstein, and that one pepe picture he genuinely had no idea
2. he thinks good and evil are fixed categories of human psychology, so ofc he describes pomo's evolution in those terms as he thinks they're accessible. Idk if he's full on machiavellian with his money making scheme tho

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:29:54 2020 No.16954546

>>16954454
>It is proposed that male homosexuality has evolved to increase the reproductive success of male siblings and to decrease interfamily conflict. That is, by having a homosexual orientation, a younger male sibling increases his inclusive fitness by reducing competition over resources, whereas his older brothers enjoy higher reproductive success by having more resources available for reproduction. Finally, the reproductive costs of this sexual orientation are kept low by the elevated probability that a homosexual man will find himself in an arranged marriage where he is likely to have children.
How do you think this counters my argument in any way that homosexual behaviour does not generate stable social responsibilities? Also this operates on the questionable scientific assumption that homosexuality is exclusively hereditary and occurs mainly in younger siblings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:31:06 2020 No.16954558 File: 480 KB, 410x582, 1598631936090.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16954195 Unfortunately we live in a time like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:32:06 2020 No.16954567 >>16954454 >please read this paywalled article I certainly did not read but which fits my argument jesus, you're going low dude

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:32:58 2020 No.16954572 >>16954546 You said that it brings nothing to society, while there seems to be an evolutionary basis for it hence it does.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:33:19 2020 No.16954574

>>16954395
Don't worry anon, I am very aware of Peterson's positions, since he's the one who pushed me into the rabbit hole of spiritual considerations. With that said, skip to 3:00 to see what he really thinks. He makes no metaphysical claims - rather, he conceives as this experience as human, though real. His definition of transcendence isn't the same as that of the Traditionalists - which is that of authentic contact with the divine. It is instead oriented along the lines of Jungianism - "transcendence" comes to mean getting in touch with subconscious, collective, naturalistic and subpersonal forces that reside in your unconscious. This is the exact opposite of the Traditional worldview. This is also why the Traditionalists, viewed broadly, discouraged the use of drugs - while in a spiritual adept they dissolve everything outside the spiritual consciousness, in the common man they dissolve the personality itself into a lower, collective and subpersonal level, since the common man has not put any effort into strengthening and refining his spirit and has no "transcendent core" to speak of.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:34:02 2020 No.16954579 >>16954567 It was just an example. I also assumed intellectuals such as you guys would know how to use scihub by now

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:37:52 2020 No.16954606 >>16954579 >scihub God bless that woman

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:38:42 2020 No.16954614

>>16954572
The evolutionary basis being a biological dead end, death, the generation of nothing. The good you're implying is a rhetorical trick, it lies in a double negation, its self-eliminating tendency. Why should we privilege that? In addition, this is operating on the assumption that we live in a traditional agrarian society with resource shortages and not a globalized consumer society. So at most we are talking about a negative evolutionary trait that has become obsolete since industrialization.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:38:46 2020 No.16954616
File: 109 KB, 1201x626, 1596393557001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Conservatives (burgers especially) are either too stupid or too stuck-up to admit that most of the postmodern conditions they dislike are direct symptoms of capitalism. Instead they choose marxism as a boogeyman because that totally works when your nation is a capitalist imperialistic superpower that has tried to demolish every anti-capitalist country to brainwash its citizens into thinking that alternative systems don't work.
It's actually fucking laughable how much shit "the left" gets for all types of issues within this neoliberal system, despite the fact that leftists' political power in the west is close to zero.
It's not that Peterson is fighting a ghost - it's that he has not a single clue who his enemy is and where they came from.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:40:02 2020 No.16954624 >>16954574 Bets example of this would be his lecture on the lion king. Reducing metaphysical concepts to representations of work and family hierarchies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:41:39 2020 No.16954633 >>16954616 Okay, man. You're in charge now, with what do we replace capitalism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:44:34 2020 No.16954652 >>16954633 Corporatism.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:44:37 2020 No.16954653

>>16954614
Most homosexuals I know are more productive than the average heterosexual. Their value in a globalized consumer society is already accounted for in that case.

