/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17095605]

What does the fact that pic related is one of the most anticipated books of our time say about our society?

[Anonymous No.17095617]

Young men are trying to improve themselves in a world that left them directionless

[Anonymous No.17095620]

>>17095605
We should have listened to Fisher

[Anonymous No.17095639]

>>17095605
How is this bad? Zoomers are realizing the lies of leftism and finding traditional christian values were actually not that bad after all. If anything, this is great news.

[Anonymous No.17095643]

>>17095639
>he thinks zoomers are buying this book

[Anonymous No.17095655]

>>17095643
It's more like people in their 20's and some of which may be older gen z ers

[Anonymous No.17095677]

>>17095639
>traditional christian values
What does that have to do with Peterson

[Anonymous No.17095683]

>>17095655
im a "zoomer" (20)
i read osho
not some benzo addict with a whore daughter

[Anonymous No.17095697]

>In September 2018, Peterson threatened to sue Cornell University philosopher Kate Manne for defamation after she described his work as misogynistic in an interview done with Vox. Manne described it as an attempt to chill free speech. Vox considered the threat baseless, and it was ignored. In a critique often shared by prominent intellectual Noam Chomsky, Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs calls Peterson a "charlatan" who gives "the most elementary fatherly life-advice" while adding "convolutions to disguise the simplicity of his mind."

kek

[Anonymous No.17095710]

I'd say it's a hopeful sign. Peterson is decidedly middlebrow but I wouldn't discount what he says for that reason. Any sign that normies are intellectually curious is encouraging to me.

[Anonymous No.17095730]

>>17095639
>How is this bad?
Because why should anyone take life advice from someone with a hellish existence?

>He tells you to clean your room while his looks like a pig sty.
>He tells you to make friends with people who want the best for you, while surrounded by sycophants that nearly killed him by enabling his Russian coma.
>He tells you to not let your kids do anything that will cause you to dislike them, while his whore white nationalist daughter spreads covid around Europe.
>He tells you to tell the truth, while constantly lying (about his benzo addiction, staying up for a month after having some apple cider).
>He tells you to be precise in your speech whilst only ever being vague - he can't even name a singular post-modernist, his supposed ideological enemy.
>He tells you to not bother children when they are skateboarding, whilst demonstrating a complete inability to let anything slide that he considers offensive to his judeo-christian values.

But he's totally not a grifter and he's got some solid life advice straight from the ICU.

[Anonymous No.17095738]

>>17095697
>the most elementary fatherly life-advice
how is that the mark of a charlatan?

[Anonymous No.17095743]

>>17095710
>Any sign that normies are intellectually curious is encouraging to me.
This is true. I also think some of the self help advice he gives is good, essential stuff that a lot of people need.

I disagree with Peterson on a lot of subjects, but I think his reading advice is good. It can't hurt to get people to read Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky

[Anonymous No.17095744]

>>17095605
>>17095617
>>17095620
>>17095639
>>17095643
>>17095655
>>17095677
>>17095683
>>17095697
>>17095730
>>17095738
.

[Anonymous No.17095757]

>>17095744
Nice psued diagram.

[Anonymous No.17095766]

>>17095730
>sycophants that nearly killed him by enabling his Russian coma
kek do tell

[Anonymous No.17095800]

>>17095730
Peterson presents his argument: improve yourself and you will improve the world. Those not up to it do not refute his argument as it is nearly irrefutable. Instead, they attack Peterson's character and speak of his actions as if they have any bearing on the quality of his argument. Classic straw man.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17095819]

I don’t read or watch Peterson but I’m not against him. Sure people waste money on his stuff but the kind of people buying and reading him DO need that father figure to tell them to get up and do something good for themselves. Why would I be against someone who’s making people get the will to better themselves? So I’m all for the Peterson cult.

[Anonymous No.17095823]

>>17095819
Shut the fuck up tripfaggot

[Anonymous No.17095828]

>>17095639
utterly ridiculous post, petersonfags are completely braindead

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYwWWmRs No.17095830]

«SELFHELP» TRASH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LITERATURE.

[Anonymous No.17095842]

>>17095819
he's a misinformer, a charlatan, a total pseud, creates good little capitalists and crypro-fascists and does nothing but mantain the status-quo under his muh father figure act. he's despicable.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYwWWmRs No.17095864]

>>17095842
>>17095819


YOU SHOULD REPORT THIS THREAD AS OFFTOPIC, AS WELL AS FURTHER THREADS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.

[Anonymous No.17095870]

I work in the book industry. This motherfucking book has caused all of the brain-dead SJW's at penguin random house to lose their minds (despite the millions of copies of 12 Rules sold) to the point that if you call the penguin random house customer service line their is a message that if you're calling about the book 'beyond order' to press a certain key to be redirected. I have to sit through this message before I can get any instruction. Jesus Christ leftists need to be euthanized.

[Anonymous No.17095872]

>>17095730
>>He tells you to tell the truth, while constantly lying (about his benzo addiction, staying up for a month after having some apple cider).
Yeah thanks I'm still getting his book though.

[Anonymous No.17095880]

One thing I think is funny is that he completely failed to understand some of the stuff he purportedly read. Nietzsche is the complete opposite of everything Peterson espouses. I hope his fans read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17095887]

>>17095620
Yes

[Anonymous No.17095889]

>>17095880
he also does not understand pomo at all.

[Anonymous No.17095890]

>>17095766
Well, as you may not be aware he's an addiction specialist that happened to also have had a long term addiction to benzodiazepines.

What Jordan (the addiction specialist) would've known whilst developing this addiction is that benzos are one of the worst class of drugs to form a dependency on. In terms of commonly used drugs, only the withdrawals from benzos and alcohol can outright kill you. Even a heroin withdrawal will just make you feel like death, but you're ultimately not going to die as a result of it.

So when it came to kick the old benzos, Peterson knew exactly what he was in for. The withdrawals for long term benzo dependency are absolute hell - shakes, insomnia, seizures etc potentially lasting months.

This is when he had the bright idea of trying to take a shortcut. Those withdrawals sound terrible don't they? What about medically inducing a coma until the dependency is gone? Oh, no doctor in North America would conduct such a unnecessarily dangerous procedure? But Russia will? (You see where I'm going). He and his daughter took a trip to Russia to induce his coma, where he also caught COVID from what I understand. He has since returned a frail and broken old man.

Footnote for fanboys: this addiction did not develop as a reaction to his wife's cancer diagnoses, he had it for a few years at that point at this stage.


>>17095800
>Peterson presents his argument: improve yourself and you will improve the world.
This is literally the opposite of his argument, and shows your incredibly shallow understanding of what he's trying to do. The actual quote from his "rules" is:

>Set your house in perfect order BEFORE you criticize the world

This is clearly just him asserting his conservative ideals on the reader and discouraging criticism of the status quo. Zizek even made the glaringly obvious point of "what if your house is out of order directly as a result of things outside your control?". He doesn't care about your self improvement, he cares about trannies not trying to change language laws and this was just him subtexting them.

[Anonymous No.17095894]

>>17095744
Looks cool, is this from one of his books?

[Anonymous No.17095896]

>>17095617
Correct.

[Anonymous No.17095913]

>>17095880
This is true. I've read some Nietzsche recently and his critique of 'God' is not that 'we killed him' but rather the concept of God is stupid and Christianity is a cancer. Yet Peterson attempts to use Nietzsche to justify why God is good etc... Ugh, he has not actually read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17095914]

.

[Anonymous No.17095920]

>>17095914

[Anonymous No.17095932]

>>17095617
fpbp
also ; they're failing

[Anonymous No.17095935]

>>17095730
Absolutely scathing.

[Anonymous No.17095936]

>>17095914
>>17095920
JUST

[Anonymous No.17095943]

His philosophy is garbo in application for reasons stated above and some who believe in his work insist it to be absolute fact, but him being able to hold such a large platform is genuinely admirable.

[Anonymous No.17095949]

>>17095913
This is a man who will rant for hours about communism whilst having read absolutely no theory on the subject beyond one vague reading of The Communist Manifesto. He's quite literally outread on the subject by even the most midwit of /lit/ edgelords.

The difference between him and your batshit uncle at Thanksgiving is that he has a PhD in a clinical psychology and that's enough to convince pseud teenagers that he's smart enough to dictate their lives.

[Anonymous No.17095959]

>>17095744
schizophrenia illustrated

[Anonymous No.17095967]

>>17095949
is there a bigger cope than "muh theory"?

[Anonymous No.17095973]

>>17095967
Yes, it's "muh lack of theory". At least have some idea of what you're supposedly ideologically opposed to.

[Anonymous No.17095991]

>>17095870
On the one hand I don't like Peterson, on the other, the hate for him feels way out of proportion for a man who's so bland and inoffensive. Half his program is advice my dad gave me years ago and the other half is commentary on Disney movies, and for some reason this is enough to make him a """dangerous thinker.""" Is it really all just because of his opposition to the gender pronoun bill in Canada?

[Anonymous No.17095999]

>>17095889
he unironically got his entire """knowledge""" of postmodernism from this book (which is fucking terrible). it's actually hilarious. he has literally NEVER read any of the shit he criticizes.

[Anonymous No.17096008]

>>17095744
>complex diagram looks silly to me because i haven't bothered to try to understand it! peterson bad look at silly image

[Anonymous No.17096014]

It means world war 3 is coming.

[Anonymous No.17096016]

>>17095999
You dont think he read Derrida, Foucault, Marx, etc?

[Anonymous No.17096018]

>>17095890
how have you managed to write this much about him but still completely misunderstand him and only reflect your own dogmas. by telling people to clean their room before criticising the world, he's not trying to prevent criticism of the world, he's trying to explain that the best way to begin criticising society at large is by starting with yourself.

[Anonymous No.17096027]

>>17095889
>>17095999
Kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.17096031]

>>17096016
anyone that thinks foucalt advocated for identity politics has not only never read him but is straight up retarded

[Anonymous No.17096048]

>>17095880
>>17095913
He also ripped off Nietzches Ressentiment of i and inserted it to fit his Marxism---> Postmodernism ideology in a very clunky way
>>17095605

I just hate how he rambles about his hatred for postmodernism but it only applies to left wing politics like hello TRUMP and most of his supporters are the clearest embodiments of postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.17096050]

>>17095999
but anon i just got the book and i like the first few pages i read... why is it terrible?

[Anonymous No.17096055]

>>17096016
He's admitted it himself, he debated Zizek on Capitalism and Marxism and confessed to merely skimming the Communist Manifesto. I don't have a crazed hatred of the guy or anything, he's got some nice advice and seems to have a good heart, but he's clearly got a tremendous ego and his understanding of his sworn enemies is based on other writers writing about them (which, considering the subject, is its own kind of irony).

To his credit he admits to being wrong when it comes up but he's clearly a smart opportunist and welcomes this "love him or hate him" media circus. The trouble is that he's not some totally evil bastard to me but personally I take deep offense to just writing off a brilliant man like Jacques Derrida because Camille Paglia told him so.

[Anonymous No.17096069]

>>17095605
it says that the pendulum is swinging back to traditionalism, and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.17096078]

>>17095991
He gets hate from two angles really. There's one camp that hates him because of his controversies around that Canadian pronoun bill, the fact that he's a conservative Christian and his propensity to dramatise everything not aligned with his views.

The other camp hates him because he's a pseud that likes to throw around vague meaningless terms and string together unrelated ideas. My personal favourites are his misunderstandings of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, believing that the helix structure of DNA and snakes mating are someway related and his shallow understanding of what post-modernism is.

>>17096016
By his own admission he has read no Marx other than The Communist Manifesto. He's also criticised Foucault with his trademark signature of complete and total misinterpretation. This is understandable because he's nothing more than a shallow lay enthusiast of Philosophy; he's nowhere near qualified enough to talk as confidently as he does.

>>17096018
That's absolutely not what he's going for, or else it would have been worded:

>The best way to change the world is with yourself.

Instead he takes the path of discouraging criticism until the reader reaches some unattainable standard because he's fundamentally a conservative and social change is not something he's comfortable with. The great irony about this "rule" is if he actually practised what he preached, he'd never have written the book and we'd not be having this conversation.

What you're currently doing is trying to bend over backwards to defend your surrogate father, which I completely understand.

[Anonymous No.17096083]

>>17096050
pretty much every single philosopher he wrote about went completely over his head, like calling fucking KANT "anti-reason"

[Anonymous No.17096086]

>>17095617
Hell yeh fren. It feels good to get better

[Anonymous No.17096100]

>>17096083
ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096106]

>>17096008
>the precosmogonic "egg"

[Anonymous No.17096115]

>>17096100
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail
This has got to be the worst Peterson fanboy cope I've see to date on /lit/ and I'm a veteran shitposter in these threads. I can actually tell you're a teen in two sentences. Incredible.

[Anonymous No.17096123]

>>17095639
Great b8

[Anonymous No.17096125]

>>17096115
Im actually not his fan so idk why youre so quick to seethe. I just wanted to know why the book is shit because i just got it.

[Anonymous No.17096133]

>>17096115
>triggered about kant
Are you one of those rare kantians?

[Anonymous No.17096135]

>>17096125
>I just wanted to know why the book is shit because i just got it.
Actually read the authors instead of some literal who lolbertarian making shit up after getting filtered by nearly the entire philosophical canon

[Anonymous No.17096137]

>>17096125
don't be a pseud. Just read the damn book and judge it yourself before trusting people on a mongolian cartoon website

[Anonymous No.17096142]

>>17096100
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096157]

>>17096135
>>17096142
>shameless samefagging
>still no actual reason
Ok then

[Anonymous No.17096175]

>>17095697
>Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs calls Peterson a "charlatan" who gives "the most elementary fatherly life-advice" while adding "convolutions to disguise the simplicity of his mind."

The irony of this critique from R*binson of all people lmfaoo

[Anonymous No.17096190]

>>17096100
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher
Why the hell not? what's he doing all day, driving his shitty RC car around?

[Anonymous No.17096202]

>>17096190
Why do you keep replying to this post like youre someone different? From what ive read the author does not represent kant as anti-reason. I feel like youve never actually read the book and you just want to seethe. I think peterson is retarded btw so i dont even know why you seethe so hard when im just asking about what you think about the book.

[Anonymous No.17096218]

>>17096157
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096221]

>>17096218
>the absolute state of cannibalising lefties in america

[Anonymous No.17096235]

>>17096221
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096237]

>>17096202
Contrary to what your hurt feelings might be telling you, what you said was very fucking stupid and multiple people have recognised it.

[Anonymous No.17096242]

>>17096237
Ok then correct me so i can learn

[Anonymous No.17096245]

>>17096242
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096248]

>>17096221
this is why they lost the Spanish civil war, and why they'll lose the second American civil war

[Anonymous No.17096251]

>>17096235
>>17096237
>typical brainlet response from platon shills.

[Anonymous No.17096264]

>>17096251
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096267]

>>17096264
>>17096245
>>17096235
every post like this adds more credibility to JBP

[Anonymous No.17096268]

>>17095605
12 rules for life electric Boogaloo : your penis needs cleaning too

[Anonymous No.17096273]

>>17096267
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096278]

>>17096267
He seethes because he got exposed

[Anonymous No.17096282]

>>17096278
>ehhhhh i think he doesnt have the time to go over every philosopher in detail but i didnt get the impression that hes calling kant anti-reason. he's just saying kant may be the starting point because in kant's view each human may grasp the reality in different ways.

[Anonymous No.17096301]

I came into this thread a left leaning, identity politicking, colored woman. I leave it fully convinced peterson is right. Also im a white christian man. Thanks /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17096305]

>>17096301
>white christian man
trump lost

[Anonymous No.17096313]

>>17096301
Seething so hard because you said something stupid. Accept it and move on.

[Anonymous No.17096314]

>>17096305
Clearly not look at the absolute state of this thread

[Anonymous No.17096328]

>>17096313
That wasnt me but i still genuinely dont understand what it is you find so stupid. If you know better, explain, because the whole reason i was asking for feedback on the book is exactly because im a beginner. If you got nothing to offer i get it too.

[Anonymous No.17096419]

>>17096328
He touched many a lost youngster with his analogies of their lives to famous Disney movies. He wrote a self-help book and went viral for his biological stance on transgenderism. He rode the viral wave to success and is now releasing a second self-help book. If he helps some youngsters find meaning then I can't fault him for that. My issue is that he tends to push a political and social agenda that I'm afraid won't be helpful for the next generation to follow and will probably only increase their discontentment. He's also simply not that profound of a thinker in general. Some of his psychological insights seem interesting, but his politics and philosophy seem weak and like they lack breadth.

[Anonymous No.17096442]

jp hate seems inauthentic

[Anonymous No.17096466]

>>17096419
im talking about >>17095999 this book. he says the book is shit. says the book portrays kant as anti-reason. i just started reading it and i never got that impression. the book says kant says the object conforms to the subject, and that this serves as the starting point of pomo, where there is no center. i tried to ask him why he thinks is shit and all i get is a series of seetheposts.

[Anonymous No.17097886]

>>17095730
>Because why should anyone take life advice from someone with a hellish existence?

[Anonymous No.17097959]

Self-help has been a megahit genre for decades, anon. I don't think there's much underlying that.

[Anonymous No.17097973]

>>17096100
Kant is so dedicated to reason that it's actually autistic and I think makes a lot of his work kind of useless. That being said calling Kant anti-reason is good grounds for calling you a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17097974]

>>17095894
Yes, it's from Maps of Meaning. It's a Map of Meaning of Genesis.

[Anonymous No.17097979]

>>17096106
>lmao eggs are for eating don't use them as terms

[Anonymous No.17097989]

>>17095730
>>He tells you to clean your room while his looks like a pig sty.
Responsibility advice debunked!!! We did it, guise! Reddit gold
>enabling coma
Lmaoo
>he can't even name a singular post-modernist
He quotes individual ones.
>He tells you to not bother children when they are skateboarding.... BUT STILL CARES ABOUT THINGS

Clean your room, anon.

[Anonymous No.17097995]

>>17095697
So basically the Belle Delphine

[Anonymous No.17098000]

>>17097995
...of philosophy

[Anonymous No.17098025]

>>17098000
JBP is a psychologist with overtones of philosophy of religions. To judge him as a philosopher is like judging Nietzsche as a psychologist. There's an overlap, but it's not his identity and not his main course.

[Anonymous No.17098296]

>>17095617
>in a world that left them directionless
That's their family, not the world.

[Anonymous No.17098308]

>>17095744
Jungians are so cringe. They're the anime watchers of psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.17098311]

>>17095605
>popular stuff being bad is a new phenomenon

[Anonymous No.17098318]

A friend of mine is literally mentioning "Neo-Marxists" in every conversation, talking about how Biden and Covid are fake, and how Post-Modernists are taking over.

I need new friends now, fuck you JP.

[Anonymous No.17098328]

>>17098318
>talking about how Biden and Covid are fake
try telling your friend that's he's literally being a post-modernist

[Anonymous No.17098335]

>>17098328
I don't try anything anymore with him, he's so full of contradictions I can't even keep up with his nonsense. He's literally the embodiment of Petersonian ideology.

[Anonymous No.17098343]

>>17095605
Peterson's a fucking retard and ironically one of the problems with academia today

[Anonymous No.17098344]

why don't people just read taleb instead?

[Anonymous No.17098418]

>here’s 12 rules, you should embrace order, bucko
>I’m back, here’s 12 more rules, now you should do the opposite of what I told you a few years ago and embrace chaos, bucko
JP is basically the intellectual bankruptcy of capitalism in a nutshell. Penguin has to press books and sell them to the masses, and at this point, it doesn’t even matter anymore what’s in them, just as long as there’s name recognition and the work is deep enough to trick people into thinking it’s really profound, and shallow enough to spread around the minds of normies.

This is why JP is such a stunning success. His ‘works’ are the perfect combination of normie philosophy, almost NPC tier kind of thinking, mixed with the industrial nature of modern publishing. I’m pretty sure he will turn all of those Quora rules into books. Absolutely all of it will involve inoffensive, standard moderate conservatism, clothed in ‘studies’ and ‘research’ that ‘proves’ its accuracy, combined with butchered interpretations of ancient mythology, all written down in jargonistic, obscurantist language so that JP can always say, whenever he gets something demonstrably wrong, that you ‘misinterpreted’, ‘misrepresented’ or ‘framed’ him. Also, much of this will involve the word ‘physiologically’ and other smart sounding words in italics, and all of this will be bought by the painfully average who view themselves as ‘pretty intellectual’, because they read some popular book on evolutionary psychology once.

In short, JP, his mindless followers and capitalist publishers are all cringe

[Anonymous No.17098429]

>>17098335
>Petersonian ideology
Lul wot? Calling out a group of self-identified marxists for using post-modern analysis isn't an ideology. No matter how conspiratorial your friend will get about it.

[Anonymous No.17098437]

>>17098318
That actually made me laugh out loud, just imagine how easily brainwashed you have to be to embrace Lobsterism

[Anonymous No.17098453]

>>17098429
This is literally the only shell of ideology he has right now: everything's shit because of these damn SJWs Post-Modern Neo-Marxists.

[Anonymous No.17098482]

>>17098453
>everything's shit because of these damn SJWs Post-Modern Neo-Marxists
It's a salient part of his public appearances but an objection to a particular practice of a particular group is not an ideology.

[Anonymous No.17098524]

>>17095914
what books do I have to read to get a lobstress gf like this?

[Anonymous No.17098543]

>>17095605
Not gonna lie I'm gonna buy it just coz it's gonna look cool on my shelf with the first book

[Anonymous No.17098861]

>>17095617
Self-improvement under capitalism is meaningless. Educate yourself.

Marx reading list:

Brumaire
Manuscripts
Value, Price, and Profit
Gotha
Grundrisse
Capital 1, 2, and 3 (yes you need to read all of them. 1 is not self-contained.)

Further Reading:
Michael Heinrich's Introduction (note: not an introduction)
Heinrich's 3-4(?) volume biography of Marx that he is still writing (vol 1 is out)
Love and Capital (another biography)
Isaak Illich Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
Time, Labor, and Social Domination by Postone
Value by Diane Elson
Workers and Capital by Tronti
Law and Marxism by Pashukanis
Notebooks by Gramsci
The Principle of Hope by Bloch
Selected Writings by Benjamin
The Production of Space by Lefebvre
The Making of the English Working Class by Thompson (also read his essay on time.)
The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James
Antiquity to Feudalism and Lineages of the Absolutist State by Perry Anderson
The Essential Lenin
The Essential Stalin
On Contradiction and On Practice by Mao
Dialectical Logic, Intelligent Materialism, and The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital by Ilyenkov
Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, I and IS Apparatuses, and Philosophy of the Encounter by Althusser
H and CS by Lukacs
Marx: Towards the Centre of Possibility by Karatani
Eclipse by Gilles Dauve
What Was the USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism by Aufheben
Reading Marx Politically by Cleaver
Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts
Moneybags Must Be So Lucky: On the Literary Structure of Capital by Robert Paul Wolff
In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution by Geoff Mann
Crack Capitalism by John Holloway
The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System: The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter by John Milios
Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy: On Subversion and Negative Reason by Bonefeld
The 4 volumes of Open Marxism
There's No Such Thing as "The Economy": Essays on Capitalist Value by Samuel A. Chambers
Marx at the Millennium by Cyril Smith
Critiquing Capitalism Today: New Ways to Read Marx by Frederick Harry Pitts
The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay
Money and Totality by Moseley
The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume 1 of Marx's Capital by Bellofiore
The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood

[Anonymous No.17099123]

>>17095605
read this
https://archive.is/X3XAS

[Anonymous No.17099131]

>>17095617
fpbp
/thread

[Anonymous No.17099140]

>>17098296
the world sought to destroy their family

[Anonymous No.17099143]

>>17095605
Every day we stray further from God.

[Anonymous No.17099159]

>>17099140
You guys are gay delusional pussies

[Anonymous No.17099191]

>>17095605
I'd compare him to Timothy Leary probably. Except he's retarded. He is good for neoliberalism and unironically good for Israel so has gotten a ton of media support

If you think he's smart you're a iteral midwit, or worse, and should feel bad. Do yourself a favour and study something better

[Anonymous No.17099204]

>>17095617
Is this substantially different from any other self-help, except that it piggy-backs the contentious nature of contemporary politics?

[Anonymous No.17099205]

>>17095605
You left out ”for 4chan dwellers and incels” after the word ”book”.

[Anonymous No.17099230]

>>17098418
Good post. Though some of his self help ideas are fine, I would much rather read people like Epictetus or contemporary psychologists like Carl Rogers, Martin Seligman, Paul Ekman, etc.

[Anonymous No.17099240]

>>17098025
He ran a shitty clinic in Toronto. He was the edgy lecturer that dumb undergrad psych majors liked. He made the mistake thinking he was good at one thing he'd be good at another thing and tried politics and philosophy. He became a laughingstock on Joe Rogan and in front of zizek with his child like understanding of Marx (literal highschool level knowledge on Marxist philosophy, it was hilarious) and his personal issue drinking apple juice.

[Anonymous No.17099241]

>>17099159
Anon, need I quote marx at you?

[Anonymous No.17099247]

>>17099241
>he thinks "the world" is marxist

[Anonymous No.17099249]

>>17099240
>it was hilarious
this

[Anonymous No.17099270]

>>17096466
Oh my bad, yeah, JP sucks off stephen hicks super hard. I don't get it either, I couldn't be bothered to finish hicks screed, but anyone saying Kant is anti-reason got filtered to an extreme degree. Few philosophers reach Kants level of logic and reason. They're seething because they know nothing about Kant. It was also probably some Peterson boy samefagging. You're correct. Collect their seethes as proof of your victory.

[Anonymous No.17099299]

>>17099240
>tried politics and philosophy
Again, if you judge him as a philosopher or a politician, you're mischaracterizing his work. He's a psychologist. A damn good psychologist of religion, so much so that he spells out religious philosophy psychologically (!) for those who don't get it any other way.
>child like understanding of Marx
His claims are not about Marx. It was especially apparent in his confrontation with Zizek, who came in expecting to learn some developments in theoretical marxism.... only to instead find out that Peterson is talking about a group of self-identified Marxists performing post-modern analysis. Hence postmodern neomarxism.

To judge him is a philosopher is to mischaracterize him.
t. ex-fan of JBP

[Anonymous No.17099305]

That self-help books have remained popular, but they have found a new target demo.

[Anonymous No.17099337]

>>17099299
R u dumb? holy shit lol. Peterson read communist manifesto (a non-important Marxist pamphlet meant for the 1800s) the night before then critiqued it the way highschool students do. You could just see zizek realizing the man was a pseud right on stage. Zizek just seemed to feel bad for him after that. And that was the last day Peterson was taken seriously politically.

[Anonymous No.17099364]

>>17099337
retard

[Anonymous No.17099382]

>>17099337
True

[Anonymous No.17099396]

>>17099337
>You could just see zizek realizing the man was a pseud right on stage. Zizek just seemed to feel bad for him after that.
kek true, I feel like zizek lost all interest in the debate at that moment

[Anonymous No.17099398]

>>17099337
>Peterson read communist manifesto
>1800s
Yeah. How this proves he's trying to narrate latest developments of contemporary Marxism is beyond me, but go off I guess.

[Anonymous No.17099409]

>>17095605
People always look for easy answers to complicated problems. It's nothing more than any other self-help book.

[Anonymous No.17099413]

>>17099396
It looked like zizek was about to go off and say how bad that was but kind of just paused and changed the subject. Kind of like how normal people do when we hear someone explaining what Peterson told them irl. Yikes

[Anonymous No.17099438]

>>17095605
Society today, as society always has been, is composed of strata of individuals. Not everyone has spent their whole lives reading, just like throughout all of history. Do you really think that those living in alexandria spent all their time in the library? No. Most people just don't read. In ancient Greece they would watch plays, and today people watch love Island. Same meat, different gravy. This book is a sign that people want to make a difference in themselves. Not everyone is an aristotle or heidegger, and you cannot just start on more advanced areas. You started off reading a very hungry caterpillar, not dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.17099444]

>>17099337
>Peterson read communist manifesto
Yeah. When you talk about a group of people's behaviors and beliefs, you tend to read what they believe. Peterson made his political activism about criticizing self-proclaimed Marxists and their usage of post-modern deconstruction. That a proper Marxist would not be postmodern, nor rely on communist ideals is not Peterson's problem. He's there to point out their behavior and beliefs, not to set them on proper Marxist course.

[Anonymous No.17099488]

>>17099444
See that's why you people, and he, are so dumb. The idea that someone has done their research by reading a pamphlet that was meant as a speech for a particular moment, instead of reading the literally thousands of pages of detailed work by marx and engles + the hundreds of books written by marxists since, and you not knowing how far off you are is the joke.

[Anonymous No.17099503]

>>17099488
>pamphlet that was meant as a speech for a particular moment
Again, he is talking about a specific group of college kids and he points out what they believe. It's not his problem that a proper Marxist wouldn't use the pamphlet as a source. It's not his problem that a proper Marxist wouldn't fuck with post-modernism.
The people JBP is talking about (and supposedly fighting) didn't read "thousands of pages of detailed work by marx and engles + the hundreds of books written by marxists since". They read a pamhplet, Foucault and decided to merge the two.

[Anonymous No.17099512]

>>17099488
>done their research by reading a pamphlet
Their research on Marxism as such? Surely not.
Their research on what he calls post-modern neomarxists? May very well be. It's a specific sub-group of activists with obviously shitty theoretical background.

[Anonymous No.17099518]

>>17098861
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17099522]

>>17095605
Manchildren need a druggie daddy.

[Anonymous No.17099544]

>>17099503
>>17099512
Why wouldn't peterson mention people like Mouffe and Laclau, or Althusser, or Fanon? Maybe even how Mao revised Marxism to adjust who the revolutionary subject in history was going to be?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Campus activists are not reading the communist manifesto and following it lmao.

[Anonymous No.17099559]

the core of JP's mainstream audience consists in would-be normalfag zoomers that for some reason or another weren't able to live up to their potential
to anyone outside of that range he's just yet another spokesperson of the herd, not interesting in the slightest or even appearing as actively malignant to those who see in herd culture nothing but
JP is a reflection of society, as how society sees itself. it's an uninteresting perspective indeed; nothing substantial (radical) can come out of JP's sociocultural critiques. though being an unrepentant lolbert i'd rather listen to Zizek's hegelian-lancanian nonsense than JP's well and truly neoliberal sentiments. his politics aren't interesting in the slightest
something else is to be said for his work on depth psychology, though. it's far from being a Campbell or Jung rehash as he's often accused of. i quite like the 'meaning' shtick but i'm not sure it bridges quite as neatly to a re-embrace of neoliberal capitalism as JP thinks. he's a first-rate thinker in psychology but a third-rate political philosopher

[Anonymous No.17099591]

>>17099299
>Again, if you judge him as a philosopher or a politician, you're mischaracterizing his work

But he does talk a lot about philosophy and politics. I remember him on Joe Rogan implying that social mobility is possible in the US lol

[Anonymous No.17099611]

If you read Peterson you admit that you are a retard who can not even wash his penis. Not a midwit, a retard.

[Anonymous No.17099638]

>>17099413
the comment Zizek makes on freedom/burden is spot on

[Anonymous No.17099679]

>>17099544
>Campus activists are not reading the communist manifesto and following it lmao.
The ones Peterson is talking about easily do.
>Why wouldn't peterson mention people like Mouffe and Laclau, or Althusser, or Fanon?
Because that's not what the group he's talking about is reading.

Again, he's not talking about the developments of Marxism or of Marxists as a school of thought. He observes a particular subgroup of activists on campuses and talks about their beliefs and behavior. To approach it from a universalist end as if he were commenting on Marxism in general is to miss completely his observations and objections to the subgroup described.

>>17099591
>he does talk a lot about philosophy and politics
His life work is psychology of beliefs. Most relevant beliefs are either political or religious. He's not a philosopher or a politician, he's just a psychologists who understands how beliefs operate.
>I remember him on Joe Rogan implying that social mobility is possible in the US lol
He's Canadian are you sure he did not mean Canada? The 14th most socially mobile country in the world?

[Anonymous No.17099691]

>>17099544
There's a reason Peterson backed down from debating Richard Wolfe, he knew at the very least that Zizek would be philosophical and would filter much of the audience. Wolfe would have demolished him.

[Anonymous No.17099708]

>>17099691
Absolutely agree. Peterson's interest is not in Marxism in its entirety. It's in the particular sub-group that lives off of pseudo-marxism, post-modern deconstruction, Zizek and VICE News. Hence discussing Zizek. Hence bringing a commie manifesto.

[Anonymous No.17099722]

>>17099559

Your analysis is wrong because jbp is considered altright by mainstream opinion, and expressing open interest in his work among normies or at uni would put you in hot water

[Anonymous No.17099734]

It says we're fucked, act accordingly

[Anonymous No.17099737]

>>17099708
Yes, but it's such a gossamer thread to pull on. Why call this hated group postmodern neomarxists at all if they don't hold any Marxist values and directly oppose class consciusness. What he's criticizing is awfully tangential, to the point where it hardly exists. Universities aren't overrun with postmodern neomarxists, maybe some sociology departments have skewed to the radical, but it's hardly widespread enough to warrant his position.

[Anonymous No.17099752]

>>17098296
That's the world

[Anonymous No.17099762]

>>17099204
I dunno man. Different things are different.

[Anonymous No.17099783]

>>17099737
>Why call this hated group postmodern neomarxists at all if they don't hold any Marxist values and directly oppose class consciusness.
Because they self-identify as marxists and they use post-modern deconstructionism. How do you propose he call them if not Post-modern neomarxists?
>Universities aren't overrun with postmodern neomarxists, maybe some sociology departments have skewed to the radical, but it's hardly widespread enough to warrant his position.
Why do you believe that? Does the almost ten-fold increase in political polarization (in favour of left-leaning thought) not raise an eyebrow? Does the prevalence of self-proclaimed radicals not either? https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

[Anonymous No.17099802]

>>17098296
the world conspires against them, directly or indirectly. Their family is both part of the world and under attack.

[Anonymous No.17099826]

>>17099783
Oh noooo. 3% of professors are Karl Marxists. Oh noo, more people are turning to leftism in the face of extreme inequality and an economic system that feels like its failing the working class. Why could this be? It's not like the left has always stood against the problems we're now facing.

[Anonymous No.17099842]

>>17099679
>He's Canadian are you sure he did not mean Canada? The 14th most socially mobile country in the world?

Yes, it's the one with Bret Weinstein when talking about universal basic income.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7gKGq_MYpU

Around the 7 minute mark. "I'm stuck at 1, but my kids might make it to 4 and that's good enough. That's been the American dream and that's a really high power antidote to inequality, there's some inequality, but the game is fair and there's some reasonable probability that either you or someone you love will be successful."

>implying that believing that you can make it out of poverty is enough to make it out of poverty

To be fair to him, he goes on to talk about how the game might be rigged by some individuals, etc. The crucial thing here is that he does not ascribe the failings of social mobility to the system, but to some individuals within the system. There are inherently egotistical, narcissistic individuals in the world - and if you allow a system to be exploited you can be sure that these individuals will do so.

[Anonymous No.17099847]

>>17099826
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.17099858]

>>17099826
Based
>>17099847
Minge

[Anonymous No.17099870]

>>17099826
>Oh noooo. 3% of professors are Karl Marxists.
>[conveniently misses the 24% of literal radicals in social sciences]
....Bahahahahah
>>17099842
>>implying that believing that you can make it out of poverty is enough to make it out of poverty
He doesn't say you have to just believe it, you obviously have to strive. I don't understand what you think is so controversial about "life can be improved, if not for you, then for your kids".

[Anonymous No.17099886]

>>17099870
Holy shit less than a quarter of social science professors share values with the originsbof social science! This is a complete takeover. It's a conspiracy against the white man clearly. I can't just choose to not go to one of the 76% of social science professors who aren't radical.

This is why people don't and never will take you seriously at all.

[Anonymous No.17099895]

>>17099886
Your cynical sarcasm isnt persuasive, just makes you sound like a twelve year old girl. We all know how you'd be reacting if a quarter of them were open nazis.

[Anonymous No.17099905]

>>17099886
> 1/4 of professors being radicalize is ok
> I wouldn't object to a radicalized right wing professor either
> [someone mentions vaguely centrist JBP]
> NOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.17099910]

>>17099895
I personally wouldn't give a shit. If society cared, it would be because Nazis believe in the supremacy of one race and will violently impose that supremacy. The reason I wouldn't care is because the majority of the population correctly think Nazis are tools that believe in conspiracy over reality and in modern times have spawned qoomers and flat-earthers.

[Anonymous No.17099912]

>>17099870
Oh I don't think it's controversial in itself. Compared to other strong liberal democracies, there is simply too much nepotism and corruption in the US for it to be effective.

[Anonymous No.17099918]

>>17099905
I don't hate or care about Peterson at all. I criticise him because he's foolish and his crusade is a childish one. It's the subject of this thread. I know some zoomer fags may get butthurt when we dunk on daddy but they deserve ridicule. They'll look back with clarity one day

[Anonymous No.17099922]

>>17099912
>there is simply too much nepotism and corruption in the US for it to be effective
That we can agree on. But I also agree with JBP that almost every belief besides "My efforts can actually matter" breeds death and destruction.

[Anonymous No.17099925]

>>17096083
the guys biggest books are critiques of reason, obviously he didn't like it

[Anonymous No.17099934]

>>17099918
>he posted from his laundry-strewn room with cheeto dust dripping from his fingers

[Anonymous No.17099938]

>>17099918
And just to get a taste of this 'clarity'... a quarter of professors being literally radical in one political direction is... safe? Intellectually diverse perhaps?

[Anonymous No.17099939]

>>17099922
Then by all means he should be critcising Social Darwinists and Genetic Determinists.

[Anonymous No.17099941]

>>17099910

[Anonymous No.17099955]

The whole discourse surrounding Peterson's phrase "postmodern neomarxists" sort of misses the point. "Victimary morality" might be a better term. "Postmodern Neomarxism" is just the means through which the call to equality is currently articulated, which has existed in various forms over the centuries. Of course, it's difficult to attack the call to equality using the methodology of a previous era's call to equality.

[Anonymous No.17099961]

>>17099938
Lmao, it's 3% of total professors for one.
Social Sciences has roots in critiques of capitalism abd modernism, so it's fairly obvioud their would be some marxists and postmodernists teaching these. Yes, by the very nature it's diversity of thought. I suppose you would rather professors be 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. Thats your diversity. Laughable.

[Anonymous No.17099963]

>>17099938
Not him, but why are you so butthurt about a quarter of professors being communists? If communism is actually irrelevant like you seem to believe, they'll die out over time just like Nazism did in the past.

[Anonymous No.17099978]

>>17099961
>I suppose you would rather professors be 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. Thats your diversity. Laughable.
You should look up what the breakdown actually is.

[Anonymous No.17100002]

>>17099938
What matters is correctness, not intellectual diversity. Social sciences are largely Not Even Wrong. Most sociologists are too dim to even do their statistical work correctly. All of it is suspect.

[Anonymous No.17100008]

>>17099961
Just give me a clear question, pal. 1/4 of professors of a given field being literal radicals okay with you?
>>17099963
>communists
I don't think they're communists. I think they're whatever breed of Marxist thought happens to be convenient. And most Marxist thought is destructive.

[Anonymous No.17100014]

>>17095730
why are you lying/omitting information?
kind of disingenuous

[Anonymous No.17100019]

>>17099978
Why? I don't care. Not even half of the 87% of American high school graduates go on to universities. If Liberal values are more prevalent among the educated, it probably has something to do with them being more logical and helpful than conservative ones. It's nothing I can personally change. Why would we choose unqualified professors over qualified ones. University education is a pretty competitive career. Do yoy oppose meritocracy? Rather have affirmative action for the oppressed conservatives?

[Anonymous No.17100020]

>>17100002
>What matters is correctness, not intellectual diversity.
You can be technically correct in many atrociously misleading ways. As radical professors tend to. When you have professors tweet "all I want for Xmas is a white genocide", it kinda gives me bad vibes ngl lol

[Anonymous No.17100022]

>>17099963
Why do you think critics of communism consider it "irrelevant?" By the nature of being critics they must consider it relevant and malignant.

[Anonymous No.17100027]

>>17100019
>Why? I don't care.
I stopped reading there. Thanks for at least admitting your ignorance is willful, most people try to hide it because it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.17100030]

>>17100008
Hahaha, the field you're referring to was invented by leftists. I'm surprised more of them aren't leftists considering their overwhelming contribution to Social sciences. Even still, a full 3/4s of them aren't self proclaimed Marxists. Jesus, you're fucking stupid m8.

[Anonymous No.17100035]

>>17100020
"All I want for Christmas is white genocide" isnt a scientific statement, it's an expression of resentment by a Jewish social scientist who thinks Cletus is going to rise up and gas him at any moment.

[Anonymous No.17100037]

>>17100027
Oh poor thing. I'm sorry your pet conspiracy can't hold up to even amateuer scrutiny. You're a fucking lemming, being lead around by the ideology you parrot.

[Anonymous No.17100039]

>>17100022
I mean, I criticize Nazism but I don't think it's very relevant anymore. If an idea actually has a sizeable audience and is relevant then why must we dislike the fact that some minority of professors adhere to this idea?

[Anonymous No.17100040]

>>17100030
Not him but pulling out the insults to rile people up is kind of a tell that your troll game is weak. You should be able to make people mad without direct ego attacks, that's just easy and sloppy, too clear of a tell.

[Anonymous No.17100046]

>>17100040
Ridicule is a proven strategy for urging one to refine his beliefs and sharpen his rhetoric. Pussy

[Anonymous No.17100048]

>>17100030
Avoiding again? It's a yes or no question. Are you okay with 1/4 of professors being literally radical? How difficult is this for you lmao.
>>17100035
I know. I don't want such social scientists influencing impressionable kids.

[Anonymous No.17100049]

>>17100037
You're mad.

[Anonymous No.17100053]

There's a huge market for this shit

[Anonymous No.17100056]

>>17100046
Good lord, that's even more lame if it wasn't a trolling attempt.

[Anonymous No.17100058]

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

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

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

[Anonymous No.17100065]

>>17100053
That should give you an idea how many faggy normies there are out there and how utterly empty their lives are.

Just imagine what an abyss of meaninglessness your life has to be for you to consider Jordan Peterson profound

[Anonymous No.17100073]

>>17100019
just admit defeat dude

[Anonymous No.17100077]

>>17100030
Are you okay with 1 in 4 professors being politically radicalized? You never answered as you were too busy rationalizing calling people pussies. Ironic.

[Anonymous No.17100079]

>>17100048
Can you not read between the lines? What kind of low wit intelligence do you have? I've more than implied that it's utterly irrelevant and that I don't care.
>literally radical
Oh nooo. We have to be Neoliberals. Its for the good of the state. Go to Reddit where they won't challenge your tendency to want hegemony. You're weak

[Anonymous No.17100085]

>>17100073
But anon...he clearly mogged the other poster...

[Anonymous No.17100095]

>>17100079
>okay with white nationalists teaching our kids
Awww he hurt himself in his confusion

[Anonymous No.17100097]

>>17100077
Pussy. Learn to read. Why would any self-respecting so called man fear an ideology. We need more radicalization of we hope to liberate mankind from Neoliberal hegemony. I don't care what direction the radicalism skews in. Radicalism is based.

[Anonymous No.17100098]

>>17100058
>All the traditional criteria of merit thrown out the window for a fixation on percentages and 'representation', and yet they still expect the deference accorded to traditional merit based institutions.
You are aware that the Civil Rights Act basically requires this? "Identity politics" isn't a mysterious social force, it's largely caused by Civil Rights jurisprudence mandating it.

[Anonymous No.17100109]

>>17100097
>Why would any self-respecting so called man fear an ideology.
Is this guy for real?

[Anonymous No.17100113]

>>17100095
Idgaf. White Nationalist lack the logical reasoning to sway the smart kids. Ideas can't hurt them. They will choose what they choose. They aren't drugging and hypnotizing kids. If the information they share holds up to scrutiny and the kids find it informative then who am I to care? I'm not a simp for the state.

[Anonymous No.17100116]

>>17100109
He's trying to troll, he just isnt that good at it.

[Anonymous No.17100128]

>>17100109
>>17100116
Frightened children whose ideology can't withstand scrutiny by the public. You stand for nothing. Cowards.

[Anonymous No.17100137]

>>17100128
If you try the same approach three times or more and get nowhere, try changing it up.

[Anonymous No.17100148]

>>17098861
no

[Anonymous No.17100162]

I'm glad you can post a picture of someone's book and literally the all the trolls seethers and retards from the board get attracted to it like moths to light. Makes other threads much cleaner.

[Anonymous No.17100167]

Jesus. The leftists have mogged peterson and his band of zoomer NPC's in this thread. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.17100171]

>>17100162
It's a concept known as containment

[Anonymous No.17100183]

>>17095991
It's because the woke squad is hyper focused on anything that can bridge the gap between normies and wrongthink ("alt-right pipeline"), it's the same reason stonetoss and alt-lite YouTube personalities make them pop a blood vessel

[Anonymous No.17100185]

>>17100113
Based. Imagine being afraid of 25% of professors with such radical propsals as..."Colonialism sucked."

[Anonymous No.17100187]

>>17100167
yeah, you really showed peterson what for

[Anonymous No.17100190]

>>17100183
Or maybe, people just hate grifters and snake-oil salesmen whose ideas are easily refuted.

[Anonymous No.17100196]

>>17100187
Yes, if he read this he would no doubt have to suck pills just like after Zizek effortlessly bodied him.

[Anonymous No.17100212]

>>17100185
This just goes to show that the radicals have succeeded in normalizing their radical views to the point that you roll your eyes at the idea anyone might disagree. Obviously, not that long ago, the majority of people felt differently about colonialism. That's why it happened. And even now it continues to happen, openly, at the hands of countries like China, which do not allow this particular kind of radical thought to take root.

[Anonymous No.17100217]

>>17095605
we live in it

[Anonymous No.17100232]

>>17099247
>No I do not claim that, but someone implements policies that disfavour families such as militant feminism and the divorce courts.

[Anonymous No.17100234]

>>17100190
There are plenty of other mediocre thinkers who don't provoke anywhere near the same reaction. Blue team hates him because he's a high profile red team guy who they can't just browbeat into silence, like they're used to being able to do

[Anonymous No.17100245]

>>17100232
didn't mean to greentext

[Anonymous No.17100247]

>>17100212
Bro, I swear yesterday people loved Colonialism. This is the poor historical understanding of Peterson fans. People outside of the elite have been critical of Colonialism for longer than America has been state. People are critical of Chinese colonialism too, even though at the moment it appears to be much more humane and mutually beneficial arrangement than the British and American Imperialism that "radicals" decry.

[Anonymous No.17100255]

>>17100234
>Blue team hates him because he's a high profile red team guy

There's a 0% chance Peterson isn't a card-carrying Canadian Liberal Party member.

[Anonymous No.17100292]

>>17100255
I think he's an undercover leftist.
>creates some bullshit falsehoods about Marxism
>people look into it to prove him wrong.
>realize that nuleft Marxists are wrong too.
>gets purposefully defeated by a Communist.

Wtf. Fuck Peterson. Left is best.

[Anonymous No.17100295]

>>17099922
I agree that without self-efficacy reaching your goals is way tougher, but it goes without saying that self-efficacy in itself is not enough. There are things beyond the control of the individual, even things that seemingly stems from the individual itself, i.e. talent.

[Anonymous No.17100374]

>>17100292
Reminds me of the infographic which states that Hitler could not have been a nazi as the third reich losing the war prevented the institutionalisation and popularisation of nazism in 1945-> Europe lol

[Anonymous No.17100393]

>>17100374
Lmao. Priceless

[Anonymous No.17100394]

>>17100292
He used to work for the UN, his rise to fame was not natural.
He is controlled opposition, and a dangerous one.

[Anonymous No.17100403]

>>17100394
It's psyops all the way down. From nuleft academia to pol. They're limbs stretch far and wide.

[Anonymous No.17100417]

>>17100234
I hate him more because he is more popular. I dont hear about most mediicre thinkers all the time.

[Anonymous No.17100418]

>>17100292

Jesus Christ.
The man fucked up his daughter by the age of 14 getting her addicted to ADHD pills or whatever. He does not have the foresight to organize a psyops this intricate.
Yet idiots think he's a big conservative purely because he tends to be a reactionary.

[Anonymous No.17100438]

>>17100418
True, a leftist couldn't even act as dumb as he actually is.

[Anonymous No.17100534]

>>17095730

“There is a false saying: “How can someone who can’t save himself save others?” Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?“

[Anonymous No.17100552]

>>17100403
All true resistance is is either quashed or infiltrated.

[Anonymous No.17100701]

>>17100534
Cope to justify funding a grifter that regurgitates entry level platitudes.

Pseud detected, relevant authorities notified.

[Anonymous No.17100751]

>>17095617
I mean, good that they read, but considering lots of people said they don't usually read but 12 rules was the first book they picked up of their own volition, this would likely be the second book that they read willingly