JP

File: 1402384784284.jpg (68KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 512x512px

bumping with relevant stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis&

bae

>>2077886
forced meme

>>2077928

Ya can't force truth

>>2077886
he's a racist fucking transphobic piece of shit and his lectures are nothing but regurgitated 1950s cia red scare propaganda

>>2077932
lmao

Peterson is brilliant, i watched many of his lectures 2-3 times.

File: 10959366_524260821045558_1229138108963029403_n.jpg (11KB, 400x245px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x245px

>>2077932

Can anyone recommend some reading on Marxism being problematic. I have listened to him speak on it but I need more to better formulate my own ideas

>>2077974

The Gulag Archipelago

>>2077974
main currents of marxism

This guy is really fantastic, the best thing to come out of Alberta in forever, essentially. I went from having a vague idea about the controversy, to seeing a few of his videos and becoming a big ol' fan.

>>2077974
>I need more to better formulate my own ideas

You need to read and internalize more people's ideas to better formulate your own ideas?

>le The Gulag Archipelago

Lmao, this guy considers himself an intellectual but continually shills a book which has been proven to be sensationalist trash multiple times


And no, I'm not a fucking commie.

>>2078097
>which has been proven to be sensationalist trash multiple times

[citation needed]

>>2078086
Do you just pick a feeling and go with it? No research no reading just a dogmatic belief?

I want information, ideas and opinions from others as it helps to build a sound and structured opinion. How else do you look to learn things and move towards understanding? Are all your own ideas proprietary and pure of outside knowledge?
For fuck sake dude how did you think that was a reasonable response?

>>2077886
>generic mid tier moron
>goes on an anti-SJW rant
>HES OUR GUY BAE JESUS

/pol/ in a nutshell.

>>2078118
Look up the Russian records which were released in the 90s, 50 million people were not killed.

And before you start saying hur dur that's fabricated, what other evidence are you going to rely on?

File: 1481352052751.png (232KB, 498x466px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 498x466px

>>2077932
>>2077928
>>2078097
>>2078126

>>2078097
His wife has publicly stated she helped him write it by making shit up.
Most of the book is citing a fact, sourcing it, and then continuing with unsourced rumors as if they are part of the cited fact.
Inflating numbers, always taking the highest in any estimate, and sometimes making it even higher than any other estimate.
Actually when you look up info about the gulags these days the highest numbers are always sourced to this book, and then are not sourced anywhere form the book; meaning this book is considered primary source now, thats how biased people are.

>hurrr commie marxist shill
I am not defending communism, I am defending the truth.
This book is propaganda, and regardless if it supports my personal views, as I dislike communism and the USSR myself, it is mostly lies.

>>2078124

You asked, specifically, for 'some reading on Marxism being problematic'. This isn't 'more information', this is more from the same vein you're already drawing from. If you were really looking to learn about a subject, like Marxism', you'd be seeking out all kinds of different opinions and sources of information, not just those that reconfirm your biases.

>>2077974
>Can anyone recommend some reading on Marxism being problematic.

The Road to Serfdom and The Communist Manifesto.

>>2078126
His "anti-SJW rant" is literally the least interesting thing about him. His thoughts on mythology, religion and science are way more interesting.

>>2078130
>Look up the Russian records which were released in the 90s, 50 million people were not killed.

Yeah, and the same argument is used by Holocaust-deniers, because there doesn't exist records that show 6 million Jews were killed either.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

>>2078156
His thoughts can be summarized by saying he believes in objective evil, and that every person who does something he'd consider bad is objectively evil, and doing evil on purpose, for evil's sake.
Those are shit thoughts and clearly the result of a third grade psychologist trying to do philosophy and ethics.

>>2078157
>Just because the evidence suggests Y, that doesn't mean that the truth isn't seven times Y!!!!

>>2078138
Link to his wife lying?

>>2078157
>Yeah, and the same argument is used by Holocaust-deniers, because there doesn't exist records that show 6 million Jews were killed either.
>That doesn't mean it didn't happen.


WRONG.

There are Nazi records. Specifically documents shown to Hitler outlining how many Jews were killed, including transport documents which were found to belong to Eichmann.

The Holocaust is based on a whole spectrum of facts

>>2078163
Its in her autobiography, that during the cold war the USA government insisted was actually a fake person and the KGB wrote her book.
Pretty funny stuff.

>>2078159
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

>>2078173

The Russian government did try to levy her against Solzhenitsyn during the run-up to publication of The Gulag Archipelago.

>>2078175
What do you mean by this?
I don't think that evil is objective, nor do I try to mask new age psychology as ethics or philosophy.
He does, as evident by his lectures and videos. He, for example, says that Hitler achieved exactly what he wanted - to see Germany destroyed and many germans killed. He wanted it, because he is evil, and evil people want evil things. If you think this is stupid, it is because you aren't evil, and can't comprehend the evil mind.

You appear to just be giving me the "no u" canned response without making an argument.

>>2078180
Can you source that claim by quoting documents or other primary sources?

>>2078183
>What do you mean by this?

I mean, you're arguing that someone's thoughts is simplistic and third grade, by reducing their thought to third grade simplicity.

Hence, "talk about the pot calling the kettle black".

He's way more nuanced and well-thought out than simply "hurr durr is bad mkayyy", but I get that it's hard to actually listen to what people are saying.

>>2078192
Do you have a single fact to back that claim up?
Because I've watched several of his lectures, and they were always common sense combined with his idea of objective evil and people who disagree with him intentionally doing evil things because they are evil.

>>2078185

This isn't a primary source, but if you're clever you'll immediately perceive the avenue by which you might obtain a primary source:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/world/natalya-reshetovskaya-84-is-dead-solzhenitsyn-s-wife-questioned-gulag.html
>In 1974, when Mr. Solzhenitsyn was living in exile in the United States and preparing to publish ''The Gulag Archipelago,'' the Soviet authorities persuaded Miss Reshetovskaya to intervene with her former husband to try to get him to stop publication.

The author of that article is named Paul Lewis. He now works at the Guardian. You can contact him there. His information is available publicly.

>>2078197

Provide an actual quotation, and not your own interpolation

>>2078205
https://youtu.be/bjnvtRgpg6g?list=PL22J3VaeABQAGbKJNDrRa6GNL0iL4KoOj

Around 23:20 in his Lecture 01, and at least once in every lecture.

>Stalin intentionally killed his own people
>Stalin wanted nuclear war so more people could die
>Hitler never wanted to win, he wanted to punish the german people
>because they are EEEEVVVVIIIIILLLLL

And don't write back to me before you watch all of the lectures in this playlist, asking questions.
I've given you the material, study it. You'll soon be agreeing with me and distancing yourself from the lecturer.

>>2078199
Your source is "a guy said so" and you ask me to call the guy, so he can tell me so again.
Also I noticed that this is the only statement in the article that wasn't sourced to a previous publication.
Also the article itself supports her views that the book The Gulag Archipelago is rumors and "camp folklore".

>>2078213
That's not what he's saying is it?

I get that this is what you hear, but it isn't what he's saying.

>>2078142
>implying I am seeking to confirm a bias
Are you legitimately equating asking for further reading as a confirmation bias. The university I attend has plenty of material on Marxism as the answer, that is the bias of most western institutions (I can't speak for others cause I don't know). It is very difficult to find quality material on Marxism as problematic or at least I have found it to be.
Rather I find a lot of dogmatic and ignorant writing like yours that attempts to build a nice straw man to get their belief across.
I wouldn't be surprised if you were behind some of the first year papers I had to trudge though. Some empty millennial without that substitutes cynicism and self sanction in the place of understanding or at least a will to do so.

File: quotes.jpg (141KB, 506x482px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 506x482px

>>2078230
Watch the lectures instead of insulting me.
The guy is such a joke that his own words are the best argument against him.
Stop shilling anti-SJW youtuber #1450 and stop taking your views from morons on the internet.

>>2078223

The New York Times has fact checkers. It's not HuffPo, where you're just allowed and actually encouraged to publish things off-hand, blog-style, with no references. There's a whole chain of liability if something gets published that isn't true, particularly if it poses a potential libel suit. Being a news article, given limited space available in print, the citation isn't given in the text. But you can contact either Paul Lewis himself OR The Times, and they will gladly provide you with the source.

>Also I noticed that this is the only statement in the article that wasn't sourced to a previous publication.

I don't know what you're talking about, there are plenty of lines in the article that aren't 'sourced' to anything.

>Also the article itself supports her views that the book The Gulag Archipelago is rumors and "camp folklore".

No, it doesn't, it just states that that's what Reshetovskaya says of the work. Here:

>Pointing out that the book's subtitle is ''An Experiment in Literary Investigation,'' she said that her husband did not regard the work as ''historical research, or scientific research.'' She contended that it was, rather, a collection of ''camp folklore,'' containing ''raw material'' which her husband was planning to use in his future productions.

See? You can reprint something without endorsing the validity of that being reprinted.

>>2078241
"I don't get why we ever assumed that these guys were after victory", is not the same as your simplistic characterizations.

>>2078238
see >>2078148

Read the manifesto to see what Marxism and Communism were meant to be, ideally, and why they were designed like that.
Read the Road to Serfdom to see why this isn't achievable.