Btw they're also more intelligent than the average heterosexual.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22293319/

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:47:18 2020 No.16954679

>>16953253
>Foucault/Marx
What the fuck? Foucault was literally known at the time for being extremely anti-Marxist and arguing against all Marxist areas of academia. He even once said that Marxism was inherently genocidal (in Society Must be Defended). What have you read of Foucault's works?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:48:33 2020 No.16954689

>>16954369
No, Peterson is reactionary. Reread that sentence. But yeah, social justice types are good at hogging the spotlight. There's plenty of other left-leaning ideology out there distinct from that, just look at Sanders and his economic platform, and how many younger leftists are democratic socialists. I took the time to figure out what Peterson believed so I can justifiably critique him- I expect the same thing from right wingers if they want to cite Foucault, Marx, or anyone else.

Also, I wouldn't say leftists are back by state power, beyond corporations saying social-justice aligned things because it's expedient. Look at the police response to Black Lives Matter protesters, Biden's response to "Defund the Police", the democratic party establishment's efforts to suppress democratic socialism, and plenty of other ways various leftists ideas are suppressed by existing power structures. Both sides hate neoliberalism for the most part.
>>16954374
I appreciate you reconstructing his view. I'd disagree that the presence of politics in an author's works delegitimizes them, and I'd need a lot more specific examples of how it occurred for Foucault/Marx, but I never get any answers because vast majority right wingers (Peterson included) are too lazy to read the people they cite. Peterson admitted during the Zizek debate that the only Marx he's read is the Communist Manifesto, which he did in preparation for the debate.
>>16954383
I don't think that rights are contingent on productive capacity, I don't like that assumption. That's our main disagreement. Alcohol has a huge negative impact on society in many ways but it's still legal, same with smoking. Do you think they should be illegal? Are you pro-mask mandates, because those would definitely be in the interest of public health. I do think that states are necessarily the sum of pressure groups, and characterizing them as irrational is missing the point of why they want what they want in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:49:32 2020 No.16954701 >>16954653 That's just indicative of normopathic behavior in a narcissist society, homosexuals being especially narcissistic by tendency. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924933812751064

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:51:05 2020 No.16954716 >>16954616 >soulless_bug_comic123.png

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:51:27 2020 No.16954722 >>16954616 I love how commies are just completely gaslighting now You are completely unable to take responsibility for your own actions

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:52:14 2020 No.16954728

>>16954616
You're not understanding that 'marxism' and 'communism' are sort of euphemisms for the amorphous progressive liberal 'politically correct' set of taboos and social/political causes aimed at agitating minorities against the majority. Hard leftoids that aren't board with this frankly weird and jewish stuff try just go the materialist route and blame literally everything on their own boogeyman of capitalism so that they don't get in trouble for disturbing the actual liberal power structure. Gotta say bruvva it feels like there's some projection your post. You can't sidestep the liberal social ideology by just turning up your nose and blaming capitalism bc that aint it chief.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:52:33 2020 No.16954731 Cultural Marxism = replacing class warfare with gender and race struggle

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:55:28 2020 No.16954754 >>16954701 It's funny because you're definitely not dumb but your fundamental presuppositions are incredibly unhealthy and damaging. Anyways I'm out

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:57:04 2020 No.16954767

>>16954689
>I don't think that rights are contingent on productive capacity, I don't like that assumption. That's our main disagreement. Alcohol has a huge negative impact on society in many ways but it's still legal, same with smoking. Do you think they should be illegal? Are you pro-mask mandates, because those would definitely be in the interest of public health. I do think that states are necessarily the sum of pressure groups, and characterizing them as irrational is missing the point of why they want what they want in the first place.
I'm going to bed now. Rights imply duties. I'll address this in detail tomorrow if the thread is still up but generally I will repeat that my argument is not about the legality of homosexual behavior, it's about legal privileges for homosexuals. Masks should be mandatory where sensible. Pressure groups can only make particularist appeals, you won't get a common good out of that. I think that's one of the things leftists like about Carl Schmitt's conception of politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:57:55 2020 No.16954778 >>16954754 You just got btfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:59:29 2020 No.16954794 >>16954731 i.e not the Frankfurt School.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:00:02 2020 No.16954805 >>16954754 >Well I have no counterarguments but I don't like the conclusions so... sign of a weak psyche right here adapt your beliefs to be more sensible and you won't have to cope like this anymore you know?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:01:03 2020 No.16954817

