he's the new alt-right leaning sam harris aka pop-culture icon wannabe posing as an intellectual, anyone who likes him should be drowned in a hot tub along with the tsunami wave of rhetorician pseuds crashing down upon millenial shore.

File: 47 KB, 850x400, narcissisticsackofshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:10:56 2016 No.8747253 [Reply] [Original]

he's the new alt-right leaning sam harris aka pop-culture icon wannabe posing as an intellectual, anyone who likes him should be drowned in a hot tub along with the tsunami wave of rhetorician pseuds crashing down upon millenial shore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:13:40 2016 No.8747255 Never heard of him. Thanks for spreading free advertising for him in an age where ideas don't need to be good to gain mass audience, they just need to generate conversation.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:17:11 2016 No.8747261

>>8747253
I disagree, Sam Harris is intelligent and talented at what he does, even if what he does is worthless dogshit. His work is the origin of his fame.
This guy is only known because trannies were angry at him and /pol/tards assumed this must mean he's einstein

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:19:21 2016 No.8747264 >>8747255 >>8747261 He was a Harvard Professor

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:23:50 2016 No.8747267 >>8747264 Oh wow, because academia is an efficient meritocracy right

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:27:34 2016 No.8747271 >>8747267 Plebs think so, especially ivy league. And plebs are the audience for fraudulent philosophers.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:39:26 2016 No.8747290

>>8747261
not really. much like how harris jumped on the fuck religion bandwagon this guy is hopping on the fuck trannies/minorities (in the name of free speech) bandwagon. it's fucking hilarious because i'm pretty sure a huge number of the exact same people who were militantly against religion are now part of the christian far right.
>>8747271
it's more like plebs say university is a bunch of brainwashing bullshit until someone who panders to their brain diarrhoea because they're so thirsty for fame comes along.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:48:46 2016 No.8747302

>>8747253
Eh, I don't know what I think of him. He seems intellectually sound in a lot of respect, but I don't think he actually knows what Marxism is, which is weird for an academic.

Like sure thing professor, Solzhenitsyn sure BTFO'd the entire economic theory of Marxism by complaining about how shitty gulags are. That sure constitutes a reasoned and non-emotive argument.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:54:28 2016 No.8747312

>>8747290
>it's fucking hilarious because i'm pretty sure a huge number of the exact same people who were militantly against religion are now part of the christian far right.

I get the impression there's a lot of contrarians who consider themselves lefties as teenagers and then turn to the right when they go to college and realize that being left wing is now the default.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:58:07 2016 No.8747317

>>8747302
he is good rhetorician bullshitter much like sam harris.
it's not that what he says is absolute bullshit but he's part of a trend where you mix truisms into your ideological bullshit. his complete opposition to marxism as a wholesale "murderous" ideology shows where he's coming from.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 06:59:22 2016 No.8747321 File: 1.23 MB, 800x667, source.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8747302 >economic theory of marxism

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:00:36 2016 No.8747325 why is it wrong for anti-communists to point to soviet russia as an example of how marxism is a poisonous ideology but capitalists who say "we don't have capitalism, we have crony-capitalism" are (rightly) laughed off?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:02:15 2016 No.8747327 >>8747302 >economic theory of Marxism he doesn't need to since it has been thoroughly btfo by reality

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:07:15 2016 No.8747342 >>8747327 Duuuuude ideology lmao

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:22:00 2016 No.8747361

>>8747312
the right wing is going to be the default in about a year or so.
>>8747325
it's fucking hilarious because people criticize communism for the deaths involved to while the USA props up puppet dictators and starts wars directly or by-proxy under the name of "democracy" (capitalism).
communism is scrutinized for not being a perfect system while capitalism is heralded for being the most perfect system there is.
>>8747327
>>8747321
let's totally ignore US trade embargoes and actual wars designed to buttfuck anyone who dares to try the "evil" of communism. but your brain is cucked and you love it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:32:36 2016 No.8747370 >>8747261 Sam Harris is the biggest fraud going.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:57:23 2016 No.8747408 >>8747302 "someone who has studied marxism for 40 years and is a professor at a highly respected university doesn't really know what marxism is or at least doesn't know as much as me." t. millenial who read das kapital

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 07:59:47 2016 No.8747416 >gods are outside or inside Finally we know why the Egyptians thought that cats are gods

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:01:49 2016 No.8747422 The sad thing is that 99% of /lit/ would get crushed by this guy or Sam Harris in a debate.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:09:26 2016 No.8747436

>>8747408

It's mainly his rhetoric that does it. He doesn't actually teach Marxism or talk about it, he just makes it an example of the horrors the authoritarian left. Regarding individual points he just says "go read the Gulag Archipelago", and I mean really, that is decent advice considering the current level of general education (do young people even know who Solzhenitsyn is in the US or Canada?) He is a psychologist interested in the authoritarian mindset and how it affects people and their identities (IIRC he specifically cited the example of ordinary Germans doing horrible things under the Nazis as an early inspiration in one of the Maps of Meaning lectures). He is not a philosopher or an economist and so doesn't really spend any time discussing those aspects of Marxism. Granted I've only watched some of his MoM 2016 lectures, which I do find pretty enjoyable.

I just don't really understand where the fraud-bit comes from. He made a couple of videos in October because of Bill C-16 in Canada, and just because of that people on /lit/ think he is a fraud? Even though the guy has hundreds of hours of material on his channel going back several years? I do wonder who the actual ideologue here is... It's exactly the same rhetoric that the SJWs use against him.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:10:13 2016 No.8747439

>>8747408
not that guy but he's a psychologist you dumbass. why not trust a veterinarian to fix your faulty water heater?
also, you're implying that he read up on marxism to really understand it and not to discredit it entirely. everyone has biases you're just another dumbass getting cucked by popular opinion because you can't think for yourself.
here's a simple example for your intellectual consumerist mind, thomas edison believed that DC was the way to go forward because if he admitted AC was superior it meant he would be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:14:00 2016 No.8747443 >>8747422 Good thing I'm the part of the 1% dipshit

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:20:04 2016 No.8747458 >>8747361 You're right about RW ideology being default son, but it won't be in a year. It'll be in the next half decade to decade. And it'll just get more extreme :^)

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:24:02 2016 No.8747466

>>8747422
no shit they argue for a living.
>>8747436
>He made a couple of videos in October because of Bill C-16 in Canada, and just because of that people on /lit/ think he is a fraud?
do you not see how he's using that as a platform? he actively supports milo the faggot that should say more than enough but if you watch enough of his lectures and you can't tell how much of a bullshitter he is then good luck to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:27:18 2016 No.8747472 >>8747458 nah it'll be normalized within the institutions in a year.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:39:04 2016 No.8747486

>>8747466

I would love to hear you (or anyone) critique his lectures (ie. the Maps of Meaning series and others; the PC videos, for instance, where admittedly done ad hoc) or research, since I have practically zero background in psychology.

I mean, using something as a platform (has he denied it? He has said it took him by surprise, so if you're saying he was lying then and that makes him a fraud, OK, not something that can be debated) is not enough to make someone a fraud (what do you even mean? That he is not an accredited psychologist? Or that his political stance is pure opportunism?). If you have something to say, you obviously want to say it in a manner that will reach the most people. I would think that is a reason he started uploading lectures to Youtube in the first place.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:45:24 2016 No.8747502

>>8747486
i'm not critiquing his psych lectures even though i believe psych to be fraudulent to a large degree.
he is an opportunist for sure. he's a fraud in the same sense that sam harris is a fraud, he's an expert in rhetoric and is using that expertise to speak on topics that he's hardly educated in and are in popular dialogue.
it's not to say he's totally wrong about what he's putting forward is that he's using these easy targets as a method to gain fame and propagate his ideology. just look at the pic in my OP, he posted that on his twitter. does that not tell you something fundamentally narcissistic and attention-seeking about his motivations?

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 08:53:28 2016 No.8747510

>>8747502
I just rememberd that i once watched a video (one of the "sjw getting smashed" or something, i find it's quite funny to see 2 groups batteling eachother, while both of them have flawed realitys) and i could clearly see his smuggness, disguised while talking to some people about prefixes.
He's an oily smug person, who takes where most people break.
You are right anon, he's an nacissistic asshole.
Btw, i'm not the person you replyed too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:08:58 2016 No.8747536 To be fair to him, he is vehemently against Stalinism and Naziism, and if you read his comments on YouTube, he's decisively against any kind of anti-semitism. Your categorisation of him as a member of the alt-right is rather unfair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:11:03 2016 No.8747538 >>8747536 Yeah give him a few months of attention by these spergs and you'll see him slowly get moulded

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:14:04 2016 No.8747542 >>8747538 Maybe, I agree with the idea he is another one of these pseudo-intellectual sound bite pop culture figures. When will these retards die off? Perhaps never.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:15:30 2016 No.8747545

>>8747536
Putting himself away from the alt-right makes him see very much more appealing to most sectiones.
The people who go about, "i'm not racist but..." fit into the category, the racist people kinda see someone who fits too them, even if he says he doesn't.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:19:12 2016 No.8747553

>>8747502
>>8747510

Isn't this a bit irrelevant to the discussion? Kinda like pointing out how Joyce was a complete piece-of-shit as a person when talking about his literary work.