Here is my view:
1. Marxism sets to solve the outdated problems of a) needing a lot of money to make any money and b) the horrible and potentially fatal conditions of factory workers.
This is no longer the case. People can make money almost from scratch with small businesses like micro bakeries, pet food stores, web development, private car taxi services, and so on, and work conditions have greatly improved - people don't casually die at the job.
2. Marxism assumes that the natural state of people is cooperation and lack of private property. This assumption is based on the contemporary to it theory of per-civilization humans. We now know it to be false, so its build on false assumptions about the nature of man.
3. The good parts of Marxism are already implemented - women's liberation, retirement funds, working condition standards, gay rights, abortion legalization, minimum wage, and so on. Only the very radical ones - no private property, no money, no marriage, no trade, no army, no borders and so on, are not adopted.

Thus Marxism seeks to solve a problem that doesn't exist anymore, and does so after an assumption that anthropologists have proven is wrong.
It is a relic of its time, made sense back then, and doesn't today.

Still recommend reading the Road to Serfdom if you aren't convinced.

>>2078238

I'm not a Marxist, I just think you're a rube.

>>2078258
I won't make a 5 mile long list of quotes, I gave you the video source, go and watch it.
He is perfectly capable of making a fool of himself if you give him the time.
I mean, you might as well actually watch his shit if you will defend him.

>>2078266

Well, why did Hitler lead the Germans into a war he was perfectly aware they were incapable of winning?

>>2078266
I have watched almost everything he has on Youtube, and I while I don't agree with every single thing he says, you're still a blithering idiot who is just out to poison the well.

>>2078272
Because learn history before posting.

>>2078274
>i am aware of your argument, but i insult you, thus you are wrong!

>>2078275
>i am aware of your argument

Your whole argument is a strawman, and I don't care about arguing against strawmen.

>>2078275
>Because learn history before posting

Seems like the lessons of World War I should have been fresh in Hitler's mind, having lived through the hell of it himself.

>>2078277
My whole argument is repeating Jordan B Peterson's whole argument.
If you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with his main idea.
I don't know why you pose as if you are defending him, then disagree with his ideology of objective evil.

>>2078278
1. Hitler was told, as all germans were, that their army remained undefeated, they were close to winning, the bankers and politicians backstabbed them with the rushed peace.
2. He thought he could get away without war one last time, when war was started after demanding Danzig.
3. He thought he can win the war when it started, and it sure looked like that initially, after the surprising quick success in France.
4. Russia performed pathetically in her last few wars, and was selling ore and grain for german loans to be able to afford to exist, so it was reasonable to expect a quick victory there as well. Anything other than that is hindsight.
5. Japan's naval force appeared to be a match for the american one, and war was declared on the USA to prevent Japan from leaving the coalition to join with the allies, which was a definite possibility.
6. Learn history.

>>2078284
>back-stab theory /pol/tard

Yeah I'm out.

>>2078284

Now, see, you're doing precisely the same thing as Peterson is doing--that is, conjecturing about Hitler's knowledgeability and motivations based on some broad facts.

>>2078296
Except Peterson is conjecturing about Hitler's motivations from his *actions*, which is quite different.

>>2077995
>>2078021
>>2078261
Sweet, I've read Gulag Archipelago and The Communist Manifesto. I am keen to read the other suggestions especially Road to serfdom thanks a bunch

>>2078293
>i can't read
Hitler believed the theory, not I.
And you do well to fuck off, return when you learn english comprehension.

>>2078296
No, I am conjecturing about Hitler's knowledge and motivations based on his book that he wrote, his strategy that he purposed, his speeches, letters, documents, actions.
Peterson is conjecturing about Hitler's knowledge and motivations based on his personal views about objective evil. No facts suggest that Hitler was a fire worshiper who wanted to purge Germany by letting it get pillaged and set ablaze, as he straight up says.

>>2078305
>Peterson is conjecturing about Hitler's knowledge and motivations based on his personal views about objective evil.

Wrong.

>>2078302
Peterson would see a man falling down the stairs and assume that the man wanted to fall down the stairs all along. I mean, if he didn't, why would he?

>>2078302

An action is a fact. The way we discern motivations in others is precisely by interpreting their actions through our frames of reference for how humans behave.

dont make JP into a meme, a god or anything. He is a man and he is based and I want it to stay that way.

>>2078308
Hitler's ideals, plans and motivations aren't secret.
He didn't hide them. He wrote about them, gave speeches, planed city reconstruction, formed a strategy around them.

What Peterson is doing is exactly this >>2078309
Assuming that a person who failed must have wanted to fail all alone, because ?????

>>2078315
THIS

>>2078309
>Peterson would see a man falling down the stairs and assume that the man wanted to fall down the stairs all along.

No, he wouldn't because falling isn't necessarily caused by your own choice.

Causing a world war, and then committing suicide in a bunker when you're losing clearly isn't analogous to falling down a flight of stairs.

>>2078305
>No facts suggest that Hitler was a fire worshiper who wanted to purge Germany by letting it get pillaged and set ablaze, as he straight up says.

Well, this is Peterson letting some of his Jungian background show, but it's not explained is such a way that would make that clear to someone uninformed in Jungian psychology. And anyway, Hitler is certainly accountable for the utter destruction of Germany during the war.

>>2078323
>>2078324
Hitler failed to win the war. He didn't want to lose it.
This Peterson is wrong, and you are defending someone you don't even agree with, based on your points.

From reading the thread I think we all say that Peterson is wrong, but some of you are posing as if you are doing the opposite, and I can't understand that.

http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-4-war-as-a-sacrificial-ritual/

>>2078331

Well, it's kind of a throwaway point for Peterson. There's no actual way to discern Hitler's 'real' motivations. Yes, we have books and speeches from him, but they are mostly propaganda. Given how events unfolded, the claim that Hitler had no real interest in the success of Germany doesn't seem completely ludicrous, and anyway the notion that he actually had a kind of death-drive impulse that he was simply able to enact at a national level is, from a psychology perspective, compelling and interesting. It's a way of getting into some of the things that Peterson is ACTUALLY talking about, which don't have much to do with Hitler--or 'good' and 'evil', for that matter--but with personality and disorder.

You mostly just seem upset that your historical butt-boy is being 'misrepresented' and now you've got to CTR for everyone in the thread.

>>2078346
Well, Peterson prefaces his statements with "it's certainly possible", he doesn't say "It's a fact that X".

I don't get why speculation or conjecture hurts people's egos that much.

>>2078346
>Well, it's kind of a throwaway point for Peterson.
Objective evil is the backbone of his lectures that he returns to time and time again.

>Given how events unfolded, the claim that Hitler had no real interest in the success of Germany doesn't seem completely ludicrous, and anyway the notion that he actually had a kind of death-drive impulse that he was simply able to enact at a national level is, from a psychology perspective, compelling and interesting.
The same argument can be made for the man falling down the stairs.

>You mostly just seem upset that your historical butt-boy is being 'misrepresented' and now you've got to CTR for everyone in the thread.
He does the same for Stalin, for example, who is an ideological opponent of Hitler.
At any rate, insulting me based on the (wrong) assumption that I am a /pol/tard doesn't make you look any better.

>>2078349
He states its possible, and then continues to build on it whole semester long, when its about as possible as Russell's teapot.

>>2078357

>Objective evil is the backbone of his lectures that he returns to time and time again.

Where? I've watched the series, I have no idea what you're talking about. The foundational idea of his lectures is personality, and sub-personality routines.

>>2078357
>>2078361

And in any case, one of Peterson's top recommended books--of those that he says had the greatest influence on his work--is Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

>>2078361
>I've watched the series, I have no idea what you're talking about.
You must either be lying, or be stupid. Sorry, I don't see a third alternative here. Its not subtle.

>>2078368
And I recommended the Communist Manifesto in this thread, not being a communist myself.
Peterson mentions Nietzsche so he can argue against nihilism, as a proxy to argue against the objective evil.
He insists that being a nihilist instead of being good, and thus anti-evil, is evil in itself in one of his lectures.

>>2078357

>The same argument can be made for the man falling down the stairs.

And no, not really, because that man didn't convince an entire country and then also half of the world to fall down the stairs with him.

>>2078376
This only makes it less likely that Hitler was objectively evil, because it also demands that most the germans, and half the world, were also evil.

>>2078375

And what are 'good' and 'evil' here, for Peterson? They are nothing most 'objective' than what compels you to categorize matters in such a way. Committing to acts you understand to be 'bad' is 'evil', and likewise refusing to take a position against what you understand to be 'bad' or for what you understand to be 'good' is just bad faith, which is the basis for total license.

>>2078381

You reason with a retarded child's grasp of logical inference.

>>2078381
>Nietzschean-Jungian psychologist
>Objectively evil
Just stop. Peterson doesn't discuss things in those terms, evil is aesthetic to him.

>>2078385
>And what are 'good' and 'evil' here, for Peterson?
In the dozens lectures I watched, it is the popularly agreed on bad guys of the past century, plus war, genocide, dictatorships and marxism.
Maybe he goes in other directions when talking about other things, as this psychology course of his I saw was mostly politics for some reason.

My problem isn't with what he sees as evil, or undesirable. It is that he concludes people who do evil, must on purpose do evil.
I think, and most people will agree, that people try to do good, and are mislead, or mistaken, or otherwise wrong, and end up doing "evil", or achieve undesirable outcomes.
Thats not even to say that my good may be your evil, and vise versa.

>>2078388
>i insult u, thus ur wrong
Thank you, great logical guru.