>>16954624
It's the evopsych take on metaphysics.
>>16954652
Uhhh based?
>>16954689
>No, Peterson is reactionary. Reread that sentence.
How?
>There's plenty of other left-leaning ideology out there distinct from that, just look at Sanders and his economic platform, and how many younger leftists are democratic socialists.
I am sorry to break this to you, anon, but there's a huge intersection between social justice shit and the DSA types. I'd rather deal with American Maoists instead.
>Also, I wouldn't say leftists are back by state power, beyond corporations saying social-justice aligned things because it's expedient.
Hate speech laws across the west? Deplatforming? Witch hunts? The busting of right wing organisations (Patriotic Alternative leadership in the UK had their bank accounts cancelled, which is basically an attempt to starve them out)? The left has a hegemony on social policy, the only areas where they don't get their way is economics and social welfare - this being for obvious reasons.
>Look at the police response to Black Lives Matter protesters
There wasn't one. In some countries like the UK it was even funnier, since the unarmed police got routinely beaten by BLM "protesters", but when right wingers organised peaceful counter-protests, the British government sent aggressive riot police to arrest them.
>Biden's response to "Defund the Police"
Only loonies want to defund the police, anon. Biden isn't that demented yet.
>the democratic party establishment's efforts to suppress democratic socialism
This was always going to be the case, as I said earlier the whole wokist movement was a strategic effort to neutralise economic and traditional leftism. Look up what torpedoed Occupy Wallstreet - hint, it was the so-called "progressive stack".
>and plenty of other ways various leftists ideas are suppressed by existing power structures
I genuinely want to know who you are referring to here. I know of some ultralefts who have had violent clashes with other leftists, but I am not aware of any government or corporate suppression of leftism. All I see is shit like Vice shilling for Contrapoints, Twitch promoting "anti-ableist" advocates etc.
>Both sides hate neoliberalism for the most part.
You are sort of correct, but factually the wokist elements have done everything they could to strengthen it and nothing to weaken it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:01:11 2020 No.16954820

>>16954728
>Complains about "da jooz" when he gets called out for boogeymaning
Classic
>>16954778
Not what it looks like from the sidelines
>>16954767
I don't think that the right to marriage implies a duty to reproduce, otherwise by your reasoning couples should never get married if they don't plan to have children.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:01:41 2020 No.16954829 >>16954754 >incredibly unhealthy and damaging. I don't see how. I feel like you are trying to pathologize my arguments because they don't fit your narrative.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:04:15 2020 No.16954852 >>16954679 i mention it in more detail in this post >>16953956 but i'm referring to the academics who actively employ marx and foucault in 2020

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:04:46 2020 No.16954857 >>16954111 >Peterson won the debate

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:05:27 2020 No.16954861

>>16954820
>he said 'jew' now I can dismiss everything
So typical. You people want to talk about one thing, one thing only, and if anything else, it's wrong because it can only be attributable to ONE THING. And that just so happens to be very convenient because all you do is blame some intangible system without naming names or challenging power in any meaningful way, and thus escape repression by way of self-neutering.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:05:36 2020 No.16954863
File: 32 KB, 334x445, unnamed (17).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16954805
Stop arguing with eetards on 4chan, rhetoric doesn't go anywhere. Go outside and beat up people who disagree with you.