Do you actually have anything against his stance on free speech? I can get if you get pissed because he simplifies Marxism, but he is just pointing out how Marxism has resulted into some of the most horrible authoritarian regimes, and how restricting freedom of speech is one vehicle of achieving such a society.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:22:16 2016 No.8747558 >>8747545 I'm not racist but on /pol/ I want a race war

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:28:27 2016 No.8747567

>>8747553
I am pissed off, that he is bandwagoning the shit, joyce did his stuff because he thought he was the best, and he quite literaly is, whilst the guy here is a fake, because he's trying to get some fame without deserving it.
I don't care about his stances, that one point, that he's getting followers, soley because he's talking about stuff people want to hear, makes him shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:32:47 2016 No.8747574 >>8747558 y-you got me there, haha...

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:38:44 2016 No.8747585

>>8747553
it's different because joyce was a piece of shit who created a masterpiece. this fucker is a narcissistic attention-seeking piece of shit who panders to a culture of misdirected anger with rhetoric.
as for bill c-16. i disagree entirely with the western idea of politicizing any sort of sexual identity/preference, let people do what they want there's no need to talk about it.
however, jordan bringing free speech into the issue is completely irrelevant he's just cashing in on the stupidity and anger of the trans people and the alt-right/various ideologues who are all attention-seeking morons.

have a read of the actual bill, there's nothing regarding "gender pronouns" etc as is popularised it's just something propagated by morons.
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:39:22 2016 No.8747588 NOT AN ARGUMENT O T A N A R G U M E N T

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:43:41 2016 No.8747604 How do we stop people from being swayed by pseudo-intellectual rhetoricians, /lit/? I'm beginning to care more about this shit than I do about left or right or any of that sort of thing.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:49:57 2016 No.8747620
File: 51 KB, 500x679, 1416476496843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I like his ideas on Darwinism and pragmatism.

We didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics nor physics, but we did evolve to maneuver the being of life phenomenologically. Think about it, if believing and acting out religion, or religious ideas makes you propagate your lineage, and make you successful in being human(e.g navigating hierarchies, and being a social creature), then it shouldn't surprise anyone that evolution selected for that behavior psychologically.

So, religion becomes a sort of Jungian archetype or metameme, a meme that is encoded into our DNA.

I really like that idea, and I've started reading Jung to try and flesh it out more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:50:34 2016 No.8747624 >>8747416 underrated bost

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:55:19 2016 No.8747634 File: 895 KB, 920x2492, samHarris3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8747261 If you think Sam Harris is intelligent you should literally off yourself immediately.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:56:21 2016 No.8747639

>>8747604
watch their videos. pay attention to anything that is meant to ignite some sort of emotion(usually inspiration/anger) within you. think about what that translates to in terms of action. be aware of their associations. fix yourself and then fix everyone you can.
it's really no different from religious zealots, listen to every "academic intellectual" as if they were a preacher and encourage everyone around you to do so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:58:12 2016 No.8747644 >>8747620 evo psych is bunkum mate

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:59:14 2016 No.8747646 >>8747644 Sometimes i notice how little i have been here, there are 3 words i don't understand in that sentence. (and it was hard admitting it)

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 09:59:51 2016 No.8747648 >>8747644 I don't understand this. Do people disagree with the underlying concept of evopsych or just think that it's unfalsifiable and unscientific?

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:03:01 2016 No.8747655

>>8747648
>I don't understand this. Do people disagree with the underlying concept of evopsych or just think that it's unfalsifiable and unscientific?

No, Marxists are just uncomfortable with things that aren't strictly materialistic.

If an idea or concept can't relate in any way shape or form to the struggle between productive forces, it isn't real to them.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:04:44 2016 No.8747659

>>8747620
Religion isn't "encoded in our DNA", even if what you said is correct it would be susceptibility to religion. Being able to climb a tree that exists in your environment is not even close to the same as having "trees in your DNA". Parallel cultural and genetic evolution is a pretty cool concept though

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:06:56 2016 No.8747662

>>8747620
>if believing and acting out religion, or religious ideas makes you propagate your lineage, and make you successful in being human(e.g navigating hierarchies, and being a social creature), then it shouldn't surprise anyone that evolution selected for that behavior psychologically.
religion documents a fundamental part of what it means to be human. but to equate that to the necessity of religion is foolish. ultimately it comes down to repression.
what is religion founded upon? God. what have the atheists replaced god with? ideology. you don't need to look very hard to see what people have replaced god with. and ultimately what is this "god" that people are empowered by? it's themselves. we own our energy, what our society propagates is that we require some external force to be able to be allowed use it. society represses it in the very first place with the dichotomy of god vs the devil and now good vs evil when in reality they are the very same thing, it's the energy within our grasp repressed by the systems and ideologies that we are put within.
also, jung is a tricky read. he has some insights but i'd advise you to take him as seriously as you do a fiction writer.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:12:26 2016 No.8747664

>>8747659
>Being able to climb a tree that exists in your environment is not even close to the same as having "trees in your DNA".

Sure, but if natural selection hadn't selected for traits that allows us to climb, we would see trees differently than we do now, and that was my point about it being phenomenological.

A fish cannot abstract such that he understands he actually lives in water, but humans can actually understand their own being, in a sense different from other animals.

Besides, it doesn't seem farfetched to me that just as nature selects, perhaps our DNA also selects based on our experience(a sort of Neo-Lamarckian epigenetics) over long periods.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:13:59 2016 No.8747669 >>8747662 >but to equate that to the necessity of religion is foolish But I didn't. I was just speculating that religion might be an evolutionary advantage on a whole different level than people think today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:16:13 2016 No.8747676 >>8747648 The latter, and especially on the internet "evolutionary psychology" means "I made up a just-so story to rationalise my position".

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:16:40 2016 No.8747677

>>8747646
Evolutionary psychology is false, friend.
>>8747648
Evo psych is
>unfalsifiable
and
>unscientific,
mostly because it takes western cultural norms as a given and extrapolates backwards into human history. Take a common evo psych claim: "Men and women want to get married because women who were pregnant or had toddlers in the Stone Age needed a man around to protect the baby and bring them food." There are two wrong assumptions here: 1. Marriage among all humans and in human history operates in basically the way a westerner would imagine it to. 2. Marriage (as we understand it) is the only obvious way to protect a pregnant or new mother. Two counterarguments:

1. Man-woman marriage is pretty common across the globe, but it operates differently in different places. In parts of aboriginal Australia, a man first gets married at about age 20 to a woman who is about age 60. He becomes sexually experienced with her at a time when she's already past menopause, so that when she dies he can marry a younger woman, who herself has been married to older men since her younger days, and create children with her. I wish I could remember all of the details of this, but I forget the anthropologist I was reading and it's more complicated than how I present it here. The point is, there are many established systems of marriage that go against our idea of what marriage is. Here, the marriage of man and woman has nothing to do with children or their protection. And yet a system of marriage it is. So simply by looking outside the western world in our present day, we can see that the normal evo psych argument is not universal. Applying a non-universal aspect of human life to the lives of Stone Age people (from whom we have almost no cultural information) is a fallacy. It would be correct, for example, to posit that Stone Age people ate food and wore clothes and had sex, because all people today do those things. But you can't create a timeless psychological framework for marriage when your definition of marriage doesn't work for all societies even in our time.

2. Also from the anthropological literature is a society in southwest China (non-Han people) who have no marriage at all. Women "invite" men they want to have sex with to their house for the evening, on a night-by-night basis. No strings attached, the invitation is only for the night. Sisters all live in a housing complex WITH THEIR BROTHERS who collectively raise their nieces and nephews. Sometimes a woman will invite the same man to her room every night for several years, but it's never considered marriage in any sense. Sometimes a woman will invite a different man every night, and there's no stigma to this. No man is ever in the role of "father," because the BROTHERS of the woman impregnated always fill that role for her child. Here we see a system, alive in the modern world, where a pregnant woman or new mother has food, protection, etc., for her baby––without marriage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:19:10 2016 No.8747681 >>8747662 Neetchee strokes his beard...

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:21:36 2016 No.8747686

I'm basically a communist in abstract terms.

I get generally why people on 4chan troll but why would you spend all your time and energy on this shit?

Sam Harris, Evola, whoever the fuck this guy is, they're all third rate minds. Why waste your time. I guess they're probably easier to read than Spinoza or Nietzsche but are you really that lazy?

Is it all cognitive bias toward thinkers that make convoluted arguments to justify a myopic worldview?

There's more genuinely interesting philosophy in a Jorge Luis Borges short than anything Sam Harris has ever done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:23:02 2016 No.8747690 >>8747253 >alt-right this anti academic movement needs to die quick. and its all thanks to the self proclaimed """feminists""" who thought they knew what feminism was without having to read more than a wiki article.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:23:16 2016 No.8747691 >>8747677 Thank you comrade for writing this. If you have received somewhat basic education in psychology or philosophy and also have a healthy, critical mind it's EASY to see evolutionary psychology is shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:25:19 2016 No.8747697 >>8747690 nice try cultural marxist

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:25:27 2016 No.8747700
File: 469 KB, 6109x3995, rate of profit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8747327
Really? Classical global capitalism totally broke down in 1929 and never recovered. New Deal state capitalism in America, fascism in western Europe, and the first 5 year plan in eastern Europe all emerged as a response to this. The Keynesian welfare-warfare system worked for a while after the war till it reached its structural limits in the 70s with stagflation and now the era of the neoliberal experiment is currently breaking down.
The central hegemonic empire has just elected a total clown who is promising a massive Keynesian spending spree but this can't really save capitalism. Government spending every year since WWII has kept growing under all administrations as a necessity to manage this situation. Global profitability has been in total crises since the 1970s and we're starting to run out of schemes to get out of this situation without leaving behind capitalism or accepting the fact that the global economy will pretty much be centrally planned by the pentagon for the US oligarchy. Marxs law of value will have to break down in some fashion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:25:29 2016 No.8747702 >>8747677 >Evo psych cherrypicks shit based on a Western worldview >I'm going to cherrypick some shit myself to prove evo psych wrong Good job.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:26:26 2016 No.8747704 >>8747681 really? i never liked freddie. unless you're saying the opposite of what i think you are then that's great.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:27:58 2016 No.8747712

>>8747702
But the burden of proof is on evo psych, so your analysis is exactly correct. If you create a totalizing theory for how something is, then all I need to do is find any evidence to prove it wrong. I'm not advancing a worldview here, only disproving evo psych.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:29:20 2016 No.8747718 >>8747712 Evolutionary psychology is pretty much the opposite of a "totalizing theory" though. It's not like it's Communism or Fascism.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:29:25 2016 No.8747719

>>8747502
>>8747567
>it's not to say he's totally wrong about what he's putting forward is that he's using these easy targets as a method to gain fame and propagate his ideology. just look at the pic in my OP, he posted that on his twitter. does that not tell you something fundamentally narcissistic and attention-seeking about his motivations?

I really don't see how this proves anything. I am a big fan of Chomsky, and you could realistically say the same thing about him, or any other number of public intellectuals, Sartre, Foucault, Zizek, Scruton (who I really dislike), etc. Tons of books, endless TV and radio appearances, and now internet videos. To people who disagree with them, they are just fame-whoring attention seekers who jump in on some contentious issue, like the Vietnam War, to get attention and push their rhetoric out there. To people who like them, they are so motivated by a particular issue that they step into the public sphere to describe their beliefs and ideas, in which they have great faith. I don't know much about Peterson, aside from what is being said in this thread, and he does sound kind of narcissistic to me, but your vague personality diagnoses could just as easily be leveled at Zizek, who I also like, or almost any public intellectual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:33:42 2016 No.8747736 >>8747702 except other cultures don't come up with an academic framework that claims what every human/culture is like. what are you saying with that? that everything outside the western world is unnatural and an aberration of human psychology/biology?

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:35:19 2016 No.8747743
File: 251 KB, 1235x457, evo psych wiki.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8747718
>Evolutionary psychology is pretty much the opposite of a "totalizing theory" though.

"Evolutionary psychologists suggest that EP is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology but that evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology in the same way evolution has for biology."

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:35:50 2016 No.8747747

>>8747719
I do not like any of that anyway. Still there's a difference. He's appealing to the lowest of lows, as he's gaining from the genderwar. And he knows it. He knows it and still uses it to boost himself up.
I can't speak for what his motivation is, but mostly he looks like a smug idiot, who's not trying to solve anything, he's trying to gain something from the retards who follow/hate him, which initself is the same thing to him, as he just gets more attention to it.
And i don't like Zizek either, whilst he seems a little more earnest about his dishonesty.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:35:59 2016 No.8747749

>>8747736
>what are you saying with that?

I'm saying that simply because evolutionary psychology is spawned in the West doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean it's explanatory power is wrong.

I mean nobody would ever dream of making such a facile strawman argument about physics even though physics was created by European Christians.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:38:45 2016 No.8747756 File: 21 KB, 700x479, LTelMQ6D9VMYFzZUvuU_8XsELc5dupDUL9aBf9yZLJQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] good thread anons bumping

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:39:58 2016 No.8747760

>>8747747
Have you actually watched any of the videos from the protest at the University of Toronto and Peterson's interviews afterward? You say he's "not trying to solve anything," but he keeps repeating, again and again, that this is a free speech issue and that he wants to defend an individual's right to speak without fear of prosecution. This is especially important when "gender expression" is essentially equivalent to "fashion choice." Under the new law, you could be prosecuted for criticizing someone's fashion choices, since it could be taken as a hate crime against zir gender expression.

How are these reasonable arguments appealing to the "lowest of the lows"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:40:13 2016 No.8747761 >>8747743 Evolutionary psychology as a field might be pseudo-scientific, but where does that place us in terms of trying to make guesses and assumptions about how our behaviour could have been formed?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:42:43 2016 No.8747766 >>8747761 >Evolutionary psychology as a field might be pseudo-scientific If evolutionary psychology as a field is pseudo-scientific, then so is evolution to begin with.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:43:40 2016 No.8747769

>>8747718
I am more sympathetic to Evo psych than most people here, but there are a number of people in the field who are "totalizing" in their application of evo psych in a way that, without a lot more evidence that we don't have, is improper. It's a newer field, so of course there is going to be a lot of bullshit churned out by small-time professors and grad students who are jumping on the bandwagon and hoping to have the next big discovery, but that doesn't excuse the number of people in the field who start viewing every little thing through that lens.

>>8747743
Tbf that says that Evo psych people think the field can provide a complete, totalizing framework for psychology, not necessarily understanding the world. If you think psychology itself is totalizing, though, then that's a fair point to make.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:44:48 2016 No.8747770

>>8747761
I get flamed for this, but I personally think that you need to limit the scope of your investigations into human behavior. If you want to understand why Zoroastrians worship fire, it makes sense to study the Zend-Avesta (their holy text) and even to cross the border into a neighboring and near-contemporaneous ancient culture in India, to understand their Vedic fire worship and see how that can compare/contrast to Zoroastrian fire worship.

BUT, it would be intellectually dishonest to come up with just-so stories about (imagined) Stone Age people's relationship to fire in order to explain, with no textual/archaeological/historical evidence, why Zoroastrians worship fire. If your impulse is to explain "humans' relationship to fire around the world," then you will either give up or create something intellectually dishonest. It is too big and varied a topic to cover in one blow. So you need to reduce the scope of your work to what the evidence allows. That usually means sticking to a single culture and the cultures it interacted with.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:45:17 2016 No.8747772

>>8747760
Obviously this board is full of lefties, and if you defend free speech to the letter, it must mean that you support people screaming nigger in public to everyone they want.

It's interesting how the debate in Western culture has now shifted so much that the onus is on people who want free speech to dig up reasons for why they aren't shit people.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:46:13 2016 No.8747777
File: 42 KB, 640x347, f0ld5RHmsb7CznAfmD6R_BD4FW6-Oo4cZmULaDWuVf4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8747719
I think the difference is that Peterson got popular because of an outrage video about SJWs and latched onto that fame, whereas Chomsky, Zizek and Scruton actually believe they have something to say and promote it.

I think that's why we'll forget about this dude in a few months while we're still talking about Manufacturing Consent a quarter century later.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:46:22 2016 No.8747778

>>8747760
I never said that the role he is filling isn't one that shouldn't be fought over. I said that he isn't solving it, but using it.
There's a difference, which is quite major, mostly because one can notice his condesending posture towards both sides, if you watch the video you might notice.
He's pissed off at his supporters and at his agressors, he's useing them to get his own idea published and hates himself for it.
That is dishonesty, jumping a bandwagon, and so on.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:46:59 2016 No.8747779

>>8747719
that was more of the icing on the cake than the cake itself.
he is a narcissistic piece of shit, but that's not the main problem. it's his willingness to jump onto easy targets in order to gain credibility to eventually support something far more sinister.
nothing generally terrible with wanting fame, but there's something fucking disgusting with getting fame by using things like free speech as a way to disguise a support for alt-right ideology.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:48:40 2016 No.8747783

>>8747770
Hmm, not sure I think that's the kind of approach that is good in the long term. Obviously, in an individual sense you're better off with localised analysis if you want more accurate results, but usually the beginnings of important fields like psychology with Freud or sociology with Marx or physics back in the times of Thales started with large, groundbreaking assumptions that shaped the field through analysis and criticism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:48:45 2016 No.8747784 >>8747760 >>8747778 Just to get this straight, i get what you're saying, and i agree, still i can't agree that he is a noble, wise man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:49:43 2016 No.8747787 >>8747719 Does Scruton hold any weight as an intellectual? Some of his output seems a bit like Peter Hitchens-tier polemics, like How to Be a Conservative, but then he also wrote Thinkers of the New Left and Sexual Desire, which seem a bit more hefty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:50:07 2016 No.8747788 File: 22 KB, 280x400, everytrvebmfan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8747766 #justhumanitardthings

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:53:13 2016 No.8747796

>>8747788
It's true though. If you're not going to accept that evolution has anything to say about psychology, because it's "pseudo-scientific", then it's a short step from that to saying evolution has nothing to say at all.

I think this resistance to evo psych is based *a lot* on the idea of Locke's tabula rasa.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:53:53 2016 No.8747798

>>8747760
I'm not Canadian so haven't really got a horse in the race, but the legislation seems to be about aggravating factors rather than speech policing. He's either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the legislation. Or like it's a slippery slope for him or some shit,

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:54:16 2016 No.8747799

>>877749
>I'm saying that simply because evolutionary psychology is spawned in the West doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean it's explanatory power is wrong.
no one said it was wrong because it spawned in the west but it was clearly shown to be inapplicable in various examples. you can't use the word "cherrypicking" when the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it applies across cultures.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:54:25 2016 No.8747800

>>8747779
>but there's something fucking disgusting with getting fame by using things like free speech as a way to disguise a support for alt-right ideology.

I really don't see where you're getting this, that's a really paranoid take on this guy. Did Chomsky support Holocaust denial because he wrote in support of free speech during the Faurrisson affair, particularly when he was known to be a critic of Israel?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:56:09 2016 No.8747805 >>8747796 The problem is not with evolutionary psychology its with its over reaching. It has extremely little explanative value once language came into play bar a reductionist perspective

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:57:29 2016 No.8747811

>>8747799
Yeah, but exceptions to a rule doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist. It sounds more like it's your head that needs "totalizing theories" than evo psych actually being totalizing.

Just because it can't explain absolutely every single thing humans do, doesn't make it wrong, and frankly expecting it to explain everything is childish.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 10:59:29 2016 No.8747819

>>8747796
It's not though. Some ancient Greeks had theories of particles and theories of physics, but if anaximanidosocraticus tried to start talking about particle physics it would almost necessarily be total pseudoscience even if he collected a bunch of followers. He didn't have any scientific ground to stand on, or the tools to conduct a meaningful inquiry into his subject. An existing field of science can be pseudoscientific even if the words could conceivably describe a real thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:03:01 2016 No.8747821 >>8747819 Yeah but evo psych does have some ground to stand on, and where it doesn't, in my own experience with professors, they are very clear that it is conjecture.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:03:17 2016 No.8747822

>>8747783
Fair point. I am highly detail-oriented and don't think I'll ever create a work of genius. But I don't think you can really manufacture genius anyway. Freud, Marx, Thales –– all sui generis, but also all read or not read based on the prevailing will of the time, right? We're still in the Freud and Marx era, but imagine Thales' ideas during periods of Christian orthodoxy, or even the normal paganism of his own and Roman times. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm just curious, how do you define a genius from outside the culture or time period where his ideas are considered genius?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:07:06 2016 No.8747828 Would you prefer the continued degredation of academia (and society) over having someone you dislike opposing it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:08:04 2016 No.8747832 >>8747828 This is why I support Peterson in the Toronto affair

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:08:38 2016 No.8747834 >>8747832 me too desu

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:13:01 2016 No.8747844

>>8747800
try watching some of his videos and reading some his tweets.
if noam chomsky had a twitter and he retweeted faurrisson then yes. there's a difference between saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want and actively supporting what they say.
>>8747811
>It sounds more like it's your head that needs "totalizing theories" than evo psych actually being totalizing.
nice projection.
i clearly rejected the "totalizing theory" which is evopsych and it's clearly you who needs "totalizing theories" except when you're presented with evidence that goes against it then you suddenly admit to its flaws in such a hilariously pathetic manner.
>expecting it to explain everything is childish.
isn't that what it's supposed to do? except when it doesn't then it's excused? lmao.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:14:40 2016 No.8747850 >>8747844 >when you're presented with evidence that goes against it Oh, you mean those pathetic strawmen you constructed earlier? Yeah, I ignored those, for obvious reasons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:24:06 2016 No.8747878 >>8747850 >any evidence that goes against what i believe is a strawman

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:43:48 2016 No.8747940 >>8747850 Can you clearly state what your position is regarding evo psych? You don't seem to buy the idea that if there is evidence against evo psych's claims, then evo psych is faulty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:52:37 2016 No.8747986 >>8747828 so in looking forward to the progression of academia you're going to sit by and let the alt-right pseuds take over? unless you're one of them i don't see how that's anything but stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:56:33 2016 No.8747998 >>8747261 >This guy is only known because trannies were angry at him To you maybe. I've been listening to his recorded college lectures for years.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 11:59:07 2016 No.8748008

>>8747986
I don't think it's accurate to say Peterson is an alt-right pseud, but even if he is, you can stand with someone on a particular issue without endorsing his entire theoretical output. From what he's been saying in the Toronto fiasco, he's happy to have people disagree with him and debate him. He's just defending the traditional (cis-white-male-whatever) commitment to free expression in academia. That's a fight I'll join, and once it's over, I'll have no need for Peterson.

It seems like you're looking for a prophet who's going to agree with you on every political and intellectual issue big and small. Why search for that? There's nothing dishonest about supporting a person in one battle and then disagreeing with him in the next. It's not the personalities here that matter as much as the issues, despite what his nonsensical SJW detractors might say. If you want to fight identity politics, then you can't reduce a person's political stance to their identity.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:27:53 2016 No.8748103

>>8748008
it comes as a package don't you see?
him fighting for free speech is an intellectual front for the alt-right. i mean who the fuck in the western world would say free speech is a bad thing? as i said before, he picks issues that are easy to agree with and uses that as credibility to legitimize other views.
who cares if he debates with random people, he's a fucking academic who speaks for a living. of course he's going to win.
he actively retweets milo the faggot and if that's not an endorsement for the alt-right and its disgusting ideas i don't know what is.
how the fuck am i looking for a prophet? i'm saying fuck all the prophets, jordan peterson is one of them and if you can't see it perhaps you're projecting your need for one.
>He's just defending the traditional (cis-white-male-whatever) commitment to free expression in academia.
what the fuck does this even mean? should we start iq testing people by race and then sort them out to different professions based on the average of the racial iq, to be determined by an all-white panel?
i get that there are some minorities and SJWs who overexaggerate the oppression of minorities. but thinking that you should fix this issue by completely denying their reality as a minority and then in some sick twisted retaliation go down the road of racial science is fucking disgusting.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:38:46 2016 No.8748157

I agree he isn't near the same caliber as any sincerely substantial philosopher, but he is a learned rhetorician. He has a lot to say and says it well. Mostly I enjoy his discussion on existentialism and Jungian archetypes. His perspective is bolstered by his background in 20th century ideology and modern psychological understanding, which is a great utility for critical hindsight of many forward-thinking individuals who were without objective grounding for their ideas.

The whole gender-wars debate is silly regardless of which side you see it from. Anyone who tries to interfere or make sense of it has to acknowledge that no one is in the right, and a lot more information is needed before someone can put it to rest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:38:55 2016 No.8748159 bump

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:43:01 2016 No.8748176

>>8748103
>i mean who the fuck in the western world would say free speech is a bad thing
The people he's fighting are against free speech you moron, that's why it's more important to look at the issues and not his personal stance on everything else.

I don't think you know how bad the situation really is.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:44:49 2016 No.8748186
File: 111 KB, 998x712, jordanpeterson-998x712.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the fuck does everyone on this thread act like they can even compare to Peterson.

You are the morons who said Sam Harris is stupid because he is not part of academia and now Peterson is stupid because he is part of academia. fuking kids

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:48:33 2016 No.8748205 File: 4 KB, 275x183, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8747370 >>8747443 >>8747634 Butthurt christfags

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:53:07 2016 No.8748218 >>8748103 > "Intellectual front for the alt-right". Lefties are seriously delusionally paranoid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 12:56:56 2016 No.8748238 >>8748176 >The people he's fighting are against free speech you moron and those who are are idiots too. how about you go and read the actual bill c-16 instead of echoing bullshit from your nu-messiah you fucking dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:00:10 2016 No.8748250 >>8748218 he supports milo the faggot. you're the delusional cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:01:02 2016 No.8748253 >>8748205 nah, just that his views on science and morality are retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:01:36 2016 No.8748256 >>8748186 how does your girlfriends fluids on his alt-right cock taste anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:02:21 2016 No.8748261 >>8748238 Typing without caps is almost exclusively the practice of teenagers and women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:08:34 2016 No.8748281 >>8748250 Many people do without agreeing with absolutely everything Milo says.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:09:33 2016 No.8748286 >>8748261 >i give up giving a shit about sentence presentation on 4chan is exclusively the practice of autistic virgins.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:12:44 2016 No.8748300 >>8748281 t. alt-right homosexual

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:19:22 2016 No.8748315 >>8748300 t. community college sociology major

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:32:32 2016 No.8748352 File: 1.40 MB, 1334x750, IMG_0468.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8748281 >a talkshow host tier ideologue with a funny accent has something to "say"

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:35:43 2016 No.8748359

>>8748103
What other views does he legitimize?

Furthermore, what is the actual content of those Milo retweets?

If a retweet is to be assumed to be an endorsement, it should primarily be presumed to be an endorsement primarly of the content of that particular tweet, as well as its tweeting, as opposed to an endorsement of the countless tweets that weren't retweeted, whether or not any of those tweets were tweeted by the same person whose tweet was retweeted.

Also, retweets shouldn't take precedence over a persons own words in your forming an opinion of that person. Let's note that Peterson has spoken out against Nazism, presumably he also opposes the alt-right in so far as these coincide, as in violence, oppression, actual nazism, racism, etc.

Let's also note that he retweeted an article calling (paraphrasing from memory) Trump's campaign a scam. In doing so, did he delegitimize the views of the alt-right? What other views does he legitimize? Redistribution of wealth being justified by any means, including murder? The importance of environmentalism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:36:30 2016 No.8748361 >>8748315 lmao if anything community college tards would support milo so nice projection homoboy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:36:43 2016 No.8748362 >>8747743 >in the same way evolution has for biology. So not at all?

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:51:54 2016 No.8748414

>people claim he's doing it just for the attention and money

so have you guys actually watched any of his lectures or interviews on the topic? He's doing it to protect ideas he firmly believes in at the risk of losing his tenured position as a professor and his license to practice therapy.

I can't believe how nasty and ignorant lit can be of a person just because they are critical of the left. Do you guys usually make judgements on people like this without doing any research beforehand?

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:53:38 2016 No.8748422

>>8748256

Why does the alt-right trigger you so much? And why do you think peterson is part of the alt-right? He's even said that he find the alt-right deplorable and it is one of the reasons he is talking against the totalitarian left, because he doesn't want extreme right wing groups to form in opposition to it.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:53:50 2016 No.8748424

>>8747796

Evolution as well the classification of Humans as Animals are demonstrably absurd, ironically, from the absolute Positivist perspective first and foremost.

Most vertebrates have nothing to do with anyone's idea of "fitness", live a life of leisure for the most part, eat and fuck within remarkably tight parameters, and as far as anyone can infer the only selective pressure that is or was ever applied to them is the pressure of being harmonious with their environment and the species they share it with.

Basic Taxonomy does not allow the classification of Humans as Animals because our Linguistic faculties are qualitatively and quantitatively incomparable to that of any other known Animal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:55:19 2016 No.8748431 >>8748103 >>i mean who the fuck in the western world would say free speech is a bad thing Why do you talk about this subject if you have no idea what you're talking about? Please kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:57:08 2016 No.8748441 >>8748414 That's the left echo-chamber for you. Personal vicious attacks and taking pride in doing absolutely no research. They thinks it gives them the moral high ground when they are just being totalitarian assholes.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 13:58:31 2016 No.8748449

>>8748359
go read his twitter i'm not going to dig through his shit for you. he supports numerous other alt-right apologists too.
>Let's also note that he retweeted an article calling (paraphrasing from memory) Trump's campaign a scam.
ALL of his trump-related tweets neither show support nor outright show his disdain for him. he simply documents why trump won. the tweet you're talking about if i remember was an article he retweeted that could barely be counted as a refutation of trump.

just look through his tweets it's evidently a mix
a replacement of god with science, redpill shit, antifeminist shit, anti-islam shit, anti-PC shit antimarxist shit etc etc. he basically tweets anything he knows the worst parts of the internet would like to hear.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:00:57 2016 No.8748460

>>8748422
and yet he supports alt-right apologists.
the totalitarian left in murrica is hardly the totalitarian left it's a fucking joke.
>>8748431
do you have anything to say or did you just want to project your suicidal tendencies? i suggest you go through with it.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:01:19 2016 No.8748463
File: 571 KB, 800x600, jordan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>alt-right

isn't real

Richard B. Spencer is a con artist, none of his desired policies will ever be implemented, but all the while he'll get the media exposure, talk appearance checks, book deals, and hordes of memester (praise kek, pbuh) twitter followers who have done nothing than reelect the neoconservatives they hate

Jordan B. Peterson has explicitly stated disdain for the right, a lot of his conflict is that him and his opponents are talking about completely different things

but the crux of it is that /he refuses to use state-mandated language/, his opponents problem is that /he refuses to use proper pronouns/. Peterson has no inherent qualm with the trans movement other than notable psychiatric observations that being trans is disproportionately statistically associated with mental illness, and that the represented facet of the trans/queer community isn't grass roots: the terms regarding queer pronouns came almost exclusively from white middle/upperclass queerpeoples on the internet citing middle/upperclass white feminists from 1970s academia.

youtube and twitter accounts that self-describe as "alt-right" are jumping to support Peterson because complaning about sjws is a fun visceral pasttime for them, its easier than actually being politically relevant, and Jordan is unironically a prophet of kek (praise kek, pbuh)

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:02:52 2016 No.8748470

>>8748414
I was honestly thinking of making a thread to spread his maps of meaning lectures a few days ago. I'm honestly surprised people are so against him here. Especially on the grounds that he is vain and selfish. He's maybe a tad narcissistic as opposed to being meek and excessively humble, but isn't pride a quality of men who are sure of what they are saying?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:04:48 2016 No.8748479 >>8748460 >the totalitarian left in murrica is hardly the totalitarian left it's a fucking joke. Are you serious? The totalitarian left (=SJWs) has completely infested academia in America.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:06:55 2016 No.8748490 File: 137 KB, 717x880, leddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8748205

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:08:27 2016 No.8748496 >>8748490 >look at me I'm a le christian just to be a contrarian eventhough religion has been obsolete since the enlightenment aren't I cool :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:09:27 2016 No.8748499 >>8748205 >proposes a view of morality that ignores the "is-ought problem" >Not a fraud Pick one and only one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:10:36 2016 No.8748504 >>8748463 >followers who have done nothing than reelect the neoconservatives they hate thinks trump, a mercantilist, is a neoconservative...boy, you sure are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:11:22 2016 No.8748507 >>8748479 that's because the left right now are really left-leaning centrists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:12:32 2016 No.8748510 >>8748496 >religion has been obsolete Get the fuck off my board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:14:20 2016 No.8748518 >>8748504 >thinks trump, a mercantilist, is a neoconservative...boy, you sure are stupid. But the people who Trump has appointed to the government are neocons.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:19:30 2016 No.8748534

>>8748504

from the mouth of the God Emperor himself:

>I was wrong about Obamacare
>all of my cabinet members are going to be establishment neocons

Trump is going to be weakest president we've ever had because he doesn't know how the system works and he's going to be made a bitch of it, he's going to get his orders from the Republican party and whatever NWO goons that threaten him

just listen to his voice now, its soft and tense, his hair has grayed just from the last two weeks after the election because he's realized how in over his head he was, call me an idiot, whatever you like for now, but just wait and watch

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:20:46 2016 No.8748537 >>8748518 do you see anyone from the old reagan-bush crew? no. just because he didn't appoint noam chomsky secretary of state doesn't mean he's a neocon, sorry, more neocon sympathizers in the clinton clique anyways

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:25:09 2016 No.8748546

>>8748534
no one but the nytimes and other clintonite media expected hitler...of course he's keeping obamacare, trump is a populist east coast republican not some texan wacko...it was so obvious he was gonna be left of nixon which is why ppl voted for him, not because half of america are in the klan, stop reading silly stuff like nytimes especially if you are not american because they have no clue about anything. seriously, not even trolling.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:28:40 2016 No.8748562

>>8748534
>from the mouth of the God Emperor himself:
>>I was wrong about Obamacare

That's completely wrong.

"Trump considers retaining PARTS of Obamacare, including keeping adult children up to age 26 on policy,pre-existing conditions."
And from today:
"Pence says it's official: Trump to prioritize Obamacare repeal"

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:30:07 2016 No.8748568 >>8748510 Has /lit/ always been this chock full of christfaggots?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:33:26 2016 No.8748576 >>8748568 Oddly, yes. At first I thought it was all ironic, when people would post "The Bible" in favorite book threads, but the more time you spend here, the more you realize they're sincere....

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:34:31 2016 No.8748579 >>8748576 Honestly, people reading the Bible are better than the one starting Sam Harris threads. At least, they do read.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:34:44 2016 No.8748581 >>8748568 /lit/, ironically, is one of the most religious boards on 4chan. Were you here two years ago? The place was even more full of Christians than now.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:38:43 2016 No.8748591

>>8748537

>do you see anyone from the old reagan-bush crew?

Jeff Sessions - nominated by Reagan for US attorney office in 1981
James L. Connaughton - former adviser to Bush II
Harold G. Hamm - Dick Chaney's pal
Mitchael T. Flynn - US armed forces commander, intelligence under Bush II, Director of intelligence under Obama
Reince Priebus - neocon Paul Ryan's buddy
Stephen K. Bannon - former Goldman Sachs investment banker, former environmentalist, apolitical hack director of Breitbart, a clickbait site that made a shitton of money from the Trump campaign
John R. Bolton - Former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush
Mitt Romney - neocon zombie

the list goes on if you want to research it yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:48:54 2016 No.8748614 >>8748581 I only started coming to this board on and off about a year ago. I mostly stick to /pol/ and /tv/ now. And this board seems like it could give /pol/ a run for its money in number of Christians. Although a lot are probably crossposters.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:49:26 2016 No.8748617

>>8748579
>>8748568
>>8748579

I'm some random new guy joining this thread late, but I only wanted to post this, because I'm amazed also to find Christianity as popular here as it is. Could this be because atheism has just become edgelord/real fucking neato and is now associated with either a) social justice stuff or b) redpill/alt-right stuff? Has Nietzscheanity jumped the shark?

What I mean to ask is, could it be that the odious aspects of modern culture, on either extreme, have atheism in common? Doesn't mean atheism itself is a bad look, or religion necessarily a good one: only that the most obnoxious people you read feel, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, that you're a pleb for not starting from God is Dead. Am genuinely curious, have no answers, etc.

Also not a super-religious type myself, but if the alternative to ultra-fuckfacedness is good old fashioned Christian virtue then this has my attention.

Thanks also for a super-interesting read anons, will be monitoring this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:54:52 2016 No.8748620 >>8748617 This board is obsessed with writers like Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard, that is why there are so many Christians.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 14:59:52 2016 No.8748629

>>8748617
Here is my take on it.

Bashing christianfags is passé, you don't look smart when you do it.

A political or economical system usually survives for 100 years. How do we explain that a religion survives 3000 years? That's a way more interesting approach to discuss religion.

Also, in my European experience, atheists have shown themselves to be pretty repugnant people to be around and discuss important issues. Most of the atheists I know have replaced God with the State which is infuriating to me.

On average, these people have no humility, no culture, no broad perspectives and no values. They do not respect family values, don't want children and yet they act as they detain superior knowledge.

And I am saying that as a strong atheist.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:02:39 2016 No.8748636

Anyone else super hyped the right is becoming default again? Soon we'll have a new 80s-style punk explosion, except of chourse with digital age capabilities. And under what I'm hoping to be an authoritarian American government, Cyberpunk will finally become real!1

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:03:14 2016 No.8748637 >>8748629 lol

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:04:01 2016 No.8748640

>>8748617
4Chan is contrarian, yes. That's why it is full of "conservatives" right now, because we had 8 years of Obama and sjw crap. Once the sjw crap peters out, and we've had Trump for a few years, you will probably see a liberal slant to 4chan. As in real liberalism, not totalitarian progressivism.

Same goes with Christians and atheists. Being Christian is edgy right now. Once that trend dies, people will default back to their original positions. Before there were mostly atheists and agnostics on 4chan.

As >>8748620 stated
People on this board suck Dostoyevsky's cock 24/7, so it creates a bunch of pseudo Christians who are just being trendy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:04:18 2016 No.8748642 >>8748637 Thanks for proving my point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:07:32 2016 No.8748652 >>8748103 Deluded >>8748008 well done for showing reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:12:31 2016 No.8748663 >>8748652 >i'm an invalid with no real capability for thought so i vicariously live through others

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:13:15 2016 No.8748665

>>8748620
This makes sense.

>>8748629
Also this, and I frequently feel the same way, esp about the replacement of God with the State, and about how there is just as much holy vengeance involved in severing an apparently non-theological goal as there is in crusade. Wondered if it was only me for the longest time.

>>8748640
And this too. Thank ye kindly, gentle-anons.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:16:20 2016 No.8748678

>>8748629
Christianity has not survived 3000 years. What are you talking about. Also, Christianity has gone through so many schisms that some forms of Protestantism are barely recognizable as a derivation of original Eastern Orthodox practice. The primary unifier is an interpretative consensus on a few, less-than-ambiguous Biblical ideas, which means arguably it's the Bible which provides Christianity's staying power. And there are plenty of texts whose ideas have lasted as long or longer in the public than the New Testament. (Albeit with less influence.)

I'm not sure either where you get this idea that political and economic systems have century-long lifespans. Democracy is currently 250 years old. Humanism has been around since the Renaissance. Platonic and neoplatonic thought has an enduring presence in discourse. Feudalism lasted centuries. The Roman Empire lasted over a millennium in a relatively stable form. Yes, Christianity's endurance signals that it has some affective power over, or benefit to, its practitioners that shouldn't be ignored. But you're making sweeping and generally incorrect statements in its defense.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:28:54 2016 No.8748720

>>8748678
What I am saying is that there seem to be a primordial power that is hidden into myths, especially religious myths however irrational they may seem.
Take for instance Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and the Flood, or Enuma Elish. These myths have been crafted for as far as we know. They are maybe as old as the oral tradition (20'000 years).

What I am saying is: don't throw the baby with the bathwater.
Secular belief systems have been a complete disaster in the 20th century with approximately 250 million dead under communism alone.

My claim comes from this lecture. Apology if it was not precise enough https://youtu.be/Hw7NvWvwVCA?t=2237

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:31:51 2016 No.8748729 >>8748636 yes also yes

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 15:32:59 2016 No.8748737

>>8748720
>>8748678

Forgot something, I read elsewhere that the average life expectancy of a fiat currency system is less than 50 years old.

So yeah, I summarized it as "political and economical systems survives 100 years". If that's an unfair characterization, I would like to retract that statement. However, I hope you can see where I am coming from.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 16:48:26 2016 No.8749091 >>8748640 > it creates a bunch of pseudo Christians who are just being trendy. This is half-right, many of them follow existentialists, but there is also a very large sect on here that worship the scholastics/aquinas.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 17:54:28 2016 No.8749311

>>8748460
>and yet he supports alt-right apologists.
Where? Tell me where he supports the alt-right or is against transexuals and not just against the left supporting minority groups as a way to have the moral high ground against their selected enemy groups?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:01:25 2016 No.8749329 >>8749311 supporting milo the faggot and gad saad the alt-right apologist isn't supporting the alt-right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:11:42 2016 No.8749353 >>8749329 I guess you're right, he must support gassing the Jews because he's referenced Pepe the frog too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:18:52 2016 No.8749364 >>8749353 why gas the jews when they're glad to be honorary whites?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:35:05 2016 No.8749400 >>8749329 >muh alt-right boogeyman get the fuck back to your echo chamber

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:43:12 2016 No.8749424 >>8749400 t. alt-right apologist

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:46:03 2016 No.8749428 >>8747253 i don't think he's racist so he can't possibly be alt-right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:53:13 2016 No.8749453 File: 13 KB, 300x300, 1479376097997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8747677 >it takes western cultural norms as a given and extrapolates backwards into human history. t. undergrad that doesn't understand evo psych

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:55:40 2016 No.8749458 >>8749424 >spends entire thread whining about alt-right >can't say anything but that term let me guess: did peterson assume your gender and not call you xhe? pathetic cunt. off yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:01:57 2016 No.8749485 >>8749458 can't be because i was facefucking your mother and all she could do was talk about how much more of a man i was than your father.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:08:17 2016 No.8749503 >>8749485 masculinity is an alt-right concept you cis-oppressor, check your privledge

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:11:36 2016 No.8749511 >>8749503 it was based off my big dick so no i don't have to subscribe to closet homosexual ideology to be more of a man than your micropenis-wielding father.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:12:05 2016 No.8749513 >>8749485 i highly doubt you can fuck anything with your post-gender-transition dick.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:16:35 2016 No.8749534 >>8749513 your mother told me about her depressed son while i was fucking her in front of your micro-penis father. why are you projecting your gender dysphoria onto me buddy? just go ahead with the transition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:19:12 2016 No.8749545 >>8749534 everyone please, i identify as a pair of genderswapped penises and i'm starting to have trouble breathing

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:23:02 2016 No.8749562 >>8749545 sounds about right

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:27:06 2016 No.8749575 >>8749534 not only do you have shitty, repetitive insults, but also you manage to dig yourself deeper into some micro-penis obsession with every post. surprising, you can dig yourself into anything considering you'd had it cut off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:31:39 2016 No.8749594 >>8749575 >being that butthurt that you have to samefag and reply twice to the same post you do know that oversensitivity is a symptom of homosexuality and gender dysphoria? make the change bruh. i'll be giving you a new sibling meanwhile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:35:18 2016 No.8749605 >>8749511 i am a woman

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:41:15 2016 No.8749630 >>8749605 i highly doubt that but it's irrelevant either way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:56:16 2016 No.8749689 >>8749630 much like your penis

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:59:16 2016 No.8749696 >>8749689 not to your mother it wasn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:04:17 2016 No.8749715 >>8747436 So he's basically a Stanford Experiment babby? Good to know. . .

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:04:25 2016 No.8749716 >>8747655 >struggle between productive forces all history is the history of tools duking it out

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:08:18 2016 No.8749730 >>8747361 Name a communist country that never genocided its civilians.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:12:21 2016 No.8749745

>>8747325
Because Marx made it clear what he meant by each term, such that capitalism does actually describe how many nations are, while communism simply has never been implemented on anything but a minor scale. If you accept what the terms mean there should be little controversy here. No doubt that Marx's teaching have resulted in a ton of bad shit happening, but I honestly don't think the world would be a better place had he not been born.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:12:33 2016 No.8749746 >>8748720 That lecture is fantastic

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:15:14 2016 No.8749757 >>8749696 my mother is dead

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:15:46 2016 No.8749762

This started at a high level but then yo mama n shit. Great job lit. Of course he's a narcissist everybody is these days especially in the academia. But that's beside the point. The guy was minding his own business until the uni rattled his cage with some pc policy regarding the new pronouns. He got pissed said fuck it and started his crusade. His videos on sjw are the most comprehensive and well thought out I've seen probably because he did some research regarding the subject. Highly recommended.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:17:45 2016 No.8749775

>>8748414

This may be true. However, I have yet to have my interest piqued in his work. Nothing advertized here sounds very good. Sorry. . . I don't see why he should be crusading for free speech when the concept of free speech in an era where the average literate person's vocabulary is 10,000 words is absurd. If language determines thought and speech is the expression of thought, most people can't think worth a damn and therefore being free to express not much at all is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:21:28 2016 No.8749788 >>8747466 >he actively supports milo the faggot [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:22:45 2016 No.8749794 >>8749715 not really

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:23:25 2016 No.8749798 File: 18 KB, 222x258, gorilla.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8749775 >If language determines thought Language only socializes thought, it's garbage

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:23:58 2016 No.8749803

>>8748614
/his/ has a lot of christposters, or at least they did, I kind of migrated from there to here. I think part of the rise of Christianity here is that some of the high school edgelord atheists from a decade ago grew up and either converted or at least reduced their edginess and became more open-minded towards religion. Also, the "in this moment, I am euphoric" and other fedora memes made Dawkins-Hitchens atheism uncool, so Christianity is a little trendier.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:27:28 2016 No.8749827

>>8749775
So lets just allow the world to be dumb and thought controlled instead of standing up for our values. Seriously fuck you, youre a fucking bottom feeder who sees someone else standing up and trying to make a difference, but all you can is bitch that someone isnt as pessimistic and sarisified with mediocrity as you are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:28:19 2016 No.8749835 >>8749798 There is considerable experimental evidence for a soft version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ("language determines thought").

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:28:56 2016 No.8749838 File: 122 KB, 425x516, 1444519185838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sam Harris is basically Ben Stiller.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:30:26 2016 No.8749843 >>8749827 But the people fighting so hard for free speech and having it in spades ARE the thought-controllers, dip.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:32:09 2016 No.8749847 >>8749843 I guess if you think emphasizing values is the same as thought control. But thats a pretty retarded definition

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:33:16 2016 No.8749853 >>8749847 Values that are a lie and always have been. Money talks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:37:34 2016 No.8749868 >>8749853 And how is the concept of freedom of expression not valuable? You honestly believe certain ideas should be ilegal from being talked about

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:41:26 2016 No.8749884 >>8749853 Please explain exactly how people are being contolled by freedom of speech. This ought to be good

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:42:07 2016 No.8749889 >>8749730 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history .

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:43:53 2016 No.8749900 >>8749889 >name a country that HASNT genocided >links a list of genocides Pretty stupid senpai

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:48:06 2016 No.8749919 >>8749900 >not being able to infer how genocides are committed across different contexts and cultures pretty dumb retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:50:20 2016 No.8749929 >>8747639 underrated post

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:50:29 2016 No.8749930 >>8749919 Im just saying you didnt answer his question. Seems like kind of a cop out

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:52:05 2016 No.8749938 >>8749930 it's a stupid question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:52:30 2016 No.8749942 >>8749730 Citizens? You mean class enemies. Fucking kulaks deserve the gulag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:52:42 2016 No.8749943 >>8749938 So answer it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:55:56 2016 No.8749959 >>8749929 Not really. He essentialy just said "be skeptical" in an unnecessairly long and drawn out way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:56:02 2016 No.8749960 >>8749943 tito's yugoslavia, hoxhA'S ALBANIA

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:56:50 2016 No.8749966

>>8747800
>Did Chomsky support Holocaust denial because he wrote in support of free speech during the Faurrisson affair

I seriously hope he actually does, but just doesn't say so openly due to the fear of what that might do to his reputation. So much of what David Irving has to say is spot on and leaves his opponents resorting to slander and personal threats because they have no other recourse, and I have little doubt that Chomky understands the implications of this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 20:56:58 2016 No.8749968 >>8749960 Ok. Ill take your word for it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:05:15 2016 No.8750018 >>8747604 Do you honestly think a PHD psychologist, whos taught at universities for 30 years, published book, and over 500 peer reviewed research articles, is a "pseudo intellectual"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:06:01 2016 No.8750021 >>8747253 He's literally a center left faggot. Chill your panties, trannyboi

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:08:32 2016 No.8750029 >>8749968 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito >crtl + f >genocide >0 results

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:09:33 2016 No.8750036 >>8750018 no, I meant generally. that was before I checked out his youtube channel and saw he's a breddy nice guy

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:10:54 2016 No.8750044

>>8747253
Peterson doesn't care about left or right leaning ideologues he cares about the human condition works tirelessly to promote a healthy well being for all of his students and whatnot and will fight against those who seek to destroy that well being.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:11:05 2016 No.8750046 >>8750029 Wtf is your problem, I said I would take your word for it. >>8750036 Oh ok.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:13:09 2016 No.8750057
File: 88 KB, 600x531, file.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8750018

Pseudo intellectuals according to lit:

Nietzsche, Goethe, Einstein, Hobbes, Hume, Kan, Schopenhauer, Evola, Spengler, Marx, Smith, Camus, anyone who's ever contributed anything to humanity etc. ad nauseam

Yet nothing of even minor significance has come from anyone on this board, and they're bitter about their unsuccess

That's why this board is shit, it's a cesspool of people so angsty and negative that their only avenue of expression is to lash out

Seriously, look at the morons infecting this board

>>8749534
>>8749545
>>8749696
>>8749838

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:24:23 2016 No.8750109 >>8750057 and you're angsty and negative that others are angsty and negative while hanging out on a board you deem angsty and negative i wonder who's the angsty and negative one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:34:34 2016 No.8750165 >>8750109 We all are. Hes at least aware of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:34:42 2016 No.8750167 >>8750046 I thought you were being facetious. Sorry I'm a cynical dick

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:40:30 2016 No.8750201
File: 634 KB, 598x819, Young aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8750057
Don't you dare reference my innocent ben stiller post in your stupid shit post ever again.
It's a good thing you didn't mention anybody who has contributed something to humanity except hume maybe.
Most of those people have only fucked everything up with their retard autistic shit, and yes they are pseuds, not up for argument go the fuck home you undergrad cockworm.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:45:11 2016 No.8750218 File: 167 KB, 913x600, Goethe_Farbenkreis_zur_Symbolisierung_des_menschlichen_Geistes-_und_Seelenlebens_1809-e1440598899150.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8750201 >Gayf >not countrybooted to hugemanatee

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:47:47 2016 No.8750241 >>8750057 we have been contributing harmless degenerate shitposting. but there is only one crime on /lit/ and that is being a bore your post is banal sirrah. taste the back of my glove w-psh

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 21:56:19 2016 No.8750288 File: 27 KB, 600x600, 1080184657869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw another /lit/ thread devolves into shitposting because of either sides inability to properly argue and refute points God bless 4chan.

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 22:04:20 2016 No.8750311

>>8750288
Refutation is a fucking meme only atheists use as an excuse to be wrong.
Almost always it happens that the refutation itself is beyond the comprehension of the one whose point is being refuted.
The correct thing to do when somebody tells you you're wrong is to accept it on authority.

>>	Anonymoos Mon Nov 21 22:26:19 2016 No.8750383 >>8747422 yeah but I could out fan fiction them within the course of 24 hours

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 22:40:58 2016 No.8750424

>>8747677
I assume those non-Han Chinese people didn't get very far with that much inbreeding going on.

Also you realize that women post-menopause are literally dry sponges, right? It doesnt really matter if she can't bear children if Junior can't get in there without tearing up her pussy. I don't imagine they had KY gel back then

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 22:51:25 2016 No.8750456 >>8747361 >the right wing is going to be the default in about a year or so. it isn't already?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 01:11:30 2016 No.8750905 >>8750018 considering psychology is a pseudo science...yes. either follow the scientific method or go full humanities, fuck this fake shit

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 09:27:15 2016 No.8751856

>>8750424
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Daily_life

They still exist, their general society seems to be extremely different from anything western society has going from recorded history onwards and etc.

Honestly, I don't even think evopsych is that bad (or that good), but you're coming out as a huge tool who needs evopsych to explain whatever shit you got yourself into

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 15:48:31 2016 No.8752986 >>8747253 if that's not the face of a cuck i don't know what is

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 15:52:47 2016 No.8753003 >>8747439 >Sociologist - Psychologist equivalent to >Veterinarian - Electrician Hmmm

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 15:58:05 2016 No.8753031 >>8753003 >said the harrisite

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:00:42 2016 No.8753051 >>8750905 >psychology is a pseudo-science or >"I don't understand Carl Jung so I'll just say it's all a pseudoscience"

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:00:52 2016 No.8753053

>>8752986
jesus christ. you do realize that this man is basically getting crucified in the media right now for fighting against gender pronouns, don't you?

it is objectively not possible to be against social justice cucks AND against peterson. wake the fuck up you mouthbreather

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:02:02 2016 No.8753059 >>8753031 I don't even know who the fuck Sam Harris is. I remember seeing some quotes from him when I was into Stoicism. That's my knowledge of him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:06:14 2016 No.8753079 >>8747772 It's about compelled speech vs restricted speech. And legislated speech vs social control of speech.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:07:51 2016 No.8753084 >>8753059 >into stoicism that explains it all

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:08:53 2016 No.8753090 >>8753053 >it is objectively not possible to be against social justice cucks AND against peterson said the cuck

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:10:10 2016 No.8753095

>>8753059
And as for the rising hate of Jordan Peterson, I can only assume it's because he became popular over an issue that's big in pop culture while simultaneously giving lectures about philosophy (although if you actually pay attention, most of his lectures are firmly rooted in his phd and only refer to Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Gulag Arch, to support his beliefs). The thought of their being any worth to something a professor whose debated gays on national television says probably fills most people up on this board with rage.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:15:38 2016 No.8753114

>>8753084
Heck, you sure got me.

Although, looking back at how I acted, stoicism is more useful to a person than any of the trite written by Max "nothing even matters!" Stirner, Veggie Tales co star Nietzsche, or Arthur "Why won't women FUCK me?" Schopenhauer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:19:29 2016 No.8753121 >>8753051 >understanding jung congratulations you're the rhetorician version of the dumbfuck new-age moronic cunt

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:34:12 2016 No.8753178
File: 226 KB, 959x639, IMG_0849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8753121
Cool.
Hey I'm going through some serious things right now in my personal life, I'd really appreciate it if you could understand I'm not in the best mindset right now, and you typing like that might make me kill myself and cause a lot of problems in the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:38:43 2016 No.8753198 >>8753178 if you want to kill yourself in reaction to words i'd suggest you do yourself a favor and start denouncing rhetoricians instead of worshipping them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:40:33 2016 No.8753202 >>8747700 This graph is misleading. Profit is still increasing. The fact that it has been relatively stable in the last 30 years is surprising.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:41:32 2016 No.8753204 >>8753198 >in reaction to words The reaction is more to how humanity as a species values their own pride and vanity of being right (although it's all the working of chemicals, so no one has any real understanding about anything) than other humans.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:42:34 2016 No.8753206 >>8753202 Also, wouldn't the rate of profit be compounding off the previous year? So the actual amount of money being made is much greater than in the 1950's.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:49:04 2016 No.8753231 >>8753204 >rhetorically explains his reaction perhaps you are hopeless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 16:59:14 2016 No.8753277 >>8753231 >explain why I reacted a certain way using words of the English language Yeah, I'm the hopeless one. Run away and debate someone now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 17:07:02 2016 No.8753314 >>8753277 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rhetoric you really might be.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 17:17:56 2016 No.8753360

>>8747361
>let's totally ignore US trade embargoes and actual wars designed to buttfuck anyone who dares to try the "evil" of communism. but your brain is cucked and you love it.

yeah communism didnt work because the capitalist countries wouldnt practice free and fair capitalism with communist countries. LOL get the fuck outta here.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 17:34:58 2016 No.8753415

Peterson wants to mush up bits of all religions together in order to come up with a universal theory of morality. If any theists here think he is an ally of theirs, he isn't- he wants to pull another Jefferson Bible and reduce Mohammed and Jesus Christ to moral philosophers. Worst case scenario, he turns into an Evola knockoff and tries to revive perenialism before settling down to write books on magic and far right politics. Anyone who thinks that all religions are compatible cannot take any of them very seriously. Think of him as the evil twin of the "everyone goes to heaven who meets my personal standard of niceness" ecumenicists.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 17:38:42 2016 No.8753436

>>8753360
What are you talking about? The US sold lots of grain to the USSR, many of the Warsaw Pact countries took out loans from (mainly West German and British) Banks, a substantial portion of Soviet rocket artillery pieces used a modified Ford chasis produced at a plant the company set up in Russia, and the De Beers Company kept its diamond prices low by mining in Siberia.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 18:31:10 2016 No.8753652

>>8753415
I think Peterson brings forth the idea that the concept of religion is rooted in the core of human motivations and perceptions of nature.
The idea that religion was conceptualized globally as a way to represent our fears, vices, and innate sense of morality.

I may be misrepresenting Peterson but after watching his lectures I got the impression that he believes the fundamentals of all religions are the same at their core, which is to say that they represent how we perceive nature and ourselves.

Thoughts?

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 18:48:22 2016 No.8753736

>>8753652
I think that it is very easy to overstate similarities between religions. Buddhism focuses entirely on the self, Christianity on the relationship between the self and God, and Islam on the self, Allah, and society as a whole. I do believe that there is a universal human morality that is a product of natural selection; for instance, the principle "women and children come first." Any society that believes this will be able to out compete one that doesn't, because you can lose many adult men without reducing the size of the next generation. However, I do not think that the best place to look for this is in religions, virtually all of which value other things above mere brute survival, things which are not themselves proxies for survival. Anthropology is where he should start in his project to determine the nature of a universal morality.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 18:51:17 2016 No.8753746

>>8753736
Also, the sort of universal morality you would get by completing this exercise is hardly worthy of the name. Think never ending /pol/ tier tribal conflict. I suppose it does reflect how people behave in the world, but it doesn't say much about their ideals.

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 19:02:01 2016 No.8753797

>>8753736
I can't recall Peterson ever talking about Buddhism, but I'm only about 12 hours into his lectures. To your point, it's possible he just cherry picks religions to find commonalities, which is disappointing to me. The idea sounded nice to me that all these different religions could be housing the same fundamental values that would suggest a core trait in all cultures of people.

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