>>2078392
Watch his lectures, they are posted here. He does it often, and not subtly, when talking about holocaust, war, labor camps, nukes, and lately even SJWs.

>>2078414
>My problem isn't with what he sees as evil, or undesirable. It is that he concludes people who do evil, must on purpose do evil.

Yeah, but he is being extremely specific when he talks about evil being an aesthetic, he's not just talking about it willy-nilly.

As he says in one of his interviews, you can make a rational accounting of why a society goes to war, but you'll fail to make a rational account when you try to explain a person like Jeffrey Dahmer or Japanese soldiers in Nanking who engage in competitive brutality, where some of the finer details include raping pregnant women with their bayonets.

>>2078425
Mental illness (even temporarily distorted view of the world brought by propaganda dehumanizing the enemy and the stress of war) and hedonism.
The guy in the bush is going to kill me. I'll kill him first, so I survive. Feels good, man, I didn't die, that guy who wanted to kill me is squirming in the mud. I'll show him, trying to kill me, let me kick his skull in, get me all pumped up for the next enemy.

There is rationality to it, its just not peace time posting online from the office with a cup of coffee next to me and music playing in the headphones rationality.
In war people are in a different perceived reality, where its okay, and encouraged to murder, and its okay, and expected to die trying to kill others.

>>2078440
I think you're arguing in bad faith. Dropping a bomb on a military installation is not the same as going out to gay nightclubs to find victims that you can rape, then murder, and then make altars of their bones in your apartment.

And neither is it the same as gassing millions of people to death, or have them carry wet sacks of salt until they die of exhaustion.

>>2078414
https://youtu.be/MLp7vWB0TeY?t=9m27s
>categories of human action
>it's more appropriate to consider it a form of demoniacally warped aesthetic

>>2078440
>Mental illness (even temporarily distorted view of the world brought by propaganda dehumanizing the enemy and the stress of war) and hedonism.
Yeah, this is precisely the insufficient kind of explaination that Peterson is trying to challenge. You're the one that say these people are sick and perverse when these kinds of patterns have repeated constantly through history and outside limit situations. Your thesis cannot account at all for systemic violence or genocide. You're the one that cannot fathom people not being materialistic rational beings. See >>2078336

You also didn't understand my point at all on Peterson's background. There can be no "objective facts" to a psychologist that is coming from Nietzsche's subjectivism and Jung's idea that the world as we experience it is determined by our psyche, let alone one that stresses that there can't be a reality at all without boundaries.

>>2078458
>going out to gay nightclubs to find victims that you can rape, then murder, and then make altars of their bones in your apartment
Nor is this something that you convince tens of millions of people to do with you, while parading and celebrating.
You are using the actions of broken, dysfunctional men to fight a proxy war against ideologies that are out of fashion at the moment.

>And neither is it the same as gassing millions of people to death, or have them carry wet sacks of salt until they die of exhaustion.
Again, individual acts of sadism, brought about the cruelty of war, the us vs them idea, and so on.
Most of the death camps were for practical purposes, to use slave labor.
You win one by arresting the undesirable people and confiscating their property and money in the bank, and many arrested were rich. Or you win if they bribe you to not arrest them.
Again you win because you feed the mob fuel to continue running, since you are doing things, and removing disliked people, and the rich or the odd are always disliked.
Then you win again since they work without being paid wages, under miserable conditions. These are all practical considerations. Slave labor and confiscating private properties are lucrative activities for the state, and punishing the odd is a good way to gather support from the disenfranchised masses.
Even the cruel and petty act if taking their hair to make socks for the troops, and their teeth fillings for metal, and their fat for soap and their bones for fertilizer, if we believe those to have taken place, are still practical and can be reasoned.
Terrible, of course. Unethical and, according to almost everyone, evil, but not unreasonable and not irrational. It was the very, very farthest edge of pragmatism. Extreme practicality, yet still practical.


>>2078477
Read the above, it argues against your views.
Regardless, the crazy dog can lead the sheep off the cliff, and its not the sheep that are unwise for following their shepherd.

>>2078477
Also you dwell too much on him quoting Nietzsche, he also quotes others who disagree with him.
That is actually a sign of a good psychologist and philosopher, and is a thing I like about him, that he quotes and considers conflicting views and systems.
I wish he'd also do this when talking about evil men doing evil things.

>>2078488
>Nor is this something that you convince tens of millions of people to do with you, while parading and celebrating.

Sure you could. Unit 731 did exactly that, but under the guise of "scientific venture".

>individual acts of sadism

The Holocaust was *not* "individual acts of sadism".

>>2078507
>Unit 731 did exactly that, but under the guise of "scientific venture".
They were attempting to advance science, which is rational and can be reasoned, regardless of their methods being horrible.

>The Holocaust was *not* "individual acts of sadism".
No, it was a strategy of confiscating property from private individuals, while arresting undesirables and using slave labor to prop up the war economy, which is rational and can be reasoned, regardless of being horrible.

Both these examples can be closer compared to killing and eating your friend instead of starving, and not going to a club to kill and eat people and build shines from their bones for fun.

>>2078514
>They were attempting to advance science, which is rational and can be reasoned, regardless of their methods being horrible.

And yet people who aren't "evil", wouldn't do such a thing, regardless of it "advancing science".

>No, it was a strategy of confiscating property from private individuals, while arresting undesirables and using slave labor to prop up the war economy, which is rational and can be reasoned, regardless of being horrible.

Again, your arguing in bad faith. Indiscriminate murder of civilians, including women and children, to the point where you want to cause them pointless suffering before you kill them, is *not* rational.

>>2078488
How is us vs. them mentality rational at all? Why is the state somehow immune to the prejudices of the people? Seriously, do you have any documents where Hitler or however expressed it in those terms and not "we must remove the vermin"? Because otherwise you're just a conspiracy theorist.

>>2078514
>attempting to advance science, which is rational and can be reasoned
No, it isn't. The "advancement of science" as an excuse for genocide isn't reasoned, it's either zealotry or an excuse.

>>2078522
>And yet people who aren't "evil", wouldn't do such a thing, regardless of it "advancing science".
Some people will go further when chasing a goal, and putting the line in an arbitrary position to argue that objective evil exists is not reasonable.
The goal is set, you can rationalize why they'd want to go there, and you may disagree on the path taken and sacrifices made, but can't disagree on the goal itself.

> Indiscriminate murder of civilians, including women and children, to the point where you want to cause them pointless suffering before you kill them, is *not* rational.
It wasn't indiscriminate, they were by definition discriminated, only the unwanted ones were selected. And the micro cases of sadism and wartime cruelty was not the reason for the macro strategy of using them for slave labor, which is productive and useful

>>2078529
>Seriously, do you have any documents where Hitler or however expressed it in those terms and not "we must remove the vermin"?
Bringing doctors, dentists and food to the camp is counter productive if they just wanted to kill them.
Ceasing to care for them when the economy was strained after the problems east suggest that caring for them was exactly for economic benefit, to use slave labor.

>No, it isn't. The "advancement of science" as an excuse for genocide isn't reasoned, it's either zealotry or an excuse.
You sound like a dark age man arguing against autopsy.
Also again you act as if Unit 731's views are my own. They aren't. However, just like Peterson said he can reason why someone would steal his car, so can he, despite choosing not to, reason why someone would experiment on prisoners to achieve scientific advances.
It is rational. You can see why its done. There is reasonable purpose to it.

>>2078538
>And the micro cases of sadism and wartime cruelty was not the reason for the macro strategy of using them for slave labor, which is productive and useful

It might be "productive and useful", but the point is that it isn't rational to discriminate swathes of people as "undesirable" so you can do whatever you want with them, to begin with you moron.

>>2078547
It is rational, its just not ethical or moral.
I think you are arguing from a position of objective good and evil, which defeats the point.

>>2078554
>It is rational, its just not ethical or moral.

It's neither.

>>2078538
>Bringing doctors, dentists and food to the camp is counter productive if they just wanted to kill them.
So what if it's counter-productive? Nothing about it is productive to begin with. Productivity doesn't factor in if it's irrationally motivated sadism. It *would* be counter-productive if they were attempting to make money off of them without regard to ethics as you propose.

>Ceasing to care for them when the economy was strained after the problems east suggest that caring for them was exactly for economic benefit, to use slave labor.
No, it only suggests they couldn't do it anymore. If you're torturing someone you're not going to give them your food when you don't have any money, the WHOLE POINT is to degrade and put them under you.

>You sound like a dark age man arguing against autopsy.
And you sound like an ideologue.

>Also again you act as if Unit 731's views are my own. They aren't.
That assumption is purely yours.

>It is rational. You can see why its done. There is reasonable purpose to it.
That you can understand how and why someone would do it doesn't make the action itself "rational". It has a rationale, yes. It doesn't mean it is calculated, which is what "rational" means here.

>It wasn't indiscriminate, they were by definition discriminated, only the unwanted ones were selected.
You're being obtuse. An indiscriminate action and discrimination aren't the same thing.

>>2078556
1. You are an absolute leader of a state.
2. There are people who disagree with you and will rebel.
3. Your supporters dislike these people.
4. These people have money and property.
5. Your economy is bad.

How is arresting the undesirables, confiscating their property, and sending them to work for free in agriculture, mines and other such production efforts, not rational?

>>2078569
>How is arresting the undesirables, confiscating their property, and sending them to work for free in agriculture, mines and other such production efforts

Because we both know that this isn't what happened. What happened was a genocide where 11 million people died.

And 11 million people don't die over the course of 5 years purely by happenstance.

>>2078565
>So what if it's counter-productive?
How is sending people you want to murder to the dentist not counter productive to your plan of murdering them? It makes no sense.
However, if you want to use them as slave labor, it makes sense to take at least the very minimum care of them, because they are a useful tool. No reason to kill your slaves, they benefit you.

>you are obtuse
>you are an ideologue
>you dont understand
All of your post is already addressed in my previous posts, this is going nowhere. I won't waste time reposting every five minutes.

>>2078574
>because we both know i'm right and you are wrong
No, we don't both know any such thing.
These people died because they were worked to death, for economic gain.
When the retreat from the east was sounded, the remainder were to be killed to hide the evidence of slave labor being used, so a better peace deal can be struck.
Murdering your wife's lover can be reasoned. It has a purpose and rationale. Murdering the neighbor who saw you to escape jail can also be reasoned. It also has a purpose and rationale.
This is comparable. Undesirables were used for economic gain, and later killed off so that nobody learns of the slave labor program.
The fact that they were not all killed off, and some germans retreated without mass murdering their prisoners, only shows you that this epidemic of sadism that you assume wasn't a reality.

File: 1470873291725.png (95KB, 233x255px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 233x255px

>>2078569
>A man who was elected by being capable of riling people through nationalism after a horrible catastrophe, who was not an economist or career politician but a painter and wrote a book detailing his nationalist ideology, is going to follow a simple and clean checklist once he enters the office.

>>2078586
>No, we don't both know any such thing.

Yes we do. The gas chambers make it pretty obvious.

But I'm beginning to think I'm discussing this topic, with a Holocaust denier, or someone trying to whitewash a genocide.

Either way this is turning into a ridiculous discussion where one party is literally denying that people can do any evil in the world at all(Maybe because this person wants to do such things himself).

>>2078588
>people who disagree with me are mad and irrational, even when their actions can seen to follow a reasonable path
*sniff*

>>2078590
>Yes we do. The gas chambers make it pretty obvious.
Have you visited any of the camps? I have. Even the polish tour guide said "and these were assumed to be..." when talking about the gas chambers.
Murdering prisoners happened in the bathroom, with a pistol, as the guide said.
Regardless, even if there was a mass murder of prisoners with gas in these buildings, it would not prove you right, or me wrong.
This murder only happened AFTER the eastern front got fucked, not before. If they wanted to kill them all along, why take care of them until they had to retreat?
It fits better if they were used for slave labor, and were killed to hide evidence of that then the german command realized the camps will soon be part of russian occupied land, and the allies will have news of this unethical activity.

>>2078598
Yeah I knew it. I'm done.

When did /his/ become /pol/ 2.0? It's sad.
sticky says
>Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.
>becomes /pol/ with dates

>>2078603
Because /pol/ is a virus that cannot be contained.

I wish Hiroshimoot would delete /pol/ so they could fuck off back to Stormfront with their shit.

>>2078601
You knew what, that bringing up the gas chambers will give you an excuse to walk away?

>>2078603
Which part of this discussion is /pol/ with dates? It is a mix of history and philosophy that you don't like.

>>2078586
>How is sending people you want to murder to the dentist not counter productive to your plan of murdering them?
It's not supposed to be productive, it's a SYMBOLIC gesture. I'm the one arguing that it ISN'T rational here!

>No reason to kill your slaves, they benefit you.
This isn't a fucking debate. We're not arguing what's more useful. It's a qualitative and not a quantitative difference.

>All of your post is already addressed in my previous posts
You haven't addressed anything, you refuse to actually engage some points unless they fit your logic and disregard others altogether. You're the one that insulted ME and called me something from the dark ages; that IS ideology. You're not winning shit, son, you don't have any kind of high-ground in this discussion.

>>2078598
>People who behave one way will begin to behave in another way when it fits my worldview.

>>2078611
If pol was deleted wouldnt it bring more here?

>>2078624
No, because they would be continuously banned until they fucked off for good.

>>2078621
>"they acted irrationally"
>why do you think so when there is a rational explanation
>"because they are irrational"
>why do you think they were irrational
>"because they acted irrationally"

Logic 101.

>>2078635
Good job with the derailing of the thread though. You must be an expert at this.

You can go back to /pol/ now though, you've done your duty.

>>2078635
>they escapegoated a group of people because they felt wronged
>"no they were actually doing it out of economics"
>but why did they choose this particular group?
>"because they were prejudiced against them"
>isnt that the same thing?
>"no it was based on benefitting the state"
>but thats not what any of their statesmen said
>"look its rational okay i can totally rationalize it"

Seriously, just address >>2078336 in any way, because it's scary how much you sound like what it descrives.

>>2078514
>No, it was a strategy of confiscating property from private individuals
Wouldn't it actually hurt the economy to tear down Jewish businesses? Sure, non-Jewish ones could take their place and storefront, but that would be putting resources into starting up a new business that may or may not fail in place of one that already had momentum and would've likely continued on.

>>2078646
I am being told to fuck off /pol/ and go back to tumblr in another thread. I wish ideologues would leave /his/ so we can discuss truths and not feels.

>>2078654
>but why did they choose this particular group?
Which particular group? They tech you in school about the jews, but the gypsies, slavs, homosexuals, mentally ill, crippled, poles in particular, communists and so on also met the same fate.
Just like elsewhere the communists won and they sent the nationalists to labor camps.
You use the opposition for slave labor, in this context among the opposition were jews, with many others as well.
In fact in Auschwitz there is a wall with pictures of all the people executed there, on most of them you can visibly tell they were autistic. I don't know the medical term for it, but you understand what I mean, the faces had that look.
Further, if you want to confiscate property, the gypsies aren't an ideal target. The jews on the other hand have a culture of economic success, they put great value on business and wealth, so in most places that have jewish communities they owned property and businesses and had money in the bank.

tl;dr "that particular group" was a dozen groups, and can be summarized by saying "the opposition", and a mirror image of this happened in the USSR, and also even in the USA, where communists were fired from universities, shunned, asians were taken to camps outside areas, their property confiscated, and bullied out of neighborhoods.
The same idea, executed to a lesser extend due to moral and ethical considerations, but still using the same rationale.

>>2078660
Hitler took huge loans and started public projects he can't afford, do you think long term economic viability was on the plate?
Germany couldn't even produce enough food to feed its people or enough coal to keep them warm in winter.

>>2078677
>and also even in the USA

No, a "mirror image" of this didn't happen in the USA.

The U.S isn't guilty of genociding 11 million of their own citizens over a 5 year period of time.

>>2078691
Strawman.
The USA did list its own undesirables - japanese, koreans and chinese, thought to collaborate with imperial Japan, confiscated property from them, and relocated them to camps, where many died.

The USA didn't use slave labor (didn't need it), and since its economy wasn't butchered like the German was during the war, it could mostly provide for these ideological prisoners.

They had the same rationale, except more ethical considerations, and they weren't pushed into making the decisions made in Germany.

>>2078697
>except more ethical considerations

In other words, they were they weren't genocidal maniacs.

I don't get why you're trying to whitewash the Holocaust.

>>2078677
>Further, if you want to confiscate property, the gypsies aren't an ideal target.
Uh yeah? Why are you contradicting yourself?

>"that particular group" was a dozen groups, and can be summarized by saying "the opposition"
Yup. It was an irrational act. Glad we're in agreement.

>>2078705
>I don't get why you're trying to whitewash the Holocaust.
I am not, I am only explaining why it occurred, and the answer is not objective evil.

>>2078711
>Uh yeah? Why are you contradicting yourself?
How am I, exactly?
>Yup. It was an irrational act. Glad we're in agreement.
What is irrational about a dictator arresting the opposition and making use of their property and work?

>>2078720
>I am not, I am only explaining why it occurred

No you're trying to rationalize it as just "something people do in war", and something anyone are capable of doing just given the prerequisite shitty economic circumstances.

>>2078731
No I am explaining the reasons behind it, which are not "yarrr im evil, i want to see germany raped and berlin burning so i can kill myself", as a certain psychologist suggests.

Stop trying to strawman, it didn't work the first ten times, it won't work the eleventh.

>>2078745
>which are not "yarrr im evil, i want to see germany raped and berlin burning so i can kill myself", as a certain psychologist suggests.

As opposed to "I don't have a job, so I'm just gonna gas 6 million Jews", as is your own pathetic explanation.

>>2078750
Stop trying to strawman, it didn't work the first eleven times, it won't work the twelfth.
Arresting the opposition, seizing their property, and holding them in camps where they can't act against you, and making use of their labor, is not irrational. You can see the point and the benefit of it, even if you disagree.
You are arguing from emotion instead of from reason.

>>2078757
The point is that the opposition is a figment of their imagination you fucking moron.

Jesus Christ, I knew you /pol/tards were stupid, but this takes the fucking cake.

In what world is a pregnant Jewish woman or 12 year old Jewish boy, the "opposition" you fucking insane psychopath?

>>2078720
Those weren't a real opposition. Gypsies weren't aligned politically nor were they wealthy. Homosexuals and the disabled weren't aligned in any particular fashion nor were of a particular social standing; the same applies to Slavs. Gypsies, the disabled and homosexual were seized on ethnical and not political or economic bases. Slavs were seized on ethnical bases, and to an extent political ones in relation to other nation states and communism. As was the case with Jews, they were used as a escapegoat. They never formed a real opposition outside of German paranoia. The purpose was to clean the nation from the elements which supposedly had led to its previous downfall. They weren't seizing power, it was the very absolute power they ALREADY had that they were employing to kill these people.

This isn't even getting on the case of honorary Aryans or things like Rhineland bastards. To begin with it doesn't make any sense that the camps were formed on practical reason because they already had the whole of Austria and Germany as labor, and if they wanted slaves they could use France--but that wasn't why they went to war with France either. If they were being unethical out of a desire to make profit what would result would be a state like North Korea, not an ethnic cleansing.

>>2078757
The opposition isn't a rational cathegory.

File: judea_declares_war_on_germany[1].jpg (259KB, 1372x986px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1372x986px

>>2078766
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933

>>2078773
Kill yourself.

>>2078777
How is that an argument?

>>2078778
Because it wasn't an argument, and it wasn't meant to be either.

Now fuck off back your hugbox board NatSoc.

>>2078784
You should take this attitude to >>>/pol/, it doesn't belong here.

>>2078778
You are a psychopath man. It's fucking terrifying to see people that think like you.

>>2078773
>its not only jews when its convenient to me

>>2078771
Removing people who are on social benefits, yet don't contribute as much nor have contributed in past generations, from a bankrupt social welfare state, is economical.
Removing people who the masses dislike is rational for the populist ruler to do.
Removing people who you are at war with from the populace, or others who may identify with the enemy in the war, is also rational and reasonable.
This is why it was done across the globe in that period, as I mentioned.

I never cited nazi propaganda about aryans and master races, I don't see why you bring it up here. Its rhetoric for the plebs. Hitler made alliances with slavs, and turks, and had talks with mexicans and muslims.

>The opposition isn't a rational category.
Preventing people who want to take away your power from being able to do so is rational. Peterson himself argued so in his first lecture in the course I linked.

>>2078797
Do you want me to give you proof about the slavs? The poles and the Slovaks literally owned land that Germany wanted, of course they were the opposition. War was prepared against them.
And the germans started the anti-Comintern pact, which was against the russians mostly, who are slavs.
Their agenda of purity and traditional vies obviously conflicted with homosexuals, and the bankrupt state taking care of non productive people conflicted with crippled and mentally ill.
So did their reading of Nietzsche's Will to Power, though the philosophy they used hardly agreed with what Nietzsche himself wrote.

>>2078802
Why are you repeating yourself like an insane ideologue? Is it because this is what you actually are?

I have already told you that there is a difference between putting Japanese-Americans in camps for a period of time because of national security concerns(regardless of whether or not these security concerns are legitimate, which I would argue they weren't), and killing 11 million people in death camps.

If you cannot see that this is different you suffer from a serious level of anti-social personality disorder.

>>2078811
>Why are you repeating yourself
Because you keep arguing in circles.
I won't do it again, I'll just tell you to reread the conversation so far.

>I have already told you that there is a difference between putting Japanese-Americans in camps for a period of time because of national security concerns(regardless of whether or not these security concerns are legitimate, which I would argue they weren't), and killing 11 million people in death camps.
Reread the conversation so far. This has been addressed before.

>insults as substitute for arguments
Reread the conversation so far. This has been addressed before.

>>2078824
No, you haven't addressed it, you just called it a strawman.

>>2078802
>from a bankrupt social welfare state
Except they weren't a bankrupt state when they did it.

>Removing people who the masses dislike is rational for the populist ruler to do.
No, it's not. The rational thing to do would be to convince the people to hate the more useful group. Otherwise he's not responsible for the genocide but only for answering to the people's wishes... exactly like he said he would!

>This is why it was done across the globe in that period, as I mentioned.
Except in the American case it wasn't a removal.

>Its rhetoric for the plebs.
And "we're going to kill the Jews" isn't? Why is it only rhetoric when it serves your purpose?

>Hitler made alliances with slavs, and turks, and had talks with mexicans and muslims.
Hitler also wrote a fucking book before he rose to power. And none of those groups fall under their cleansing program. Some Slavs they didn't have a problem with being second citizens. Hitler admired Muslims and Germany was always in good relations with Mexico and Turkey.

What are you even arguing for anyway? That states aren't capable of doing irrational things? Why can't you concede that those genocides were irrationally motivated, exactly? What are you defending here? Are you against Peterson's conception of evil? Why don't you focus on that instead?

>>2078835
Thats the address. It was a strawman before and is still a strawman now.
I didn't say that the americans killed 11 million japanese, I said that they arrested, confiscated property from, and kept in camps japanese, korean and chinese people.
I also explained why nothing further was done, for ethical and economical consideration. Nothing further needed to be done. The americans didn't need slave labor, and didn't need to cover up slave labor operations, and their economy wasn't so desperate as to collect hair from prisoners to make socks for soldiers in Russia.

You claim I said something that I didn't, and then attack me for saying that thing (which I didn't). This is a strawman.

>>2078845
You don't seem to understand that your slave labor angle is bullshit.

If you want slave labor, you keep people alive so they can actually labor, you don't murder 11 million of them.

>>2078851
People were in fact kept alive, medicine, heating and clothing, and occasionally entertainment, are documented to have been provided while it was economical to do so.
The bad treatment, deaths to the elements and starvation, and the mass murder began when the eastern front collapsed, from lack of funds and resources, and later from deliberate effort to cover up the slave labor scheme, so that the allies don't discover it and punish Germany for it.

>>2078844
Reread the conversation so far. This has been addressed before.

>>2078844
>Why can't you concede that those genocides were irrationally motivated, exactly?
They weren't. They were unethically motivated, but had rationale behind them.

>Are you against Peterson's conception of evil? Why don't you focus on that instead?
Because in his very first lecture he uses this example, and people who defend him haven't even watched his stuff.
He is only being defended here because he is anti-SJW, and the latest trendy Youtuber who hates on them damn feminists.

>>2078873
>He is only being defended here because he is anti-SJW

Wrong again. You've been wrong the whole thread, and it's time to stop.

>>2078865
Okay, so what you're saying is that when you can't afford it anymore, it's okay to gas millions of people to death, got it.

>>2078879
Strawman, we've been over this. Read the thread.

>>2078883
Saying strawman continuously doesn't make you right.

>>2078891
>Okay, so what you're saying is that *things I didn't say*

Classic strawman. And strawmanning me doesn't make you right, lad.
They call it a logical fallacy for a reason.

>>2078873
>had rationale behind them.
Again this isn't mutually exclusive with being irrational. That they put them to labor doesn't mean that they were seized on a rational basis. That they weren't instantly murdered doesn't mean it was done on a rational basis. Being seized according to the opinions of the people isn't a rational basis no matter how much you want to paint Hitler as a calculating mastermind despite all evidence to the contrary. Rationalizations aren't rational. That you can justify an action on a flimsy economic basis doesn't mean it's why it happened.

>people who defend him haven't even watched his stuff
I fucking posted his goddamn lecture AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WRONG ON HIS CONCEPTION OF EVIL AS OBJECTIVE. A CONCEPTION WHICH YOU HAVEN'T TACKLED AT ALL SO FAR AND INSTEAD KEEP ARGUING AGAINST ON "OBJECTIVE" BASES.

>He is only being defended here because he is anti-SJW, and the latest trendy Youtuber who hates on them damn feminists.
Now you're just throwing insults.

>>2078893
Again, saying strawman doesn't make you right.

You should start recognizing that your heroes actually committed a genocide, and weren't putting Jews in comfy re-education camps for fun.

>>2078166
>Specifically documents shown to Hitler outlining how many Jews were killed

So there are documents shown to Hitler that specify 6 million Jews were killed? Hitler received thousands of reports on the killings of a broad spectrum of people throughout the war. There is not one written document which details plans for mass gassings. NOTHING.

I admire Dr. Peterson but agree that his anti-Marxism is rooted in a lot of sensationalist propaganda. He should stick to psych where he is a master.

>>2078902
Again, strawmanning me doesn't make me wrong.
Make an argument against me instead of continuously strawmanning and complaining that I call it out.

>>2078905
I've been making arguments for at least an hour, but you just scream strawman every time, and it's because you're a pathetic ideologue that yearns for the return of another genocidal state.

>>2078899
>being rational isn't exclusive with being irrational
He had a purpose to do things, and did them. He was rational. Tens of millions agreed with his reasoning.

>ALL CAPS RAGE
Him saying in one work that he isn't objective on evil, and then continuing to be objective on evil in a full semester set of lectures isn't a good thing.

>you are just insulting
He was mentioned zero times before his anti-SJW rant on TV, and has been mentioned daily since.

>>2078903
>his anti-Marxism is rooted in a lot of sensationalist propaganda
No, it's rooted on inequality as an inherent part of the human condition, which Marxism in its popular currents is against.

>>2078908
Arguments such as:
>You are a psychopath man. It's fucking terrifying to see people that think like you.
>Now fuck off back your hugbox board NatSoc.
>Kill yourself.
>Jesus Christ, I knew you /pol/tards were stupid, but this takes the fucking cake.
.... and many, many strawmen.

>>2078912
>He had a purpose to do things

And that purpose was in it's core, completely irrational.