You will unironically get a lot further and gain a lot of followers that way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:07:57 2020 No.16954895 >>16954863 maybe the worst advice I've ever been given

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:08:44 2020 No.16954901

>>16954820
>Not what it looks like from the sidelines
I am the sidelines
>anon says gay not okay
>(you) say gay are more useful assets in our society
>anon says our type of society supports anti-social behavior
>links study on gay mentality
>(you) leave the conversation

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:09:51 2020 No.16954912 >>16954895 And that is why you are unsuccessful in changing peoples minds :o(

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:22:09 2020 No.16955037 >>16954616 > if i draw it like a pyramid then it's a pyramid scheme too!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:23:32 2020 No.16955054 >>16954616 Based and true. Conservatives don't realize that capitalism enables all the "degeneracy" they complain about and profits off it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:14:42 2020 No.16955469

>>16954230
He takes hundreds of photos with his fans after his speeches, because he cares about them. The radical postmodernist neomarxists then select a few of them that has phrases they consider "like sooo triggering n stuff" and post it on social media you consume. .

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:16:05 2020 No.16955480 >>16953389 They are losers, and they cling to the little power they have, i.e. the ability to corrupt and destroy what is good.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:19:27 2020 No.16955505

>>16953428
You clearly know nothing about JBP. He is authentic and earnest. Those who care about 'social currency' are those who do not speak up. He had no idea, no way of knowing that his rebellion against his own university and academic culture would lead to his success. He's clearly motivated by a desire to do right, perhaps even a self-destructive desire to become a martyr, but in no way shape or form by "the accumulation of social currency".

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:19:51 2020 No.16955510 >>16952349 the academics, yes; the students, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:21:30 2020 No.16955522 >>16954195 i have never understood this, what merit does fascism have?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:24:08 2020 No.16955538 File: 67 KB, 785x725, pepe13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16954616 >Marxism is a boogeyman dud >Capitalism is behind it all!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:30:26 2020 No.16955580 >>16955522 Organic worldview that bypasses gay Enlightenment thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:33:23 2020 No.16955604 >>16955510 >a full grown ass man thinking it's honorable to debate with the ideas of students

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:35:43 2020 No.16955624

The most revealing characteristic of leftist academia, here as on campus, is how clear it is that they have never truly considered the possibility that they are not right. That is why divergent opinion is so distressing to them, they fear the possibility that the *other* is right, because they have never truly attempted to understand/internalize different opinions. JBP is an accomplished ex-Harvard psychologist, a God-bestowed public speaker, and a man that clearly, earnestly, wants to better the world. He is far more to far more people than the collective mass of anglo academia that daily pour their vile excrement over the world, ever will be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:36:54 2020 No.16955638 >>16955522 Fascism is the understanding that value is difference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:56:47 2020 No.16955779 >>16954111 How did peterson win? They agreed on everything and didnt even discuss happiness and capitalism/marxism

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:57:05 2020 No.16955782 >>16954857 fucking hate those eurodebates that might end in a draw just tell me who won

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:08:57 2020 No.16955884 >>16955624 Lmao Peterson we know it’s you

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:09:36 2020 No.16955890 >>16955624 We consider that we are wrong all the time. Its called critical theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:10:32 2020 No.16955897 >>16952416 Except he was totally fucking right. >>16953253 +1

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:16:53 2020 No.16955949

>>16955890
Critical theory does not believe in objective truth, therefore it dispenses with the need to try to understand what and why other believe. The only thing that matters when there is no truth is to be morally right. There's only *us*, with the correct emotions, and *them*, who are evil because they don't share out emotions. No objective truth, no common ground, no compromise. It's the essence of critical theory, the essence of why it was adopted by leftist academia when reality betrated it in 1990, and the essence of the rot it has spread in contemporary society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:44:02 2020 No.16956374 File: 83 KB, 836x1024, 1592223409513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16954142 >Marxists have always been great at critique, not so great at solutions

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:47:44 2020 No.16956392 Leftism is cancer aids plague, it doesn't work, never has and never will. If you are a leftists, please kill yourself.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sat Dec 5 22:49:17 2020 No.16956397 [SPOILER]

File: 57 KB, 287x428, 1607226557050.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16956374
>Women:
That’s a child

Marxists seem paralyzed by theory. Which is part of why I’m an anarchist. We have immediate solutions. Book of strategy related.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:09:17 2020 No.16956521

>>16956392
Leftism is not an ideology or a theory in itself, it's a collective term that tries to scope a lot of other, often vague terms. The way you argue in is inherently leftist, because you depict "their side" as ultimately "bad" and "evil". Start cleaning the world from yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:11:06 2020 No.16956531 >>16956397 But you have no friends, your family rejected you, and no one likes you, so how would you prosper in a network of "autonomous neighborhoods" based entirely on personal relationships?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:11:24 2020 No.16956533 File: 51 KB, 500x417, Benitto_Mussolini_mugshot_1903_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16956397 >Marxists seem paralyzed by theory. Which is part of why I’m an anarchist. We have immediate solutions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:12:43 2020 No.16956536 >>16956397 >That’s a child She's a 17 year old with fetal alcohol syndrome

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:21:48 2020 No.16956585 >>16956397 >anarchism never gonna happen sorry

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:25:33 2020 No.16956599

>>16956392
Leftism has been working since the French revolution. The leftism you see today is further refinement on the point of liberalism, that the ideal society is one where there are limited negative experiences as one grows up so that the rational mind of each person is allowed its full potential, and these rational adults can participate in a contract-based society that rewards merit. It won many major conflicts so it must be doing something right, even if you have to see black people in advertising sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:28:11 2020 No.16956614 >>16955580 Fascism is an enlightenment ideology. It wholly depends on the political capital of the middle class. Napoleon's empire was fascism avant la lettre.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:28:27 2020 No.16956615 >>16955505 Um no he literally talks about learning how to monetize SJWs

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Sat Dec 5 23:28:40 2020 No.16956617 >>16956533 See? Nearly indistinguishable from tankies. >>16956531 >>16956585 It’s all in or nothing. Literally nothing. We’re facing extinction unless we do something drastic quick

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:29:29 2020 No.16956627 >>16955949 babbys first post after reading doestoevsky

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:29:45 2020 No.16956628 >>16956617 >We’re facing extinction unless we do something drastic quick >global temperature may raise 2 degrees in the next 100 years yeah, we're facing extinction any minute, i wonder if humanity will survive

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:33:12 2020 No.16956651 >>16952349 Peterson criticizes "cultural Marxists"? I thought that was an alt-right codeword for "Jews"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:35:09 2020 No.16956670 >>16956628 Where I live I haven't seen a good snow since I was 10. All the recent winters now look more like autumns.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:35:31 2020 No.16956673 Post-modernists hated post-modernism the most? And cultural Marxists loved traditional cultural values the most? Whoa man... hits bong

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:36:16 2020 No.16956677 >>16956651 But for him, Fouacuault, a Catholic, is the number one "cultural Marxist". Saaay, isn't Peterson some kind of prot? Hmmm.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:37:23 2020 No.16956679 >>16953203 le strawman argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:37:51 2020 No.16956684 >>16956670 We all remember the snow from when we were a kid as being more intense because when you're 3 feet tall, every time it snows is like up to your knees.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 00:09:50 2020 No.16956909 >>16952390 >He definitly overstepped his range when he began talking about postmodern neomarxist whateverthefuck You not being able to understand him means you are out of your depth, not him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 00:55:38 2020 No.16957265 >>16956670 It's been super noticeable over the last decade for me. Haven't had a good blizzard for at least 5 years, and snow comes later and later.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 01:01:28 2020 No.16957304

>>16956628
Most probably at least 3-4 degrees. 5 degrees variations in the past have been enough to cause or trigger partial mass extinctions.
Remember, it's not just the average that is shifted up, but cataclysmic events become much more common and economic and agricultural activity becomes much more hectic.