>>2078919
It isn't irrational to segregate people who are perceived as dangerous during war time away from the general population in camps, where they can be watched, it was common practice.
It isn't irrational to arrest political opponents if you are a dictator, it was done by all dictators.
It isn't irrational when your economy is in shambles and you have ten million prisoners, a significant portion of your total population, to use them for slave labor to produce.
It isn't irrational to confiscate property from political opponents if you are a dictator
It isn't irrational to try to cover up your crimes against humanity when you know the war is lost, so you can get a better peace deal.

These are all unethical, but not irrational. You continue to insist that something has to be "good" to be rational. This isn't the case.
Again I will bring up the starving man killing his brother and eating him. This is rational. You are starving to death, and there is meat next to you. There is reasoning in doing what you do. It isn't random behavior. There is logic behind it, it can be explained and justified, even if opposing justifications and explanations also exist. They always do, for and against vegetarians, for and against fossil fuels, for and against foreign intervention in wars, and so on. Neither side of these arguments is irrational, they all have reasons and rationale behind them.

>>2078918
>Conveniently ignores all the posts where people weren't tired of his shit yet

>>2078927
>who are perceived as dangerous

That perception was irrational. Jews had literally done nothing to warrant the increasing hatred of them.

They just became the sacrificial lamb for a culture hell-bent on destruction.

>>2078929
The other person arguing against me does so in good faith, and I respond to him in good faith. We both clearly try to make sense and feel compelled to be reasonable in our discussion.

You aren't getting the same, because you aren't giving the same.

>>2078912
>He had a purpose to do things, and did them. He was rational. Tens of millions agreed with his reasoning.
No, if someone decides to kill you because you stink and the whole country agrees that doesn't make it rational. Having a rationale, a purpose or a reasoning isn't being rational. You either don't understand what these words mean or you're being deliberately obtuse. And no, calling you obtuse isn't an ad hominem, words have meanings to them.

>continuing to be objective on evil in a full semester
Pont to me where he says he is objective on evil. Note: that he implies it is a human universal doesn't make it objective.

>He was mentioned zero times before his anti-SJW rant on TV
In your circles maybe. I've known him from before the whole SJW thing.

>>2078938
>That perception was irrational.

The stab in the back theory after WWI, combined with traditional anti-semitism (which was a world wide phenomena and quite popular until after WWII), meant that the common german people disliked jews plenty.
Traditionalists disliked them for bringing new businesses like strip clubs, public houses, adult theaters, which were considered immoral, and for their ownership of banks and capital, due to their cultural affinity for commercial and personal success that jewish communities still have (which I admire, and don't hate like /pol/tards).

So here comes a rebel like Hitler, he gets in front of the crowd, and as Peterson says in his lectures, he feels the crowd a bit, sees what gets the most cheers, the most boos.
The nazi ideology was, I agree with Peterson, composed in that way, by Hitler rubbing shoulders with workers and feeling the mood, and them personifying that mood.

The response was that the jews were perceived as a thread. After they were perceived as a threat, they themselves actually made themselves a real thread with public declarations of economic sanctions and boycotts on Germany following Hitlers' appointment.
After that point, they were a real threat, not a perceived one. And you will find that the state acting against them came after that point.

So it was the masses and common men waving fists against the made up jewish plot, which created a jewish plot as a reaction, the jews banding together to fight the haters as they always do, and the german state lashing against this now real opposition.

>>2078956
Just because it was a common belief among people in the entire world doesn't mean that they were being rational.

There's a difference between being rational, and having rationalizations for your behavior.

>>2077897
that podcast is incredibly fascinating, especially the religious part at the end. any atheist has to question his beliefs after that

>>2078943
>No, if someone decides to kill you because you stink and the whole country agrees that doesn't make it rational.
Yes, it does. There is a rational reason for it, it checks out. Its immoral and unethical, not irrational. Its not random or crazy, it follows a path of logic.
>X is undesirable
>you do X
>thus you aren't wanted
>stop doing X or die
This is reasonable, and for another X, like pedophilia, you will quickly agree, yet its only a difference of size, so to speak.
The size of the unwanted X being removed.

>that he implies it is a human universal doesn't make it objective
Semantics, but even still he argues with examples of lions eating pray alive and chimps going to war, not just humans. Watch his lectures.

>In your circles maybe. I've known him from before the whole SJW thing.
On 4chan. This chain of responses is about him only coming up on 4chan after being mentioned by popular SJW youtubers.

>>2078963
>Just because it was a common belief among people in the entire world doesn't mean that they were being rational.
I never claimed that.
Further, you ignored most of my post, and how it argues your post.

>>2078972
>any atheist has to question his beliefs after that

I did, but only up to a point. His idiosyncratic view of religion is very fascinating, and I agree with it, but the problem is that most religious people view their religion as essentially a scientific theory that they believe is true.

>>2078972
>>2078982
I haven't watched that video, and haven't the time, but is hes view that faith is metaphysical and any God and his effect on us or this world is in another plane, and isn't tied to or explains physical events and laws in "the real world"?

I've heard this from an unrelated university professor, and its pretty robust, but of course organized religion (not faith) argues against it.

>>2078974
>Further, you ignored most of my post, and how it argues your post.

I ignored it because it is essentially "Don't do anything when I attempt to turn you into a second class citizen, because then i'll get really mad and murder you all".

Which is essentially blaming the Jews for resisting lies and propaganda.

>>2078973
What counts as for you exactly? Give an example.

>Its not random or crazy, it follows a path of logic.
Fucking anything does if you believe in the subconscious so you're arguing pointlessly about semantics because what's commonly understood as "irrational" isn't random or crazy. We were never arguing about whether these issues following this or that path of logic, we were arguing on them based on economical and material reasons alone or not.

>Semantics
No, it's not semantics. An "objective" consideration presupposes that our perception of the world isn't already determined and limited by our capacities, that it is or can be accurate to an external world. Trying to discover those previous determinations is the whole approach of Jungian psychology.

>On 4chan.
I came to know him purely through 4chan.

>>2078997
Firstly, the jews that started the economic boycott and "declared war" on Germany weren't german jews, rather foreign ones. The german jews got mad at them for making things worse.
Further, the "second class citizen" thing came as a reaction to this. The nazis didn't have the time to even start discriminating before this organized backlash from the international jewish community, and while I personally thing they would've passed discriminatory policies, we don't know if they would have, or if it would be like Trump's wall, just an election gag.
For example, their first antisemitic policies were to make it illegal for jewish doctors to partake in government funded charity medical events, to make it illegal for jews to be bartenders at bars (money loaning to intoxicated men), and to remove jews from the government positions, which I could rationalize as a normal thing to do, people who come into power purge the old guard and place their own guys, but was clearly racially motivated.

>>2078983
>but is hes view that faith is metaphysical and any God and his effect on us or this world is in another plane, and isn't tied to or explains physical events and laws in "the real world"?

I recommend you listen to it when you have time, because it's really hard to condense into a few sentences on 4chan.

>>2079002
Are you using the street slang for irrational, or the idea that something doesn't follow a rationale and is random?

Consider this chain of events and tell me if you find it rational:
>hire a pretty girl as a secretary, in the back of my head thinking of sex stereotypes
>try to flirt with her and get her with me
>she refuses me and insists its just work
>i find reasons to complain about her, nitpicking her being late 5 minutes for example
>i fire her officially for those nitpicks, but really because she refused me

I'd call that rational behavior, but if you wouldn't that explains the very long exchange we are having.
The actor is at all points following a logical reasoning that makes sense, even if I find it disagreeable on an ethical level.

>>2079008
Yeah, but the point is that it's not like the "international jewish community" owned the world and had the power to stop every single good from entering Germany, and destroy their economy.

I know that the "Jews run the world" is a favorite conspiracy theory by NatSocs, but it's obviously facile, and was just another ridiculous ideological justification for increasing their pogroms and racial discrimination.

I mean, I bet you believe the Reichstag fire was actually done a Communist too, don't you?

>>2079019
>Jews run the world
The jews as a culture take personal and business success very seriously, and because they are tribal and always support each other and prefer to hire and advance a jew if possible in their business ventures, they do in fact own a lot of capital and big corporations.
This is an observable truth, not a conspiracy. I am not a /pol/tard who will call this wrong or hate them for it, its just them being savvier and more intelligent on average, and having more drive to business success, while other people instead have drive for personal pleasure, or family, or others such.

Also the boycott ended, and the international jews won, when Germany signed the Haavara Agreement.
So I guess it must have costed Germany more than the property of those over half a million jews who were compensated for their loss so they can go live abroad.

>I mean, I bet you believe the Reichstag fire was actually done a Communist too, don't you?
I'm from the Eastern Bloc, here they used to teach that the bulgarian communist party leader set fire to it when I was in school, but earlier than that it was taught that the nazi supporters false flag set fire to it. I've also seen theories that "the blacks", or the anarchists, set fire to it.
I think the nazi false flag theory is the most popular today, but there are no facts. I am undecided on that event, I made a thread on /his/ about it a few weeks ago, but it died with just a couple of responses.

File: Wittgenstein.jpg (55KB, 701x559px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 701x559px

>>2079014
Anon, you seriously don't understand how language works.

Irrational doesn't mean what you think it means because that isn't useful at all. Of course irrational people have a rationale. What makes them "irrational" is that they have "bad judgment", their arguments are "fallacious", or also grounded on "emotion". The rationale for revenge is pretty obvious but the point of calling it irrational isn't that it doesn't follow a chain of thought but rather that the facts taken into account are insufficient and the actions taken due to them are self-destructive or counter-productive. It's based on the broad sense of "reason" (as in "be reasonable"), not in its most basic sense.

I shouldn't be explaining this shit to you man, come on.

>>2079044
But Dr Jordan Peterson also finds revenge to be rational, and he has addressed this in his lectures.
He finds theft can be rational, murdering your wife's lover to be rational. Those are his statements.
I am using his definition of rational as found in his lectures.

The problem is he disagrees with you on the bad judgement part. He skips it. If you do something that is "bad", you couldn't have done it because you wanted to be good, but misjudged. You must've done it on purpose, because you are evil.

Thats the whole thread, thats every post I made, this is what I am saying.

>>2079052
Does he explicitly call them rational or does he say that he can understand why you would do it? Or is he saying in desperate situations it's acceptable? Or is he criticizing rationalism? Or is he talking abotu teleologically suspending the ethical, i.e. under God's mandate as with Abraham and Isaac?

Seriously, context is vital here.

>You must've done it on purpose, because you are evil.
No, that's not exactly it. You would be doing it out of resentment, not because you yourself are evil. I'd argue there're no definitely evil people for Peterson (with perhaps the exception of some psychopaths) but rather often people that, with our human powers, are unsalvageable from repeating the same actions.

>>2079074
Words he uses are "understandable motivation" and "reasonable pursuit" and such.
He does weasel around them, but isn't subtle as to what he means. Just watch his lectures man, and do so with an empty mind, without prejudices, like I did. He is in your face with this constantly.

Stalin moved populations from risk areas (near borders where conflict might occur and they would join the invader) to other empty areas to settle them, so the Asian part of Russia is more defended. Russia had problems when the Allies invaded during the civil war, they occupied HUGE areas of land because there was simply nobody there to defend.
This was done with trains, not many supplies, and bad logistics, because Russia was poor and devastated, and led to many deaths.
Paterson will insist, and does insist, that this is proof Stalin is evil, because he intentionally killed these people. He will insist that those people weren't relocated for the pragmatic reasons to avoid rebellion and settle empty land, but for the evil reasons of killing people for its own sake. Thats my issue with the man. This idea that a job poorly done must've been poorly done on purpose, for evil's sake.

>>2079110
>Words he uses are "understandable motivation" and "reasonable pursuit" and such.
Again, without a specific context this could mean anything. I'm not trying to counter-argue here.

>He does weasel around them, but isn't subtle as to what he means.
And what does he mean to you?

>He will insist that those people weren't relocated for the pragmatic reasons to avoid rebellion and settle empty land, but for the evil reasons of killing people for its own sake.
Does he insist on this particular issue?

>This idea that a job poorly done must've been poorly done on purpose, for evil's sake.
Yeah, that's understandable.

>>2079130
Just watch his lectures man, geez, I've said so a dozen times.
https://youtu.be/bjnvtRgpg6g?t=22m9s
Literally the first lecture of the course I am talking about, at 22 minutes. Watch for a while, its the Stalin example and the car theft example. He goes for personal revenge in another one.
Find the time and watch them, everything I've said is from that course.

At some point the 'question' of whether or not Peterson believes in 'objective evil' was three card mollied into the 'question' of whether or not the Holocaust was a 'rational' act.

And it got over one hundred replies.

Well trolled, friend.

>>2079039
>because they are tribal and always support each other and prefer to hire and advance a jew
Part of this is also because they are excluded and TOLD they are not part of "Nation XYZ". What's left to do in that kind of situation but to accept help from other Jews?

I know a few very secular Jews-by-circumstance who basically don't observe any Jewish law, never go to synagogue, eat pork without abandon, date non-Jews, etc. I suspect that if/when they have children, the children will not be raised Jewish much at all either. Just a vague concept of heritage. Why? Because here (US of A) they are absorbed by and constitute a part of the general 'white' race. It may depend on the place -- I'm in the midwest, and Jews are relatively few and far between. Of course, they could just as easily choose to observe their Jewishness, join a synagogue and follow Kashrut, and be set aside as Jewish 'Others'. Might be more the norm in say New York or LA where more Jews also live.

In the 'Germany' (such as it was) of the late 19th century and early 20th, there were a significant portion of Jews like this, who had their 'happenstantial' Jewishness forced back on them with the rise of Nazism.

>>2078213
yeah, I'm 20 minutes in and he seems pretty clueless. he just said the world today is much better than it was a few decades ago, and we'll make it though the next century alright - but the evidence doesn't support that at all. America and western civilization in general shows every sign of decline right now, fossil fuels are declining, climate change is well underway, antibiotic-resistant epidemics are coming, etc. many different crises will coalesce, causing massive decline in human population and technological and cultural collapse over the next few centuries. we're in the stage of late Rome right now, right before a new dark age

>>2080093

The world is 10 times better today than it was 50 years ago

>>2080093
>fossil fuels are declining
How? Weren't the Saudis tanking the oil prices in retaliation to large oil reserves that wasn't theirs being drilled into?

>antibiotic-resistant epidemics are coming
Actually, scientists have made a promising possible discovery while developing new antibiotics that specifically targets some kind of protein that's in all bacterial cell walls that could be their new last resort antibiotic. Google it

>>2078972
As an atheist I must say that I was impressed by the last part of that podcast. Christian philosophy and religious ethics intertwined with tradition and religious ecstasy are things that should leave any human in awe.

However, I find his interpretation of the whole matter a bit suspicious. After I snapped out of my awe, I couldn't bring myself to accept any interpretation that divorces scriptures from a literalist reading. I think it's intellectually dishonest to accept his interpretation as the standard for our culture's interaction with scriptures. It's certainly a very attractive view and the fact that it's tied to thousand of years of culture and religious history and tradition makes it even more grandiose, but the tenets of his interpretation are not at all dependant on those scriptures.

File: 1468645345069.jpg (54KB, 589x590px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 589x590px

>>2080673

>>2080920
What he says there is anti-religious. His "God" is just the inner sense of what you should do.
Warm feels good in winter, wide hips girls, sleep when dark, etc is his God. The innate truth that we know, even before we discovered the rules as to why we do these things that we do, using science.

However, consider things like eating too much sugar. Eating sugar feels good. Its calory rich and rare. When you get some, eat all you can, because humans live in perpetual starvation. Except we no longer do. Now this innate truth, this higher purpose to eat sugar is harming us.
An ultimate truth is no longer true, God is dead.

He can be argued against with similar remarks. None are too philosophical, but neither were his arguments. Its just a reasonable sounding explanation of things yet unclear, and you can provide reasonable sounding counter arguments to this.

I do however agree that there is reality other than the materialistic.
You find things like courage, love, the idea of the number five, the rules of logic, and so on in that reality.
Those are real things. You can tell their existence, and you can tell their lack. You know when courage is present or absent in a man. Yet they are obviously not material. I don't think we can have a pattern of particles we would call courage.

Thats where you should to to seek an alternative explanation for reality, and in this world of ideas you can find another god.

>>2080957
>His "God" is just the inner sense of what you should do
I thought his most condensed summary of God was that which is unknown to us.

Biological needs and cravings aren't innate spiritual truths and I don't think he ever meant to state that that's God, especially when famous religious figures like the Buddha and Jesus would fast or whatever else to mentally fortify themselves against the wants of the body. I think you're being flippant.

>>2080957

Why do you feel the need to continually and deliberately misrepresent Peterson's views?

>>2078130
Between 20 and 60 million is the most common numbers

>>2080957
Naturalism/materialism are of no importance to my point about JP'd interpretation.

He described these religious texts and characters as rich archetypal allegories of ethics (i can get behind that), but implicitly divorced any literalist interpretation from the Christian tradition. I take issue with that.

>>2079157
Basically, he's positing there are times people do things for positive reason, i.e. to get things, for example to get power, which is a comprehensible even though occasionally unethical endeavour; and there are times when people do things not in order to obtain something, but to destroy themselves or others.

You don't agree to that?

>>2082840
>Basically its X when it suits me, and Y when it doesn't

>>2081003
Why do you feel that "i dont agree" is a good argument?

>>2079157
Also, there's another point of his argument that you don't address. Why do Hitler or Stalin want power? What does power entail? Peterson isn't trying to follow their train of thought because doing that is pretty simple since they would more or less be operating under the same assumptions he would make. What he's trying to get at is those assumptions.

Even if we disregard genocide, what is there that can move people into war? Even if Hitler is completely calculating in his war preparations, why is he even doing it to begin with? How can he be so in tune with his audience that he can make them believe they can fight against most of the planet?

One last thing. On getting power: again, you need to look at Peterson's background. A man who has Nietzsche as an influence has all the reason to say power is worth pursuing of itself.

>>2083016
No, not really.

>>2083020

I'm not making an argument, I'm literally asking you a question, non-rhetorically. What do you get out of it? It doesn't advance the dialogue; it sends it looping back on to itself. It muddles and muddies the ability for everyone involved to articulate their own points, because they are so busy correcting and redirecting the consequences of your obtuseness.

>>2083112
Are you trying to nihilism your way our of an internet discussion?
You can just leave, bro. I don't know who you are. I won't follow your account in other threads.