Also almost nobody serious is talking about complete human extinction, just about general civilization collapse, which is enough to worry.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 01:03:47 2020 No.16957317

>>16956684
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between even half an inch of snow and no snow at all, nostalgia or not. It's also easy to notice how rare it has become for winters to hit below 0°C temperatures (at least in my area).
But in any case you can look at meteological records.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 03:45:18 2020 No.16958057 >>16955624 >leftist academia >here as on campus watch out guys, we got a suppressed Young Libertarian in the house

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 04:26:49 2020 No.16958196 >>16953555 wasn't foucault's power relations autism mainly inspired by nietzsche

>>	SAGE Sun Dec 6 05:25:50 2020 No.16958371 >>16955624 > 5 years at Harvard > 22 at UoT, aka Cultural Studies Central Why do you have to obfuscate the facts?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 06:07:49 2020 No.16958510 >>16953318 >Modern neoliberalism is no-one's team unless you're a 60 year old investment banker. Or a negresse writing books about white privilege.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 06:20:37 2020 No.16958561

>>16957317
> But in any case you can look at meteological records.
Well, have you? Because I have.

The 1970's were a low point with low temperatures while the 2000's were a high point with high temperatures. However, the 2010's are signifivantly cooler and we're now back to roughly normal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 06:45:08 2020 No.16958668 >>16955538 probably has to do with the fact that we live under capitalism and that marxism today is nothing more than a marginalized ideology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 07:18:42 2020 No.16958800 >>16956617 t. anarbabbies for 150 years

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 07:25:00 2020 No.16958835 >>16952349 how? everything that questions the oficial dogma nowdays is considered dangerous alt-right populism by the post-modernists

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 07:55:05 2020 No.16958942 Postmodern, pre modern, neo-"faggot name" , alt-fag. What are you faggots doing? Are you making up names to fit in with your special club that does not read?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:05:30 2020 No.16958979 >>16958196 Yes, and Nietzsches is far superior

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:08:57 2020 No.16958987 >>16958942 t. radical postmodern neomarxist

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:12:24 2020 No.16959000

>>16953002

This isn't a joke:

His understanding of postmodernism comes from a self-published summary book by Stephen Hicks called "Understanding Postmodernism". Peterson hasn't actually read the post-modernists. In preparation for his debate with Zizek, he prepared by reading The Communist Manifesto, because he thought it more or less summed up what Marxism was all about. Again, none of this is a joke.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:14:11 2020 No.16959009

>>16953505
>He said Bill-C 16 was a violation of free speech and that interfering with the free use of language and punishing those who do not abide is a potential road to oppressive regimes.

(not true, by the way)

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:14:50 2020 No.16959014 People who think they should read Jordan Peterson to "fix their lives" really should be reading Alasdair MacIntyre instead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:23:31 2020 No.16959049 I am one of those brainlets that ended up reading debord because JP kept blaming postmodernists and I googled it. I wonder how many brainlets follow the same path as me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 08:25:54 2020 No.16959057 >>16956374 Based. She just said it as it is

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 09:40:50 2020 No.16959353

>>16956614
>Napoleon's empire was fascism avant la lettre.
Congratulations, you are clinically retarded.
>>16959009
We've been over this fifteen million times you dumb queer - the interpretation legislation for Bill C-16 contains the potential to enforce compelled speech, so yes, the problem isn't "in" the bill, it's "because" of the bill. Fuck off now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 10:01:52 2020 No.16959454 >>16959353 >We've been over this fifteen million times But somehow you never learn.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 10:04:18 2020 No.16959467 >>16952381 Fuck you

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 10:15:40 2020 No.16959515 >>16953318 1. you're a commie 2. you're intellectually dishonest 3. you don't care about truth or facts

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 10:19:02 2020 No.16959534 >>16956521 >>16956599 Kill yourselves you retard imbecile leftists

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:01:41 2020 No.16959734

>>16952390
he's even wrong about the lobster shit. he should
stick to writing about CBT on psychology today
becasue you know whatever looney tunes interpretation of jung he has rattling around in his vinegar-phobic brain is nonpunishable exact on the blaze.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:02:57 2020 No.16959741 >>16953253 wrong, Barthes plays a much bigger role than Foucault or Marx ever would for literature