File: saturdaynight.png (484KB, 765x519px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 765x519px

>>2083213

>>2083035
>Even if we disregard genocide, what is there that can move people into war?
Wanting to make things better, almost always, if not always.People with good intentions jogging to Hell.
You can easily see this for both Hitler and Stalin. They want a greater good that they perceive, and are willing to do anything to get there.
Which stands in opposition to Paterson's views that those are evil men, and not mistaken men who tried to do good and fucked up.

Also stop bringing up Nietzsche. He is one of many philosophers mentioned, some with conflicting views, and you always single him out.
Besides, Paterson himself has said that he doesn't even talk about Nietzsche directly, rather Jung's Nietzsche.
He is a Jung fanboy, not a Nietzsche one, if you will.

File: Stalin-and-Yezhov.jpg (1MB, 2523x821px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2523x821px

>>2083221
>Wanting to make things better, almost always, if not always.
If everyone is out for "good" then the term loses any meaning. For Hitler "good" was not having Jews in Germany. For Stalin "good" was not having anyone oppose the revolution. Of course they're going to do what they "think" is right and say they are. Someone who's out for revenge isn't going to think they're the one wronged; that doesn't mean the outcome is any less obviously destructive.

You seem to think Peterson thinks people who do evil are moustache twirling sadist, which isn't the case at all. He stresses many times that otherwise normally functioning individuals can end up doing the same things he warns about.

>Paterson himself has said that he doesn't even talk about Nietzsche directly, rather Jung's Nietzsche.
He does it all the time. He does it in the very video you posted: he talks about Nietzsche and Dostojevskij making accurate predictions about nihilism; he doesn't mention Jung until later when mentioning archetypes. He has a video in which he dissects one sentence by Nietzsche through 40 minutes. In another video he talks about Nietzsche extensively in broader spectrum of 19th Century existencialism, along Kierkegaard and Dostojevkij; no Jung there either.

Why don't *you* watch his videos instead of arguing about semantics on the very first one?

>>2083292
>You seem to think Peterson thinks people who do evil are moustache twirling sadist, which isn't the case at all.

Literally claimed that Hitler is a fire worshiping cultist who wanted to kill all germans and set Berlin on fire to atone for their failure in the past war, because he is evil and enjoys murder and destruction, regardless of anything else.

>>2083491
If you'd actually watched his lectures you'd know "fire worshipping cultist" isn't derogative and purely a descriptive term for Peterson. What he's saying is that Hitler was following an archetypal logic of sacrifice, part of the structure of the human subconscious, in going to war, again >>2078336

>>2083491

Does he *literally* say that? *Literally* all of thatm though? Or does he just toss out the notion that maybe there is some complexity to motivation, and that maybe part of Hitler's motivation--probably unconscious, probably not *personal* but still personality-directed--was not in the interests of the German people? Do you *lieterally* even know what he is referring to when he uses a term like 'fire worshipper'?

>>2083532
Why don't *you* watch his videos instead of arguing about semantics on the very first one?

>>2083527
Completely besides the point.
Read your post, and my response, and dont sidestep.

File: 1481448356843.png (446KB, 840x824px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 840x824px

>>2077886
Based.

>>2078241
Which lecture?

>>2083565

It is not beside the point--it *is* the point.

I'll ask you again: do you know what he means by the term 'fire-worshipper'?

>>2083532
That wasn't me. You're becoming a chore to talk to. I don't even care about winning this argument anymore.

>>2083565
How is it completely besides the point? Hitler isn't a one-dimensional villain because he was sacrificial. To Peterson sacrifice is part of what it means to be human that got out of control in that case; he even finds it admirable in certain contexts (like parents for their children's future). He's a doctor, seeing what it is that produced pathological behaviors is what he does.

You keep disregarding my points and arguing how things aren't there after being provided ample evidence. You don't seem like you care about the truth. You either don't understand what we're discussing or are out to dirty Peterson's image.

>>2083602
>>2083604
>1. he doesn't think Hitler is evil
>2. he thinks Hitler is evil, here is a quote about him intentionally destroying germany before killing himself
>3. fire worshiping is an ancient tradition and has to do with delayed gratification

2 is a response to 1.
3 is not a response to 2. Its besides the point.
Do you think that he intentionally killed tens of millions of germans, destroyed the country, divided it into two, set Berlin on fire to purge it, and shot himself in the head as a means of achieving delayed gratification?

File: 1461868697053.gif (2MB, 283x313px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 283x313px

>>2083617

>>2083604
First response was for >>2083561 of course.

To continue >>2083604: You're the one that thinks Hitler or whoever are special cases and people would be fine if they had resources. Which as Peterson points out in the video is a ludicrously simplistic view. He's the one that's trying to make sense out of them instead of pigheadedly talking about logic paths and denying people do wrong out of anything but a lack of power (which in itself is a completely cultural and unanalyzed concept).

>>2083617
1) Define evil.
2) It was a purificative gesture. He says it on the video.

File: 1399328292260.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

>>2083617
>Do you think that he intentionally killed tens of millions of germans, destroyed the country, divided it into two, set Berlin on fire to purge it, and shot himself in the head as a means of achieving delayed gratification?

By the beginning of 1943 the war was unwinnable for Hitler, he didn't set out to lose in 1939 but past a certain point he was simply continuing a destructive stubborn resistance for no other reason except that he had the power to do so.

Past a certain point they were not trying to win. Nazis like Goebbels murdered their own children in 1945 to stop them living in a world without National Socialism. It's insanity.

>>2083631
>1) Define evil.
Why? I don't claim it exists. I am arguing that it doesn't, and the "evil" people are "good" people who are mistaken or otherwise unsuccessful.
>2) It was a purificative gesture. He says it on the video.
Clutching at a straw there. A much better fitting explanation is that he attempted greatness, and failed.

>>2083634
That was just honor and warrior code and such, many common soldiers also killed themselves rather than face defeat, and it has been done throughout the world, throughout history.

>>2083642
>I am arguing that it doesn't, and the "evil" people are "good" people who are mistaken or otherwise unsuccessful.
Then you're arguing non-sense and saying you don't think evil exists while giving a definition.

(That definition doesn't say anything pretty about yourself btw.)

>A much better fitting explanation is that he attempted greatness, and failed.
Yup.

>That was just honor and warrior code and such
It's the same logic. Both are attempting to be "pure". In both cases what they did is more important.

>>2083654
Attempting to walk down the stairs is unimportant, whats important is that you fell down the stairs.
Thus you wanted to fall all along, and succeeded in what you wanted.
The pain will purify you, which is what you craved, you never truly wanted to just walk down the stairs.

t. Peterson

>>2083659
Like you've been told, walking down the stairs isn't going to war.

But it's okay, you don't want to listen. I'm not going to keep talking to you.

>>2083642
>That was just honor and warrior code and such, many common soldiers also killed themselves rather than face defeat, and it has been done throughout the world, throughout history.

Collective suicide on a nationwide scale is not common in history. How many countries have intentionally brought destruction to entire continents (while knowing that they could not win after a point) outside of the world wars?

>>2083671
The difference is only in scale, you are making war the unique exception for your own purposes.

>>2083682
>Collective suicide on a nationwide scale is not common in history.
Nor did it occur in Germany, few people killed themselves. Compare to Chinese jumping off the walls rather than be conquered by the Mongols during sieges, a much more numerous sacrifice to preserve honor.

>How many countries have intentionally brought destruction to entire continents (while knowing that they could not win after a point)
Do you think that at any point the common soldiers are aware if they are winning or losing?
If someone knew the war was over it was the commanders, who were fighting to get a peace deal, which they requested multiple times, against their commander's will.
And the guy himself was at this point mentally unfit, as we are aware by testimonies of his staff, and you are using a single man's stress induced madness and delusion to judge a whole people and a whole morality system.

>>2083708
>The difference is only in scale
No, it isn't. Stop saying it is because it's fucking not. Humans aren't fucking robots. Empathy is a thing. Risk is a thing. The prospect of hundreds of people dying is a thing. Fucking war isn't a walk in the park. It's a social event with a whole rationale behind it. Stop trying to simplify the issue.

>>2083717
Like a poor people trying to discuss investment strategies, you are simply not fit to talk war or politics, or any pursuit of greater good.
I changed my mind, your problem isn't a perception of objective evil, just cowardice.
Watch Peterson's lectures, consider his words on sacrifice, and try to live by them.

>>2083721
*tips pickelhaube*

>>2083708
>few people killed themselves

Intentionally taking it literally while knowing I'm referencing Hitlers decision to continue a war he couldn't win from 1943 onwards.

>Do you think that at any point the common soldiers are aware if they are winning or losing?

Absolutely, you don't just march all the way to Stalingrad and be driven back all the way to Berlin without noticing that you've been driven back hundreds of miles. You have to be a fool to think the majority didn't know what was happening.

>And the guy himself was at this point mentally unfit, as we are aware by testimonies of his staff, and you are using a single man's stress induced madness and delusion to judge a whole people and a whole morality system.

If you admit that he was insane, then it's entirely likely that carrying on the war with the intent of losing occurred here, since he knew they couldn't win.

>>2078303
>keen

Way to give away your shitpost you koalafucker.

>>2077886
who is this and why should i give a fuck

>>2085179

I'd you'd look through the thread you'd know. That same question has been asked like 4 different times, goddamn we're not here to spoon feed you

>>2078336

I could see that this guy was a lying jew the moment he started going on about Palestinians.

I think the 'disgust response' theory is much more likely. That's why people say "I'd rather be poor and have no immigrants".