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:26:50 2020 No.16959878 >>16953253 >t. not educated

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Dec 6 11:28:50 2020 No.16959892 >>16959515 ^Fake post. Just another memer

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:34:01 2020 No.16959915 He is just to afraid to actually talk about the real enemy which is the Great Satan that is America and all its failed ideology and all of these goddamn kikes

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:36:47 2020 No.16959932 >>16953253 >t. Pleb that has never been to Uni (and has no father figure)

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:46:27 2020 No.16960316

For all of his shortcomings, I’ve quited enjoyed Peterson’s writings and talks. As a former marxist I’ve been shifting further and further from leftist dogma and honestly, as much as I used to dunk on him for his debate with Zizek, he is a breath of fresh air in today’s political arena. A very valuable voice that reminds people of what we are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:48:57 2020 No.16960328 >>16960316 >As a former marxist What pushed you away from marxism?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:55:47 2020 No.16960364

>>16960328
Other self-proclaimed marxists. In due time you either end up as resentful and bitter as other marxists, or you leave the cult. This is not an affront to Marx’s ideas on political economy, but rather to the identity cult that is built around a two centuries old dogma.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:31:20 2020 No.16960595
File: 81 KB, 205x184, Jordan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16953318
if some lobster guy can get you to not read book X your not bright enough for book X anyway and would take that book literal
you can tell just from various snippets here & there that Karl Marx is an insane man in his proposal of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but then there are also those ML guys who worship it like a bible and think Jordan Peterson is satan

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:32:29 2020 No.16960602 >>16953810 Water isn't dry, so it's wet. QED.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:42:05 2020 No.16960664 >>16953481 >the tranny question we should have more trannies in 30 years I never seen one but online on this shit board there is millions

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:49:04 2020 No.16960705 File: 106 KB, 500x674, smug-looking-anime-girls-with-condescending-looks-on-their-faces-3611767.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16959000 Jesus christ dude

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:55:06 2020 No.16960737 >>16954616 anti-capitalism is just another form of capitalism and all economic solution type people can suck my nuts

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:26:01 2020 No.16961404 Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault, Marx are for lousy retarded faggots who who love to pose as "intellectuals" but cant do math for shit, knows nothing of the ancient and can't read Nietzsche or Heidegger good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:28:16 2020 No.16961416 Your whole lousy French faggotry and Marxist "intellectual" tradition only go back a few hundred years and you think you are hot shit. Get a grip, y'all are bunch of retards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:40:16 2020 No.16961499 >>16961416 yawl

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:44:38 2020 No.16961528 >>16958196 It was mainly about how he was a homosexual who wanted to stick his entire arm in the anus of a young boy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:46:59 2020 No.16961542 >>16953002 Major pro gamergate figure talked about that in 2014. Peterson just followed Patreon money unless he's actually retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:05:51 2020 No.16961675 they talk shit about Foucault, and yet they have never read Madness and Civilization, which clearly demonstrates that most of the self-described alphas of /pol/ would be locked in sanitariums for autism, had they been born 100 years prior

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:21:40 2020 No.16961823

>>16959000
>His understanding of postmodernism comes from a self-published summary book by Stephen Hicks called "Understanding Postmodernism"
Lol. That’s where my understanding of it came from as well back in high school. then I read Lyotard and started down the post modern rabbit hole. Hick’s chapter on art is good though

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:36:29 2020 No.16961960 >>16960737 (you) >>16961404 (you) >>16961416 (you)

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:14:24 2020 No.16962877 File: 317 KB, 1195x960, 1524739820990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16953444

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:26:22 2020 No.16963002
File: 85 KB, 828x1024, floydism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16954616
>It's actually fucking laughable how much shit "the left" gets for all types of issues within this neoliberal system, despite the fact that leftists' political power in the west is close to zero.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature