Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant

>>9353481
Considering his circumstances as a North American academic in this political climate, no, his "agenda" is entirely understandable.

>>9353487
>"agenda"
This is what i'm talking about, he gets these mindless followers who aren't any different from the SJWs he constantly criticizes.

>psychology
>anything but sham
MUH ARCHETYPES
FUCK SCIENCE
MUH TALES

>>9353481
Dunno man,his ideological ideas make sense to me.

>>9353494
>FUCK SCIENCE
You're probably a troll but while I agree on psychology for the most part you can't deny the human condition.

File: 088.png (23KB, 178x305px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 178x305px

i would say the same bullshit for 30k per month desu desu with you and everyone else

>>9353505
Fucking Christ. Is it too late to jump on anti-SJW gravy train?

>>9353492
You're far more mindless than any of his actual followers for jumping to that conclusion, fampai. He ended up pandering to conservative elements despite having been fairly liberal for most of his life because he realized the position of contemporary liberals, especially in the hyper-radicalized college setting, is entirely untenable. His anti-commie, anti-postmodern slant does get somewhat tiresome and repetitive, but it makes sense considering his run-ins with the people who consider themselves to be the present day proponents of those movements. You don't have to follow him or necessarily find those aspects of what he does all that amazing to understand this.

Isn't framing this question in this way misleading?

He doesn't have an ideological agenda, he's a Jungian psych prof with ideas and those ideas are about how to live a life that can bear up under suffering. He says these things out loud and people pile on him because they feel triggered. He responds - and usually with more calmness and impersonality than his attackers.

Where's the ideological agenda here?

t. Peterson fan

JBP would look like Bloom if he gained 200 pounds. I hope he exercises.

>>9353481
he's at the meme forefront of modern Christian apologetics. He has popularised the idea of what I would interpret as 'cultural Christian', even 'atheist Christian'. They will soon be acceptable identity categories and the Christian community will embrace them, just like the Jewish community accepted a similar sort of non-theistic Judaism as part of their identity spectrum.

I don't mind it. Gets boring and I'm not taking him too seriously, but hey, I'm all for the ongoing secularisation of religions, so more power onto him.

Young people seem to like him. He's a good father figure and also polite, so yeah, no issues with mr. Jordanson as long as the whole meme doesn't take cult-like proportions and goes through a Molyneux stage.

>>9353481
Jesus Christ anon, sort yourself out. Go read a book and stop making threads asking us to validate your views on fucking Youtube celebrities.

>>9353533
good post

>>9353481
Oh you mean how he proves Marxism is bulslhit and hurts your /leftypol/ feelings because of it? That agenda?

Poor baby. Go send someone a death threat on Twitter so you'll feel better.

>>9353533
Nice post anon

I feel more or less the same. I like a lot of what he says but he definitely has a few positions that are annoying, e.g. "Anything that is written for a political purpose is not art, oh btw Dostoevsky is the greatest artist of the 19th century"

Also the mental gymnastics involved in his reasoning for his """Christianity""" from a mythological POV are fairly incredible

>>9353481
How is his "ideological agenda" different from his "psychology stuff" and why is it bullshit?

>>9353537
>go read psychological nonsense, a few obvious classics, and a "great" novel dismissed by every major novelist of the age as ideological pap

>>9353513
I'm mindless because.... I don't worship him like you do?
You've obviously read up on his life like some braindead cult member no idea why you're distancing yourself from your fellow braindeads.

>>9353521
>He doesn't have an ideological agenda
It might be more obvious to you if you didn't hang on every word he said.
>he's a Jungian psych prof
Exactly, he should stick to that.
>He says these things out loud and people pile on him because they feel triggered. He responds - and usually with more calmness and impersonality than his attackers.
Why are you so focused on his personality? Cult member symptom no.1.

>>9353533
Agreed, especially your last point.

>>9353537
Fuck off nerd.

>>9353576
The way you write makes it seem like you're the one with the ideological agenda.

>>9353584
got 'em

>>9353576
T. Sub 80 IQ brainlet

File: Capture.jpg (39KB, 521x546px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 521x546px

>>9353505

don't forget his Indiegogo.

just $100 and you too can get a 30 second youtube video of him saying thank you before he promptly forgets your name and existence

>>9353589
T. literal low test 75 IQ JP paypig

I feel exactly the opposite. He's useful to have around, but I'm never going to engage with his work.

OP sounds like one of those confused leftists who just started taking the red pill. He's dipping his toes into JP, but can't fully commit yet, because that would be a sin and would get him kicked out of the local antifa group.
>I-I just like his psychology stuff, guys, it's not like I'm a conservative or anything, heh

>>9353533
>our psyche is natually attuned to religious thought
>therefore you should become a christian
Petersons argument for religion is unreflected, unphilosophical bullshit. The thing that gets me most is that he has the gall to complain about the pomo rejection of logos, when he himself believes that it's nothing more than a tool. He accepts the premise of postmodernity but refuses to acknowledge the consequences.

File: peterson.png (226KB, 822x551px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 822x551px

>>9353521
>ideas are about how to live a life that can bear up under suffering. He says these things out loud and people pile up on him because they feel triggered

except that's obviously wrong, no one is attacking him for his ideas about living a good life under suffering.

they are attacking him for his ridiculous "using a transsexuals preferred pronouns is a slippery slope to the gulags" stance.

i like some of his lectures but when he talks about politics he sounds absolutely retarded.

>>9353601
It's for the best that such a premise is taken from these nihilistic leftists and channeled into something more constructive.

>>9353595
T. literal negative IQ mouth breathing vegetable

>>9353558
Thanks for helping prove my point that his followers are braindead dumbfucks.
>>9353571
>Educate me
Try reading and paying attention.
>>9353584
>>9353589
His braindead followers have zero ability to think for themselves. Sad!
>>9353599
I don't align my ability to think with left or right that's for weak-minded retards. Your entire post is a copy-paste of every anti-SJW ever try using your own words sometime buddy.

>>9353593
LMAO this is fucking gold.

>>9353599
why do all of you people think and write identically? Startling lack insight. execrable.

>>9353601
>>therefore you should become a christian
Where/when did he say that?

>>9353576
>I'm mindless because.... I don't worship him
You're mindless because you can't separate the wheat from the chaff and let things go. You're looking for conflict and rationalizing it with "I am not a mindless sheep because I can criticize".
Aggressive adversity is not less mindless than mindless fanboyism.

File: 1483548445876.jpg (309KB, 1584x1089px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1584x1089px

>>9353609
I've been grappling with postmodernism for long enough to understand that Petersons position is nothing more than sophistry. He resorts to calling Derrida "head trickster" and ignoring an entire intellectual movement because of pragmatic considerations instead of approaching it with intellectual honesty because he's afraid of fascism. He's manipulating people for what he believes to be the good of society.

This leads down a different rabbit-hole. When you define the value of truth by its usefulness you will soon want to discard those truths which you find to be inconvenient or dangerous.
If Petersons views become the new Zeitgeist we'll be in an age of pragmatic dogmatism, which may not be fascist but certainly tyrannical. This is just the kind of attitude that will allow people to act according to "common sense" while remaining blissfully unaware of the groups and ideas that fall under the table in their system - which will be the ones that they don't consider useful.

>>9353576
I'm interested in his personality because he's very consistent in what he says. Whether lecturing or IRL. That consistency implies a conviction, and he's capable of articulating what he believes without recourse to cheap rhetorical strategies.

He doesn't engage, charitably, with the writers who he blames for the malaise of postmodernity: Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault. He's dealing with the fallout of this, and he's dealing with it in the way that a clinical psychologist would: by telling people to sort themselves out, and giving them a literary and psychological vocabulary with which to do so. Unlike his interlocutors, he's not forcing anyone to agree with him or blaming them when they don't, accusing them of misunderstanding them and so on. It's courageous and it's honest and he communicates that.

>>9353608
Of course people are attacking him. They just do it in a very passive-aggressive way, claiming that the refusal to use the preferred pronouns is tantamount to violence, hate speech and so on. Whether it's the Paikin interview or at the lectures where the passive-aggression is so thick you could cut it with a knife, it's there. Huge, huge rage and ressentiment that boils over and lands on his lap. He's not obligated to suck up to either the students or the administration and so he doesn't. He risked both his tenure and his own psychological health to say these things. When his funding got pulled he was mad because it was the graduate students who would suffer, not him. I believe him.

>when he talks about politics he sounds absolutely retarded

This is part of his appeal. Because he's telling people to look within rather than to the state or politics. It's what any therapist would do. Zizek does this, using Lacanian analysis to diagnose the missing links in bourgeois liberalism, capitalism, to find ideology. Peterson's critique isn't as sophisticated as this but it's no less valuable. Peterson isn't bemoaning the absence of the left, he's trying to get people to stop looking to political solutions to solve personal problems.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 630x603px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 630x603px

Reminder that his psychology lectures are not actually psychology lectures, rather they're self-help motivational meetings.
He never teaches you anything about the human mind, he just goes there and say in a melodramatic tone that you should not procrastinate. Is this what passes for academic lecture on /lit/? Are il/lit/erate anon so illiterate that they can't even tell a academic lecture from a guy who is trying to sell you something?

Notice that I don't think that motivational speaks are worthless per se (the fact that Toronto university offer them to their students is commendable), but I still don't think that being good at such a thing justifies you're costant presence here on /lit/.

>>9353481

You only think he has a blatant ideological agenda because you are left-wing. Chances are most of your favorite philosophers have similar ideological agendas, you just don't notice it because you agree with them.

>>9353864
Guess how I know you haven't actually watched his lectures.

>>9353867
Post a lecture that is actually a psychological lecture, no matter how old. You will quickly realize that he is a motivational speaker, a self-help guru, who also uses a few concepts mainly from Jung and Nietzsche. But is saying "shadow self" 20 times enough to call your tragic rambling about productivity "lecture"?

File: peterson games.png (116KB, 619x602px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 619x602px

>>9353481
>Peterson
>ideology

>>9353873
>he is a motivational speaker, a self-help guru, who also uses a few concepts mainly from Jung and Nietzsche
If you watched his lectures (you didn't) you'd know that he borrows mostly from Piaget.

>>9353873
ebin

>>9353481
There's a quality -- I'm not sure I can identify it exactly -- that the most brilliant intellectuals possess that simply isn't present in Peterson. Maybe you could call it subtlety, or an unwavering resistance to reductionism. Nietzsche had it. Hegel had it. Joyce had it. Tolstoy too. And make no mistake, I'm not talking about the inscrutability of the French. Whatever it is, Peterson's missing it.

>>9353599
'Fully commiting' to his beliefs goes against his whole fucking philosophy. It's literally the most obvious takeaway from any of his lectures.

File: stirner sucking his own cock.jpg (46KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x534px

>>9353481
>Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?
Psychologizing is an ideologicalizing process, don't try to filter shit through any categories just take a pure operational approach to what is

>>9353502
>You're probably a troll but while I agree on psychology for the most part you can't deny the human condition.
I can question if humans actually really exist in any meaningful sense today
HYPOTHESIS: the symbiotic relationship humans have developed with technology has already reached a critical point... a qualitative shift has occurred and individual men no longer exist but collective cyborgs have emerged in their place... since man and machine form one effective unit today all traditional theories of mind cannot effectively deal with the new race of cyborgs

>>9353933
You say that because you've seen him speak. The only documents left by the philosophers you mentioned were in the form of text, which can be doctored easily to project the desired image of the author. It's a little more difficult when you're forced to speak on the cuff to a room of students.

>>9353481
The biggest problem is he genuinely views Christianity as some kind of positive force in the history of mankind(Europe), hence why he calls himself Christian. I don't think I've ever heard of him even mention Europe pre-Christianization or the wealth of knowledge, philosophy, culture, etc. coming from there, the actual native values of Europeans. Can't really take him all too seriously because of this, the Judeo-Christ fetish is too much.

>>9353593
>$100 CAD

Ok so I have to pay for his 6 piece McNuggets and I get a personal thank you video? Seems worth desu

>>9353981
This. Pre Christian Europe was better than christian Europe especially for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

>>9353608
This is basically my relationship with him as well. I enjoy watching his lectures occasionally; the stance on marxism and anything overtly progressive however is always reduced by him to some illogical hyperbole, and he comes off as incredibly ill-formed.
A common case of an intellectual in one field incorrectly trying to apply their methods of thought to an idea of a nature entirely foreign.

>>9353687
>Peterson isn't bemoaning the absence of the left, he's trying to get people to stop looking to political solutions to solve personal problems.
I do believe you're applying credit where none should exist. His innocent interpretations of marxism and post-modernism allude not to his desire for a psychology void of politics, but rather a politics shaped by his own ignorant world-view.
I do think too much credit is given to this man.

File: 4bf.png (181KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 625x626px

>>9353576

Good thread, I like the good balance of pro's and con's.

Clearly there is a leftist issue and he formulates some problems well.

His explanation, blaming on Marxist and Postmodernism, doesn't quite convince, but I don't mind as it's not too problematic insulting dead people.
I also like the archetype ideas and the self-help'ish perspective. You must be very ideologically loaded or cynical to be against his sort-yourself-out appeals.

I don't mind at all that he's not making money from his fame. Who the fuck wouldn't do that? What I know is that lots of people would fuck up benefiting from that traction and he seems to do well.

PS I rewatched Pinocchio last week. Funny how they didn't mind drastic and immediate scenery changes. My immersion was sort of lost when, with the intent to find the whale in the sea, Pinocchio literally jumps into the sea at a random stop and starts his search. Does he really expect to find a particular creature this way? In the whole SEA?

File: 29_pinocchio_disney_1939-480x306.jpg (53KB, 480x306px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x306px

And I wonder if Peterson is aware of Astro-Boy

>>9353884
tfw too intelligent to have an ideology

File: ^43E42EA27286E34149AD73F6CB39AB4F88A350AA4B73FE6556^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (58KB, 879x657px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 879x657px

>>9353492

>>9353492
>he gets these mindless followers who aren't any different from the SJWs he constantly criticizes.

How are they the same exactly? Your post makes no sense at all.

I like his psych lectures and i even agree with his stance on pronouns and gender.

Where i part ways with him is his conspiracy mindset.
>evul post modernists are comin to get ya!
>the bloody neo marxists are turning us into a communist state!

I don't think Hugh Mungus sexually assaulted
that crazy ass lady and I don't think whites are
racist merely for being white. Is that radical?

>>9353608
Is it bad that I'm reading that pic in his voice even though I hate him and have only watched one video by him more than a month ago?

>>9356850
oh boy

>>9353608
difference is plenty of religious societies avoided violence whereas no marxist societies managed to

catholicism tries to reign in human behaviour whereas marxism tries to change it, this is why he describes marxism as ideological

>>9357232
no capitalist society has ever avoided violence either

>>9357304
that's because living without god is ideological

>>9353481
I'm the reverse. To me his politics seem mostly solid, but I find his pigeonholing of various Jungian ideas into his ideological speech kind of distracting and unnecessary. Shoehorning that stuff in weakens his message and credibility in some ways, and that's a shame.

I don't hate psychology or Jung, it's just included more out of his personal limitation than any need or fitness.

>>9353481
I'm someone who is regularly accused of being leftist, conservative, libtard, alt-right, etc. by various rabid people simply because I believe what is and not what I merely wish it to be, and they disagree with me and can't articulate and argument; and I've found that reality doesn't conform neatly along ideological lines. He's dead on concerning the bulk of his ideological platform - enough that it forgives the rest, which is relatively innocent and not that insidious at all.

>>9357232
>plenty of religious societies avoided violence

care to name one?

>>9358555
Not them, but I'll give it a try. What are your criteria?

For example, we should probably agree straight off that violent conflict is endemic to nature, as well as human nature. How against doctrine does behaviour need to be in order to not count against that doctrine? Does a religious society have to be still existing today to count? Does it have to have been nonviolent for the entirety of its existence? How large does a religious society have to be to count?

These sorts of clarifications will, I hope, lead to an intelligent conversation rather than a pointless argument.

he's just plain wrong most of the time, dont get why he has a following

>>9359166
Care to give some examples?

I think he is entertaining to listen to and brings up good points from other writers, but his politics are so shallow in comparison and connects the two at the hip and throws himself even deeper into right-wing media.

>>9359235
big one where he lost all credibility for me was his stance on kids

>>9359302
So he makes literary comparisons to modern day politics, but they're shallow because the "right wing media" agrees with them? OK, comrade.

File: fags.jpg (275KB, 1050x1299px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1050x1299px

Every time. You're not fooling anyone.

>>9359588
But what was it about his stance that gave you that reaction?

>>9359660
You're asking for an actual discussion, with an argument and everything? It's not going to happen, man.

Reasonable people like you are lost in a sea of foaming extremists who are completely uninterested in informed discourse.

>>9359631

what subreddit is this?

>>9357232
The fact that you can't see how every human society has it's founding nomos associated with the monopoly of violence only goes to show how ideologically charged you are.

Stick to your jungian mumbo jumbo and leave actual philosophical discussion to non-brainlets.

>>9358522
The reason why you're accused of all those things is because you're obviously so ideologically entrenched in the capitalist paradigm that your opinions can easily be associated with any of the institutional sides, since you're so bland.

What you confuse for individuality is actually being so much of a drone to the spectacle that you can't actually have any authentic opinion anymore.

>>9359631
>>9359738

There's reddit cancer and then there's socialist reddit cancer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/5eid8u/forming_a_socialist_meme_committees_through_reddit/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit

>>9359818
What is more authentic about institutionalized left- or right-wing thought?

>>9359235
Not the anon you replied to, but his ludicrous misrepresentation of "post-modernists" and further attempts to "trace back" how these ideas that no one actually holds impact some intangible group of people is stupid enough to dismiss him of having any intellectual credibility, imho.

>>9360076
>how these ideas that no one actually holds impact some intangible group of people

How has he misrepresented post-modernists?
What ideas specifically?
What intangible group of people are you referring to?

>>9360125
>>9360076
I thought so. So much for that intellectual credibility.

>>9359588
what are you refering to exactly?

File: 1481954852561.jpg (67KB, 572x487px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 572x487px

>>9353481
Epic post bolshy

>>9353608
this meme is effective.

>>9353608
It's because religious truth remains religious truth because it survives the darwinian reality throughout times. Socialism and communism is against that reality and will always collapse itself like lemmings.

>>9361913
By Jordans own logic if religion leads to catastrophic violence it can not be considered truth under his Darwinian framework. It has in the past but jordan does not care.

>>9361931
>By Jordans own logic
Where precisely does Jordan present this logic? I'd like to see for myself.

>>9363019
First debate with same harris on his "waking up" podcast. It's in two parts. The get stuck on the definition of "Truth" for about an hour in part one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY

>>9363046
He does not express the points stated in >>9361931 as they claimed.

>>9359818
>you can't be pigeonholed? It's because of how incredibly stereotypical you are!
I have an IQ of 169, I am a world respected thinker and I have scientifically proven that my favorite flavor of communism is viable in the real world. I now spend my days on 4chan's /lit/ board, dispensing wisdom to the masses and informing people I've never met about the intricacies of their political beliefs. I am smarter than all of you and I have nothing left to learn. If everyone in the world thought like I do we would be living in paradise.

>>9361931
He points out that tribalism part of what causes the vilence, along with religion.

Science and political regimes provided a much larger scale of destruction compared to religion.

It's like mass shootings with a gun vs a knife. Same intent, just more deaths.

File: Unholy_three.png (264KB, 593x1000px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 593x1000px

>>9363157
I'm willing to bet that your post was a scathing repudiation of >>9359818. Still, Poe's Law can be terrifying.

>>9353608

would you care to write an argument against why one should oppose state mandated speech, meaning not if you say these things the state will fine you and jail you, but if you DON'T say these things the state will fine you and jail you?

these laws seem to cross the tyranny line pretty clearly.

File: 1485751037216.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

>>9363157
>I have nothing left to learn.
... except for comma splices.

>>9354885
Tribalist mentalities. You can see them on facebook/youtube comments.

>>9363221
I agree. I do wish that Peterson would more properly define the exact moral difference between pronoun nonsense and, say, kinds of speech that it actually makes sense to if not curtail, then have special provisions for - like incitement to violence for example. Free speech is a panacea within a limited window of scenarios outside of which action must be swift, just, and measured, because fuck giving demagoguery a free hand. We know what that did in Russia and China, and the meme of "lol not here 'cuz we're Western and moral" doesn't hold water. Like Peterson himself says, people are all Nazis. All that it takes to become one of history's repeated mistakes is to give in.

>>9363254
i understand what you are saying but i think the swift action must be taken when speech turns into action, not because we should tolerate actual tyranny but there is no way that the instruments to prosecute speech would not themselves become unbearable tyranny

File: 1483754952945.jpg (331KB, 753x707px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 753x707px

>a center-right professor is as ideological as the average left-wing professor
>retards start shrieking their heads off
I thought /lit/ was supposed to be a smart board

>>9363157
>I have scientifically proven that my favorite flavor of communism is viable in the real world.
please do share this proof with us famalan

>>9363244
Please. You're obviously so ideologically entrenched in the grammatical paradigm that your opinions can easily be associated with any of the editorial sides, since you're so bland.

What you confuse for proper punctuation is actually being so much of a drone to the spectacle that you can't actually have any authentic opinion anymore.

>>9363302
>educate me
No. Read Derrida, then read it again until you understand it. Not that you ever will, you sub-80 IQ hack.

>>9363284
We all make mistakes, don't be too hard on yourself.

>>9363181

>along with religion.

Then the moral lessons provided by religion were not sufficiently true. (Peterson logic)

>Science and political regimes provided a much larger scale of destruction compared to religion

My point was not that Scientific truth is infact "truth", my point was that by his logic religious truth is not "truth", regardless of relative deaths compared to science it has still led to disaster and not minor stuff either. It can not be said to be "true"

>>9363073

It does

>>9363316
the only thing i will do is provide proof for the shit i claim, unlike some fags i meet in japanese shitposting forums

>>9363341
>It does
you oversimplified it, also religion is too big of a category to use like you did in that post

>>9363350

>you oversimplified it

Well yeah, it's not a simple idea and i'm not going to rewatch the video for details and write an essay.

> also religion is too big of a category to use like you did in that post

Well you can assume it was Christianity, I believe he is on record saying it's one of the best examples of a religious moral truth and Jesus is the best possible person and the bible has great moral lessons.

>>9363268
I feel like that kind of thinking is admirable, but not practical. Like a tough guy thinking "well those turds are just talking I don't have to take precautions until they actually make a move."

I mean, I'm not talking about prosecuting speech - this is why I go out of my way to say mention 'special provisions' - but having a practical response that upholds free speech as far as possible and yet keeps careful watch for when things go too far.

Waiting for speech to become action - who will reimburse the shop owner, or the bereaved family, for the consequences of that first dire action? You? The state? You cannot treat all speech the same, even if you strive to keep it free. None of us are stronger than the mob; you have to act before it consumes your polity.

Harmful ideological posturing deserves reasoned counterpoints, angry, desperate crowds deserve patient, informed crowds, mounting threat of violence deserves surveillance and mobilization. But we don't have an endless cavalcade of compelling and insightful philosophers interested in the public good, concerned and informed citizens eager to temper the desperate suffering of their neighbors, police officers and emergency personnel ready to break up violence and protect people when others want to hurt them.

There are forms of peaceful congregation that are not peaceful in intent - like getting together with your buddies and fantasizing about bombing [insert "bad" facility of your choice here]. There is a grey area between literally murdering citizens and casually calling someone retarded in conversation, and it in this grey area where intervention gets the best return on investment.

>>9363316
I'm starting to enjoy this new pasta. It's a cheap shot though, and you know it. The false-flagging is tiresome and intellectually dishonest.

File: pepelaugh.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>9363316
>read Derrida
holy shit this is the most cringe-inducing pseud sentence I've ever read on this board. Congratulations

>>9363381
he may have said something like that but he also says that, like everything, it has good and bad things, and we should keep the good parts and let go of the bad and use free speech to figure out which is which and blah blabh blah, that's why i said you oversimplified it and misrepresented him.

i think he is a great guy overall, i even buy most of his postmodernist conspiracy stuff despite how boring it is

>>9363381
Can you not separate the wheat from the chaff? Don't curate speakers to be held up as paragons, curate ideas to be held up and cherished.

>>9353481
I like his agenda and his psychology. I'm still against many aspects of his agenda, though.
>democracy and rest of the egalitarian bullshit
>liberalism (the original, economic one)

I haven't read Nietzsche, but Peterson's take on him has made me reconsider - the man seems impossible to understand.

>>9354912
I don't agree with his exact formulation either. I'm convinced that a better argument would be that people unknowingly take up an ideological mantle of and thus step onto the path of whatever result the ideology brings to, which seems to be the case with a lot of millennials who reside in this ultra-politically correct, "radically" progressive state of thought.

>>9363461
>>9363451

Well if we are trying to figure out what works and what doesn't from different systems then why can't he extend this generosity to Marxist ideas and communism?

Why are the failings of science and Marxist ideas placed at their own feet but religion is simply being mishandled and misunderstood by confused or nefarious groups? How is he not just a very intelligent and well reasoned christian apologist?

>>9354912
>evil postmodernists spawn from the cracks of the earth
That sounds a lot more conspiratorial to me.

File: 1483224412622.jpg (70KB, 810x780px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 810x780px

>>9363467
>I haven't read Nietzsche, but Peterson's take on him has made me reconsider - the man seems impossible to understand.

What do you mean?

>>9363491
Every single second hand source claims totally different things about Nietzsche. Especially on /pol/

>>9363488
Because one can't really apply "bits" of Marxism. It's sort of a totalitarian ideology, complete in structure and derived from certain underpinnings central to the framework of beliefs.

>>9363488
do you want to compare the success rate of religion vs communism

>>9363497
It almost like you need to educate yourself and form your own opinion.

>>9363507
Which is what I said.

>>9353492
I know what you mean. But you can't blame a speaker if, completely apart from the ideas presented, the listeners are stupid.

Peterson doesn't pander too much, really, and he is addressing real pressing issues with sensible ideas. There are some undertones in how he is presented (by others, mostly) that get my hackles raised, but there will always be some ugliness when you are looking at humanity head on.

>>9363523
Do you have any questions about Nietzsche?

>>9363502
Yeah, even false religions do better than communists, real or otherwise.
>people still deny the biological background of religion, despite the automated religious nature in low iq populations

>>9363533
Which book should I start with? Also, which translation is the most accurate?

>>9363501
>Because one can't really apply "bits" of Marxism. It's sort of a totalitarian ideology, complete in structure and derived from certain underpinnings central to the framework of beliefs.

Only dogmatic marxists and americans believe this.

>>9363502

I want Jordan or one of his acolytes to explain to me why the failures of communism are endemic to communism , but the failures of religion are not endemic to religion.

I think communism is a failure but why isn't religion a failure as well? or at least unnecessary as far a organizing a modern society goes.

File: 1482091539551.jpg (10KB, 285x298px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 285x298px

>>9363535

>appeal to nature

>it is good to live according to base instincts developed thousands of years ago to survive a radically world.

>>9363589
That is not what I said!
I said that the biological nature of it is denied.
>people are born atheist
Crowd.

>>9363575
I'm neither. Marxism is a "created" ideology stemming from a single person. It has not been meaningfully advanced by others in any sort of successful way.

Sure, you can crib ideas here and there, but this isn't "Marxism" than more than engaging in trade makes you a capitalist. It's just using good ideas that work, where ever they occur. Most original Marxist thought, by which I mean sentiments that were not just taken from other pre-existing movements and woven together, simply does not work.

>>9363537
Depends on you. Read a short synopsis of his work and decide for yourself.

>translation
As a native German - which may count against me depending on your opinion of modern Germans - it is less important to get the "best" translation compared to avoiding a really broken translation.

Translation is a funny thing. Some things are not really translatable, at which point you have to make a choice within the possible tradeoffs. Some nuances are fucking important, and some are just stylistic or really very minor to the idea. A language is just an intermediary between an individual expression of an idea and the body of ideas in a cultural millieu.

If you absolutely need to be told where to start, try Kaufmann's translation of Beyond Good and Evil. If you go on to read more Nietzsche, you will eventually want to read another translation of GaE, like Hollingsdale's or something (Hollingsdale is kind of opaquely written, but presents Nietzsche's ideas in a more literal manner and through less of an unnecessary Existentialist frame).

>>9363575
>why isn't religion a failure as well? or at least unnecessary as far a organizing a modern society goes.
seeing how religion sprouts everywhere, and every community every has had some form of it, i can see how it might be a defense mechanism against the problems that come with conciousness like existentialism and morality and all that. it might not be essential in a modern society, although i dont think we have a society modern enough, but in any case its effective

>>9363599

>Because one can't really apply "bits" of Marxism.
>Sure, you can crib ideas here and there,

What did you mean by this?

>>9363745
Why should it be replaced with a non-faith based system?

>>9363865
The bits you can take from Marxism's whole that would make sense without the rest of Marxism aren't uniquely Marxist.

This was covered in the rest of the post you replied to, you just failed to read and understand it.

>>9364081

>aren't uniquely Marxist.

that's not something I suggested and if you are then you're splitting hairs.

>>9364094
If ideas aren't meaningfully Marxist, then you don't need to go to Marx for them, do you? This is why "implementing Marxism" in any real way is a package deal.

What are the functional parts of Marxism that you would wish to keep, anyway? Remember, if they're something as vague or universal as "fairness" or "stop suffering" they're not particularly Marxist and you should be analyzing your beliefs more closely.

>>9364111
>>9364094
This is a good question.

Which parts of Marxism do you actually WANT?

File: 1483163993310.png (576KB, 665x772px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 665x772px

>>9353505
Socrates died so things like this wouldn't happen. what went wrong.

Marxism isn't a philosophy of solutions, it's a catalogue of grievances (real or imagined) and a shit disturber's dogma. That's why it's trash.

>>9364111
>>9364116
>>9364111

I don't exactly want any part of marxism, I want to know why Peterson thinks that because it has been unsuccessful in the past all parts of it must be abandoned as if it is toxic.

>>9364171

will there ever be a point where communism has failed enough times to realise that it's not practical?

also I you can use this argument for nazism or anything that has failed in the history of humanity.

>>9364171
why couldn't we apply this argument to fascism

>>9353593
"anon-kun, you did it. you sorted yourself out. thank you so much for playing my game."

>>9364153
People believed Socrates was a real person.

>>9353593

Get with the times, bucko

>>9364171
Because the basic tenets of the ideology have not worked in practice; not because of rough implementation, but because of the fundamental unfitness of those tenets to achieve Marxism's motivational goals.

What do you think Marxism is?

>>9353481
I agree with Peterson on some things like his stance on the Bill C-67 and political correctness / neo Marxism, but his debate with Sam Harris on truth kind of turned me off of Peterson's ideology on the whole.

Peterson believes in scientific (materialistic) truth, insofar that "it is nested within a moral truth", and he believes the moral truth should serve as a basis for the scientific truth. Harris takes the opposite viewpoint, using scientifically derived truths as a basis or starting point for moral truth. The latter stance makes a lot more sense to me

Honestly I think it's Peterson's heavy reliance on region and faith and mythology as sources for moral truths where his ideology starts to break down. He relies on too many leaps of faith and when he gets deeply into that he almost starts to sound insane lol

So, looking through the whole thread, who are these Marxist cowards who go silent when asked about their beliefs?

>>9364277

I agree it is not practical

>>9364292

There is nothing wrong with that

>>9364322

There is more to Marxism than communism. Marx made analysis's of class relations under capitalism as well as a philosophy of history. He has writing that has nothing to do with alternatives to capitalism.

Why is Marxist sociology for instance going to be as disastrous as communism? Why is it that when the word "marx" is mentioned he is 3 sentences away from the "gulag archipelago"? Why are you acting like Marxism is a synonym for Communism?

What do you think Marxism is?

>>9364555
I'm >>9364322. You haven't refuted anything I've said, nor answered my question.

I would ask if you wanted to step this back a little and actually try to find common ground, but it seems like you have some questions you'd like to ask Peterson specifically. You should probably do that, considering he is a figure with a rather public platform based on open discussion, and appearances to uphold.

>>9353481
Learn to speak English.

>>9353505
This is even more than my favorite asmrtist makes in a month and she's a 10/10 petite goddess with 500k yt subscribers.

What has this world become

>>9366393
Peterson addresses important issues, in a way that is worth more to people who are worth more in turn than "haha I'm sexy and I do art watch meeee".

>>9367410
being sexy and doing art are the most important issues pleb

>>9367435
Sure, but not the most in-demand or unique, and not the way she does it.

There are thousands of females who will be sexy for you on demand, and thousands more artists who are actually good. Being sexy is valuable either on a personal status level or an access level, and your friend provides neither to her base. Doing art is important as a whole and at the high points, and not individually on some random part of the spectrum.

Long story short, if she were more valuable and irreplaceable than Peterson, then she should be able to outperform him on Patreon. But she doesn't, and she isn't.

>>9353599
JBP isn't even clearly conservative. He says either ideology leads to trouble be it extreme chaos or extreme order.

>>9353481
Found the SJW.

>>9367533
The "center" position has moved so much to the left that merely saying "hey maybe we shouldn't be tearing EVERYTHING down" is being a conservative.

>>9368501
This lol. Today even saying you consider the rule of law and freedom of speech paramount, will make people call you a bigot and a rape apologist.

I have conservative views and even I think Peterson is silly simply because he's trite. Like someone said, more of a self-help guru then a deep thinker. He's just rehashing Jung.

>>9368533
Sounds like you're only watched snippets of his interview or whatnot then, because I disagree with him on certain things but he's certainly not simply another Deepak Chopra or some other charlatan masquerading as an intellectual, he's way smarter than that.

>>9368555

Can you share some examples of his really smart stuff?

Not trying to troll you I've just never seen it and if it exists I'm happy to be proved wrong.

>>9368903
Depends. How much time do you have?

Because his best interview is still the one from Transliminal in 2015 before he got famous.

Problem is that it lasts for 2 and a half hours.

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

>>9368533
He does go overboard with the Jungian archetypes, but to be fair those clips are from the Psychology class he teaches so it sort of makes sense for the various Psychological ideologies to be emphasized in that context.

A lot of people seem to want to picture Peterson as some sort of Great Teacher or Philosopher of our time, but in my mind his function is an interpreter.

He gives people who are lost, but have no framework of understanding to properly perceive and digest the current ideological situation in society at large and universities in specific, a context in which to understand the pressures they are sensing on a basic level but are unable to meaningfully interpret. He's tapping into a reservoir of mute feeling and giving it words, and images, presenting a narrative defining the problem and proposing various solutions.

A lot of people who cling on to him just want something to believe in; you see in the various clips floating around, sometimes there is a young man there who can't stop grinning, nodding, he's a believer. Not a thinker, but a believer. Peterson can't really afford to rebuke such people in his situation, but it's certainly not what he stands for and you could call it a callous tolerance at best.

When fighting populism you have to engage in a little fighting fire with fire, and that's always ugly. But that's the way it is.

Peterson is the proverbial finger pointing at the moon; focus on the finger, and you are missing the point.

>>9368989
This

He doesn't really hold any theories of his own as far as I'm aware, but he's very good at contextualizing the abstractions of philosophy and psychology.

In regards to 'callous tolerance': I really wish he would speak up against the ideologues of the right more vocally. I admire him greatly, but for someone who has studied totalitarianism for 40 years, he overlooks the very same SJW-like tactics invoked by the opposite side. And I refuse to think he turns a blind eye for the publicity. It's not impossible, but he seems far too sincere for it to be the case. In fact, he's the only prominent thinker nowadays who can translate into oration the sincerity of his literary icons, like Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, etc.

>>9353481
His psychological offerings are old and stale for anyone with an education, as far as his politics goes I rarely get a blip on the bullshit meter.

>>9370026
It's more than publicity. If you want to reach an extremist, you can't just shout why they're factually wrong into their face; you have to win their trust and attention with true statements that feed into their belief system just enough that they listen long enough to have certain deeper truths illuminated in their minds, to the point where they have the wherewithal to figure out for themselves that certain extreme views are wrong and should be dropped.

He won't get everyone who watches him, but maximum exposure will secure the greatest number of de-escalated right-wingers and percolate certain sensible ideas through the right wing like a sort of booster shot, lying dormant but waiting to interact with good rhetoric and bad where before there was nothing.

>>9353481
Psychology is garbage so no. But he has been successful pandering to resentful frogmen, so good for him.

>>9371663
You don't think there is anything to study about the mind?

>>9353509
Probably but if you have credentials that give you some credibility it is worth it to try.

>>9371661
I like this theory, and that he would focus on a group which blatantly recognizes dominance hierarchies, unlike the left, is a stroke of enlightened Darwinism on his part. The message I've carried from his lectures is that you can reconcile the will to power with the will to do good.

>>9371666
If study about the mind is occurring it's not happening in the psych department at the moment.

>>9371666

he's a STEMlord so of course not.

>>9371675
The black-and-white thinking of both the far left and far right needs to stop, in any case.

The main thrust of his rhetoric is still the need to curtail the ridiculous extravagances of the far left, it just happens to position him with a platform that the far right might listen to, if it's delivered properly. It's the main reason his political platform seems so soft, in my opinion. Like someone else said above, he's not stupid and he's not insincere. It's just that a lot of people have no grasp of the real intricacies of social politics and how to work a crowd to get important messages and ideas out there.

>>9371699
I guess it's unsurprising a man who studies hero myths for a living has the capacity to pull off this balancing act. It also helps that he seldom reveals his own political stances, like you said.

The people who decry him as a demagogue or self-stylized prophet upset me. He doesn't have a malevolent bone in his body, and his lectures have pulled a lot of people from chaotic throes.

>>9353948
>no replies
Man, it's such a trip thinking about how humans will evolve from the internet on. Constantly being plugged into an information source, a television screen.
We have a direct uplink to the ministry of truth.
Our kids are growing up now with Ipads in their hands.

>>9371761
>our kids

Let's be precise, other peoples' kids.

>>9371761
I wouldn't mind replying, but a lot of things in that post were either vague or sort of preposterous. Like, I'm game but don't see much value in it, you know?

>>9354779
That argument would hold weight if we didn't live in a hyper-polarized world of non-functioning dichotomies where either extreme is almost always the wrong answer.

>>9371752
He does stray into less-than-honourable intellectual territory sometimes, and it's to be expected he isn't perfect. It's important to nail him to the wall for his intellectual sins just as it is for any other speaker, no special status for him, it's just that a little of that is inevitable in this climate. Politics is ugly for this reason.

I respect him, the function he provides is sorely needed and admirably performed by him at great risk to himself - but you damn well believe if he ever fucks up big or goes off the deep end that old goodwill only goes so far.

>>9371877
Can you give an example of an intellectual sin of his? He is aloof in speech, but I pass that off as a character quirk more than anything.

>>9353608

This triggered me

>>9353948

Brainlet here. Somebody needs to write a response to this.

>>9353933

I don't think Peterson himself would call that a fair comparison, and who are you to judge when by your own admission you're not sure what you mean? You're just insulting the man.

>>9371900
Another anon has mentioned Peterson's avoidance to date of taking a hard, in-your-face line with the far right. When your platform leans heavily in the honest and fearless presentation of ideas and allowing them to hammer against other ideas as a kind of synthetic impetus, this is a kind of hypocrisy.

But it's a healthy one, for reasons already described. It's the kind of thing he has to do because of this aims and how people work, but considering his personal beliefs it probably cuts him to the core that he has to do it.

A medical doctor swears to do no harm, but in surgery he can't put his faith in psychic surgery or miracle healing, he has to put the patient under the knife. Cut through the good to get to the bad.

Courses of action are rarely 100% efficient, 100% effective, and 100% honourable. Some people will attack anyone who believes in any policy at all on one of those basis, ie. he's not infallible with regards to outcomes / morals therefore he's a "false prophet" and you all are fools and cucks for listening to him, you need to come back into the fold and realize that antifa / fundamental Christianity / hardline atheism / whatever is the only way to live a true and pure life.

Like I said, I respect him and even like him. But I'm watching him like I watch anyone. Playing with fire can get you burned and all that, and he is definitely swimming some deep and powerful societal waters. Credit where credit is due, censure where censure is warranted.

>>9354004

Pre christian Europe was the Roman empire and 30% of people were slaves. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>9372009
>some people think things are either 100% true or 100% false
I'm paraphrasing you, but I am like this deep down and have to fight it. I've wondered a lot where this comes from, because not everyone I know suffers from this to my extent, and in discussions with people that have known me for a long time like my parents I've come to the conclusion that it stems from how I was raised in fundamental Christianity. It's really hard to weed out of my core cognition loop and I don't think I'll ever really be successful, but it's worth knowing where I think it comes from and how I can avoid doing the same to my kids.

>>9353481
>doesn't want people to be thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns

Seems reasonable to me.

File: wewlad.gif (49KB, 69x120px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 69x120px

>>9372015
>it's a historically reductionist babby who probably doesn't even know the word irminsul
The Saxon tribes weren't fully converted until about 800 AD to say nothing of the Slavs, my dude.

>>9372009
thanks for the response anon. I really do hope he rectifies his ulterior motives in the future, after the current political firestorm has died down. His autobiography would be incredibly fascinating

>>9356850
He has tremendous memetic potential, that's why his shtick took off.

He's like a conservative Zizek.

>>9372033
Fucking wiccaboos, why can't you realize pagan Europe was shit? Most cultural, technological and philosophical development came from the Classics

>>9359858
Redditors and leftists are generally horrible at memes.

It's always fun when they try to rebrand meme culture to their political purpose and it never works because their memes are Darwinistically unsound.

>>9372045
Classics were pagan you silly cunt.

File: sanic2.jpg (134KB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x686px

>>9372045
I never said it was "good" or "bad," only that your total understanding of pre-Christian Europe as the Roman Empire leaves a great deal to be desired.

File: whewlad.jpg (20KB, 346x231px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 346x231px

>>9372041
>conservative

>>9372029
I'm not touching that one with a 10-foot pole, lol. Does that make me all the things some people accuse Peterson of being? A false crusader? A Christianist? A coward?

>>9372037
What ulterior motives are you referring to? In what way should he "rectify" them, and why?

I'm asking because I don't see how the discussion we've had leads up to the sentiments you expressed, which means I missed something important about your position and beliefs.

>>9372009
>synthetic impetus
Pretty sure you mean "syncretic impetus".
>because of this aims
Ditto with "because of his aims".

I like what you're writing and you probably know this, but this kind of silly mistake makes us all look bad and weakens the force of your arguments.

>>9372077
Meant to say 'clarify', not rectify. Ulterior motives as in what he's actually trying to achieve in the long-term, if anything, by pandering to the right.

>>9372054
Sure, until they weren't. Celts apparently never got the memo
>>9372058
I never said "good" or "bad" either, only "shit." Also not the guy you were originally replying to, so more internet points for me. Get wrecked druid larper.

Political labels and camps are only valuable in political considerations. When actually assessing and idea for validity, just consider the idea itself.

>>9372090
Oh, sorry if I took "shit" as a synonym for "bad," i.e. in the way it was obviously meant in the context.

>>9372089
Okay I understand now, thank you.

Yeah, maybe he will be able to eventually. The thing is, if he is successful in his ulterior motives it will naturally be a defusing of far right extremism and it should be obvious to most people what he has done and why.

It would also be a shame in this hypothetical future to take the catalyst of his success with the right and "take the gas out of it" so to speak. If he comes out later and says "lol ya I did this to troll the right and turn the minds of the young against extremism" his entire body of work gets removed from that ecosystem and no longer has as much potential to serve its function; if left as is, it will always be there to appeal to the right-thinkers of the future to give them the political context and ideological perspective needed to retain that clarity and grounded nature that allows people to escape extremist thought prisons.

Remember, even in this hypothetical future where "the fight has been won", the competing ideological forces of the right and left will still exist, and will probably be building up to the next big brush-up. There is no extinguishing them because they are within the normal full expected human capacity, just like there is no extinguishing the potential for any comparative difference of opinion. Because opinions really are distinct from facts, though they matter no less to the functioning of civilization.

>>9372087
Yeah, for sure. I hate when I fuck up simple things and appreciate you pointing it out. Actually I'm surprised anyone here knows the difference between synthetic and syncretic, got my point to realize I meant one and not the other, AND gave a shit enough to correct me. Thanks for giving me that extra bit of faith in people.

>>9372123
>It would also be a shame in this hypothetical future to take the catalyst of his success with the right and "take the gas out of it" so to speak.

Good point. Call me a naive optimist for thinking we can even reach a political compromise.

The only thing that could sink him right now, really, is if he began espousing his political views, and as we've established, he's probably too forward thinking for that. But all it takes is him pushing the transgender debate a little too far, getting dismissed from his tenure, and becoming involuntarily martyred by the right and rejected by the left.

>>9372066
>hates marx
>hates postmodernism
>hates trans
>catholic apologist
>sees gulags around every corner
>not conservative

>>9372209
This.

>>9372161
Well, you can reach a political compromise; that's one of the important functional works to be carried out by each generation. The point is that the compromise is not eternal. It must be reached again, and again, in different times and against the backdrop of different issues.

Your side - whatever side you're on - can win, but winning isn't forever; victory buys us as a civilization only so much time. Education is important and useful, but doesn't change this basic fact. And it's a good and useful fact, even if people secretly wish they could stamp out X "for good". Everyone is someone else's X to varying degrees (enough to be targeted for sure): moderates, leftists, right-wingers, capitalists, intellectualists, academics, establishmentarians, anarchists. Everyone is on someone's hit list - probably a lot of "someone"s. You can fight for your beliefs, but you don't get to set them in stone - or rather, you can set them in stone but even stone isn't eternal.

Proving the righteousness of a position is something that must be done over and over, in every age. This is part of the active creation of civilization.

>>9372209
Gulags are around every corner. Remove one of the cornerstones of our civilization (and as such, minds), and we will have gulags or something similar.

>>9372665
Some things are tough to envision if you've never seen them before as a vital, urgent part of your current era. It's easy for people to dismiss scenarios as "history book shit that modern humans would never be barbarous / uninformed / careless enough to let happen again".

In a similar way, some parents will always be bullshit and some kids will never believe their parents no matter how true the lesson is.

>>9372681
Isn't that the hero myth, again?

>>9372209
>hates trans
>catholic apologist

would you care to back that up?

File: le 4chin.png (343KB, 589x540px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 589x540px

What did he mean by this?

>>9372687
How so?

For context I am familiar with rhetorical landscape surrounding the hero archetype, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you properly.

>>9372689
use my pronouns or i take u to court hitler
probably catholic because he's not a strict materialist like us enlightened ones
also he claims there are universal morals when there are none except for you not using my pronouns being an immoral act, other than that morality doesn't real
also everyone not communist/socialist is neocon dubya 2.0
plus there's literally zero legitimate arguments against marx he was actually truth incarnate and everything he spoke was gospel
xDDDD

>>9372714
He meant that he is a joke who should never be taken seriously.

>>9372089
I wouldn't call it pandering exactly. I suppose it's not unrelated to pandering, but it's important to keep your audience in mind as well as your goals.

Put your voice where it will do the most good, saying the things that will do the most good in the ears of the people that hear you.

>>9372714
Seems like he knows his audience to me, and is trying to market properly.

We all know that his audience is mostly made up of emasculated men who were raised by single mothers.

>>9372714
For what sort of meaning are searching, senpai?

>>9372689
>hates trans
I guess he was exagerating it a bit, but it's still true to a certain extent: he turned his refusal to use preferred pronouns in a full blown career. He may not hate trans people himself, but he is surelly profiting out of that hate.

>catholic apologist
He justifies many aspects of Christianity, almost treating it as a justified good, a moral lie.
Also his epistemology one could say that his epistemology is perfectly appliable to christianity irsekf: he's pragmatic on spiritual matters. If believing in something can help you living your life and make you even stronger, then you should believe in it, even if you know it's false (unoess there is something else that is both true and more effective than the lie you're believing).

>>9372912
Hating trans has nothing to do with the position as far as I can tell, it was just a pertinent example of a lack of a solid understanding of the importance of free speech by the left.

Hell, he explicitly talks about the importance of respecting the dignity of actual trans-gendered people; he just puts a fine point on it that makes knee-jerk leftists uncomfortable and rabid leftists angry.

Hateful people will latch onto anything that even halfway can be used to justify their feeling of righteous offhandedness; this is just how they work and not a very meaningful reflection on the material in question. Hate doesn't look for truth or authenticity; just ammo and targets.

>>9372933
>offhandedness
meant to type offendedness, which should be offense

He's good for all the young men growing up with only their mom.

File: Capture.png (44KB, 590x236px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 590x236px

This is the dumbest thing he has ever said.

File: 1491946030836.jpg (63KB, 750x483px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 750x483px

>>9372878
>>9372946
You guys need to stop desu

>>9372949
If you take a rather loose definition of God it's marginally less stupid. Nevertheless, I laughed.

>>9372933
>Hating trans has nothing to do with the position as far as I can tell, it was just a pertinent example of a lack of a solid understanding of the importance of free speech by the left.

That's why I said that it may be an exageration. Still, he targets mostly to anti-SJW kids (and he does it directly, which means that you can imply agency when considering his relationship with his fanbase) and mostly associate with "redpilled" transphobic people, mostly youtubers that any sane person should hate vehemently.
Imho it's still not enough to call him transphobic, but you can't deny that he is still exploiting the phenomenon.

>Hateful people will latch onto anything that even halfway can be used to justify their feeling of righteous offhandedness; this is just how they work and not a very meaningful reflection on the material in question. Hate doesn't look for truth or authenticity; just ammo and targets
Too bad that he is directly pandering to them.

>Hell, he explicitly talks about the importance of respecting the dignity of actual trans-gendered people; he just puts a fine point on it that makes knee-jerk leftists uncomfortable and rabid leftists angry.
It's not as extreme as actually hating trans people, but he thinks that using preferred pronouns is a matter of respect, and for him to change this havit people have to earn his respect first.
If you're a trans person this basically means that you have to prove him that you're cool if you don't want him to costantly insult you by using a different pronoun.
Now, I'll be honest, I live in a country where being a transexual is still not normalized, so I have got very little exposition to the arguments linked to this diatribe, but that's anything but a accepting attitude. I can see why some people would want to criticize him.

I like fedora peterson the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU

>>9372949
He is technically right, in the sense that without a universal foundation and a very uncharitable attitude you can simply say "I disagree" to everything everyone else says, Stirner did that 150 years ago. Still, saying this in a tweet is pretty stupid, especially when you consider how abstract is the term "God" in this case.

Does peterson even believe in god? I just think he uses religious language to describe psychology.

File: Capture2.png (33KB, 492x424px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 492x424px

>>9372978

What's with these mental gymnastics?

It's obviously he has an absolutely retarded position on religion.

>>9372963
So you would cure a group by ignoring them and letting their wrong thinking fester? This seems really impractical to me.

>any sane person should hate vehemently
Well, there goes rational discussion with you, then.

The rest of your post really goes of the deep end by reading meanings that aren't there. This is a legitimate misunderstanding, which means it's hard to point out where things go wrong without the potential of things getting too personal.

I don't know. The people who are most worth talking to in a certain sense are usually the hardest to talk to.

>>9372714
>seek your 4chan

carlooos

>>9372953
alan seems like a sound lad

>>9372949
2deep4u

>>9363252
every vaguely famous person who's even vaguely political is going to have aggressive supporters from this or that political team, no reason to dismiss a guy. You're looking for ways to avoid thinking desu. Let me in, let me help you.

>>9372963
>hate people for their beliefs
>don't engage with people you hate, except to declare that you hate them
>asking someone to prove themselves is somehow an unbearable burden
I don't know about these underlying beliefs of yours, mate.

>>9353481
t. politically correct postmodern marxist

>>9364339
Was turned off by that too. You can be turned off by his foundation ideology and still get a lot out of his work though, probably learn the most from people you fundamentally disagree with just by keeping an argument going against them.

>>9373103
The syncretic impulse created by the interaction of opposing views is seriously undervalued in mainstream thinking.

>>9373119
That's because logocentrism is seen as patriarchal and oppressive.

Why do you think the term "mansplaining" is gaining traction?

>>9373020
>>9373084

I'm talking about people such as Sargon and Molyneux. If you think theybdeserve any sort lf respect, and that one should value their opinions, well, I don't know what to say. If that's the case I guess every single opinion in the world is valuable.

>>9364339
I agree with this.

However, just listening to him talk has some sort of an inspirational quality because he's so sincere and passionate about his ideas.

He's good podcast material, especially when he gets to preach to a well meaning pleb like Joe Rogan.

>>9366393
Link?

>>9373136
I didn't say anything about respecting anyone or valuing their opinions for no reason.

Where are you getting this?

>>9373170
They live in a black-and white mental space where hate and respect are binary states.

>>9372949
>Gödel

>>9373178
Quit it. I want to know what they think from their own mouth.

Which anon are you?

The first one said

>Well, there goes rational discussion with you, then.

The second one said

>hate people for their beliefs
>don't engage with people you hate, except to declare that you hate them

Do you guys think it's not legitimwte to hate charlatans such as Sargon and Molyneux?

>>9373209
Not the people you are talking to, but why are they charlatans?

They simply disagree with people politically and they make money off of their disagreement.

Hating people for that seems petty and resentful.

>>9373178
I don't like them either much, but i'll take a nice binary, even if you realize it's faulty upon examination, over extreme obfuscation whenever I can. Sargon is straight forward. Don't know much Molyneux though. Varg told me he's a jew and I'm so redpilled man you wouldn't even believe it, so redpilled man

File: 1491866982530.jpg (213KB, 2000x1121px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 2000x1121px

>>9363316
>Read Derrida
kys

>>9373209
Are you using "hate" to mean "dislike" or "reject"?

It baffles me sometimes when people act like there isn't a reason we have words that mean what they do.

>>9373209
What is with your utter refusal to answer questions put to you?

A lot of people in this thread seem unable to interact with ideas instead of people. That handicap seems particularly unsuited to discussing serious issues on an anonymous platform.

>>9373209
What does hating them achieve?

I don't even disagree, I just want to hear you say what you mean.

>>9373227
Talking heads on youtube pretending to be wise and well-informed. Too bad that they're discourse is cheap, dishonest and opportunist. Nothing Molyneus and Sargon says is worth anything.

It's not about hating conservatives, it's about hating pompous pseudointellectuals.

>>9373260
When I say hate I mean hate. I truly despise them as human beings. I don't spend my days watching their videos while hating them, but everytime their name pops out I can't help myself but feel disgusted.

>>9373290
I don't know which one of those 2 guys are you, to be honest.

>>9373326
It does achieve nothing, but as I've written above it's not an active hate. I don't lose time over it, but I'll still straight out refuse to take them seriously, ever.
Sargon and Mokyneux could be acceptable if they were some random drunks in a pub, but at this point they're basically retarded cult leaders, leading hundreds of thousands of retarded kids who honestly don't know any better.
Is there any substance to their discurse? Do you think that a serious person should feel enriched after having heard yet another dumb, undergrade-tier idea spouted by Molyneux? And what the fuck is Sargon if not a angry, confused manbaby with arguments that are anything but pathetic?


Again, this hate is not political (I don't hate every conservative, every utilitarian, every critic of intersectionslism, of course), it's more about what kind of people they actually are.

Oddly enough I would have expected at least here on /lit/ to find nothing but contempt for them. I can't honestly see how someone who has actually read any sort of valuable philosophy could have anything good to say about them.

>>9373209
People use the term "hate" so loosely sometimes. Kind of blows my mind.

>>9353675
Thanks hegel

>>9373408
It's the right word in this case. I hate their essnce, I hate the idea of them. In a perfect word everyone would simply discard their opinions, not because of their opinions themselves, but for how biased, badly formulated and unoriginal they are.

>>9372066
He's conservative. He thinks that traditionalism is the answer, at least in the short term, to the current cultural ills and the ideology he thinks is at the root of them.

>>9353593
In complete fairness, he wasn't the one who made that campaign. It was the shitstain sinkhole that is Rebel Media. That campaign had a good cause but I still hate those fucks

>>9372949
Oh my gosh, it's actually real. Someone should ask him why Godel himself wrote a proof of the existence of God in 2nd order modal logic.

>>9373435
>not because of their opinions themselves
But that's completely backwards. Hating based on delivery alone is fine, but when throwing an idea into the proverbial fire one should be cognizant of what exactly is wrong with the opinion itself, lest you get taken in by the same shitty idea from a more effective thinker.

>>9373463
Honestly he is at most center-right.

He was a member of the NDP in Canada for 20 years or something, which is a Social democratic Party.

So I don't see him fitting the moniker conservative that neatly.

>>9373505
But people like their neat boxes and false dichotomies.

>>9373508
Personally I'm fascinated by the fact that people are distracted enough by what label he deserves that it takes priority over his ideas.

>>9373515
Discussing actual ideas takes more energy. It's easier to just bash a person.

>>9373508
>>9373515
>>9373524
I don't really care whether or not he's a conservative, I just wanted to answer the question

>>9373505
He was also a poli-sci grad at the university of alberta. He participated in a lot of the things he opposes now. If I remember right his account of that time was that he was still grappling with the issues at hand. People change.

>>9353481

He mixes and matches theories as he sees fit
and rhymes this world together. In reality, he forgets about the flexibility of the human behavior. Too black and white for my tastes while trying to balance somewhere in the greyzone.

>>9373500
As I said, it's not the opinion but the arguments they use to justify their opinions, which is a absolutely valid criteria of judgement.

I don't hate Molyneux because I hate utilitarianism, rather I hate the idea of utilitarianism that stems from Molyneux's arguments. I was just trying to clarify the fact that I'm not hating them cause I'm following a certain ideology and that my disgust is not blind.

Of course their delibery snd rethorical/semantic debauchery deserves disgust too, but that wasn't my point.

>>9373540
I don't think anyone was ragging on you, just commenting on the idea that he does neatly fit into a conservative category (which you thwarted).

>>9373555
Nobody cares. You tend to ignore things people are saying when they try to talk to you. It's waste of time, and anyone who comes back to you in order be intellectually dismissed deserves what they get.

>>9373589
Let me guess, you hate them not because of their position, but because of the bias, poor formulation, and unoriginality of that that position?

>>9373598
Lol something like that, yes.

>>9373589
>Nobody cares.
4 people directly asked me to explain what I meant when I said that I hated them

>It's waste of time, and anyone who comes back to you in order be intellectually dismissed deserves what they get.
I'm not the guy who is doing interviews with Molymeme and Sargon of Hackkad

>>9373611
Out of curiosity, what's your beef with Sargon?

>doing interviews with
See this is what doesn't make sense to me. How do you make war with people you hate, if you aren't willing to engage them?

>>9353492

this is wrong just on the basis that SJWs don't actually follow anyone at all
there is nobody "leading" SJWs only entities taking advantage of their foolishness

>>9373647
SJWs with a platform get elevated all the time. Whether or not they are an "authentic" SJW doesn't really seem important.

File: FaceApp_1492038195002.jpg (202KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 540x540px

>>9353481

>>9372964
Holy shit, thots BTFO

>>9373629
>How do you make war with people you hate, if you aren't willing to engage them?

What if I hate a the fucked up ideas a drunk guy in a pub (who is obviously not able to talk abput them at a serious level)? Do I really have to debate him even if I can see the flaws in his reasoning? Even if I know that he is not able to really discuss those thing because the arguments behind those ideas are either unexamined, biased or flawed?

I'm not talking about a serious philosopher here, I'm talking about Sargon of Akkad, a guy who's opinion is naive as the opinion of any 16 year old edgy teenager. More than his ideas I'm doubting his reasonign abilities.
And what about the influence he's having on the world? Hundreds of thousands of people who knows no better about any of the complex topics Sargon always tackles will think that these arguments are worth anything. Just look at reddit and youtube: his ideas and arguments have spread like a virus. Virtually every major anti-SJW retard on youtube is a carbon copy of either Sargon or Thunderf00t. He is a major figure, which means that not only his character and arguments can be criticized, we can also criticize his impact on society, which is, at least to me, (please don't associate this world with tumblrinas, I'm less leftist than you might think) toxic.

Certain people are simply not worth debating, the tragedy happens when any of these people become relevant in any sort of way.

>>9373751
Sounds like you're running on a too heavy dose of 4chan contrarianism to me.

>>9373757
Sounds like you're not educated enough to see how worthless are Sargon's contents.
I sincerelh hope that one day you'll get an epiphany that will show you how much time are you probably wasting on insignificant pseudointellectuals.

>>9353576
>read up on something
>braindead
Fuck off, you fucking scum. You don't belong here with this sort of attitude.

>>9373774
You've just precluded yourself from a non-destructive solution. That's not smart.

>>9373800
What?

>>9373800
What did he mean by this?

>>9373751
>major figure spreads bad arguments like a virus
>better not engage, just leave it alone
Seriously? This is your superior response and logical faculty? You're the reason the people you don't like are so numerous and successful.

>Sargon is not a good person
>Therefore, even if he accidentally raises a good point, I never have to engage it because I can always attack the author rather than the argument
>Also anyone who brings any knowledge of sargon into this discussion must be a mindless worshipper of his
I dunno, at this point this sounds like bait to me.

>>9373806
>>9373812
As a gesture of good faith, take your best guess at the meaning and ask again. In my experience, that is more likely to get a response than just going "???".

>>9373800
>>9373812
OK, so why is dismissing someone destructive, as opposed to using that energy somewhere deemed productive?

>>9373473
>(((Ezra Levant)))
You can smell his kike stench for miles.

>>9353481
>Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?

Just the opposite. I like his agenda, but find some of his ideas on psychology tiresome and unconvincing. He can get very bogged down in symbolic and metaphysical gobbeldy-gook to the point that he starts getting in his own way about concepts I might have been on board with.

>>9373828
Sargon's opinions are useless in every possible case. Are you against them? Well, they're too stupid to be argued against with any sort of dignity. Do you agree with them? Well, his arguments are so naive, biased and flawed that you won't be able to use them properly in a debate later in your life. You don't have a stance on what he's talking about? Then you'll learn less than nothing, you'll follow a primitive, flawed line of thought and you'll either don't know what to think about it or end up with a useless, baseless stance with no foundation.
Again, even if you agree with everything Sargon says, his contents will still remain useless. Not that he is original in any foreseeable way: smarter thinkers have already said everything he has said a long time ago.

>>9373845
You're the one defending the dignity of Sargon's contents: do I really have to think that you're a educated, well-read, informed person?
I'm not trying to just insult and tease you, this is genuinely what I think: that if he really shapes your ideals and opinions chances are that what was there before wasn't worth much.

>>9373823
I honestly don't believe in the intellectual honesty of Molyneux and Sargon, and I know for experience how much do they corrupt debates with semantics and rethorical techniques that would make people laugh at you in any serious debate.
Not that they'll ever take part in any serious debate with any serious academic with the aid of any sort of arbiter in front of any sort of educated crowd.
I honestly don't think that anyone should waste their time discarding their ideas: the academical silence behind their work will be a sufficient proof for those people who know better. They were not worth anything, not even as enemies of some cause: they're utterly insignificant, and should be regarded as such.

>>9373925
Agree completely. I'm >>9364339

>>9373955
>You're the one defending the dignity of Sargon's contents
I'd ask again where you're getting this shit, but you didn't answer the last time either.

>>9353481
I don't know who this guy is, but now I'm curious since /lit/ won't shut the fuck up about him. Can someone point me to a summary of whatever his deal is?

>>9374087
>out of the loop, only responds to being bothered, "link me a summary" approach to learning
Don't bother, even a rube like Peterson is too good for you.

>>9374087
see
>>9368927

>>9373955
I'm honestly astounded that you claim to have some basis for rejecting sargon's arguments while simultaneously claiming that it's worthless to engage with sargon's arguments even for the purpose of coming up with reasons to reject them.
At first I thought you were baiting, now I think you don't understand the meanings of the words you use.
Your determination to put words in the mouths of people disagreeing with you doesn't speak well for your intellectual capacity, either.

My 12 year old sister just came home from her third day of class in a new school (she transferred) and said that some people from Planned Parenthood came by and taught the kids that gender is a spectrum and completely separate from biological sex

I mean I'm actually a supporter of PP and I do believe that the best way to help mtf/ftm trans people is to accept them as they'd like to be (we don't have any other viable solutions we've found) but jesus fucking christ, these are young children with no critical thinking skills being told by people who they will automatically trust that biological sex and gender have nothing to do with each other.

I mean I poke fun at people who blow this stuff out of proportion but that's actually spooky. They can't even wait until they hit puberty to start forcing this singular theory as a truth on these kids. Fuckin hell, boys

>>9372949
>when you tell every atheist mathematician that their proofs are invalid because they don't believe in God
wew what an idiot. this is really all it takes to profit off of alienated young frogmen.

>>9374448
It's just going to get worse you know. It literally is the logic of our society now because of retarded French philosophers who consciously misinterpreted Nietzschean existentialism.

>>9374484
I can't fucking understand how these people don't realize that attempting to dismantle any social constructs they see fit just because they are social constructs is, ironically, an extremely oppressive behavior to place on themselves

I try to look at these people empathetically, I do know that most of them don't see just how sinister their behavior is. I just wish everyone would actually read Nietzsche. Especially with so many hip progressive kids unironically (as if I can be certain of that) identifying as nihilists

>>9374467
This guy didn't do the research, doesn't get the joke.

>>9374523
I have no interest in doing the research about this guy, his voice is painful to listen to and I'm not going to sit and watch hours of lectures about how we just need The Golden Mean and how men just need to Sort Themselves Out

>>9374502
Sometimes I think they are consciously being subversive, and other days I just think they are brainwashed ideologues.

It's hard to know which one is true.

>>9374531
Both, it's a subversive ideology

>>9374528
>this guy is a moron
>you didn't get the joke, you would have if you knew more about him
>whatever, i don't want to know more about him anyways

Damn bro you should debate him IRL and totally wreck him

>>9353505
isn't he supplementing three graduate students as well though?

>>9353675 u seem like a smart guy,
are there worms in my salmon?

>>9374443
The worthlessness of Sargon and Molyneux is self-evident. If you can't see it you're probably as educated, if not even less educsted than them, which is shameful.
Also, I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth, what I'm doing is just responding criticaloy to anyone who think that the dignity of these characters should be, if not defended, st least out in question. My responde is that these guys are too low in the intellectual food chain to get anything out of any sort of debate or discussion about them. I don't trust their coherence and reasoning skills, and I trust even less the coherence and reasoning skills of someone who either look up to these guys or don't see what's wrong woth them.

>I'm honestly astounded that you claim to have some basis for rejecting sargon's arguments while simultaneously claiming that it's worthless to engage with sargon's arguments even for the purpose of coming up with reasons to reject them.

I've told you multiple times: it's not their stance that is fallacious, rather the arguments behind it, which reveals that they're downright incapable of holding any sort of debate, or formulate any sort of cogent argument. All you've got left is their final conclusions, but given how fallacious are their foundations it's not worth taking them seriously.
I'm not considering these guys too "dangerous", rather I'm considering them either too incompetent or too dishonest.

>At first I thought you were baiting, now I think you don't understand the meanings of the words you use.
do I have to say "not an argument"?

>>9374021
>I'd ask again where you're getting this shit, but you didn't answer the last time either.

In a earlier post, after having explained my beef with these charlatans you replies:
>Sounds like you're running on a too heavy dose of 4chan contrarianism to me.

Implying that to be disgusted by these frauds you have to be blinded by 4chan contrarianism, instead of holding these statements as self-evident. Virtually no educated person would blame me for considering these clowns not worth debating, but apparently il/lit/erates can't see how could someone not take seriously these people: they clearly have to run on a too high dose of 4chan contrarianism, right?

>>9374871
>they're downright incapable of formulating any sort of cogent argument.
like pottery. If you're pretending to be retarded you're doing a fantastic job.

>>9374871
>it's self-evident, there's nothing to explain
>that's not an argument
Do you guys think he'll figure this one out by himself? He clearly can't keep track of the plot, much less who he's talking to.

>>9374922
>>9374913

>ahah dude you're being unreasonable
>dude you totally have to tka seriously these 2 frauds and debate them extensively everytime they pop up in a thread

Do you realize that every serious academic in any of the fields these charlatans are tackling would agree with me?

Whatever, one day you guys will see the light, hopefully.

>>9374938
Sargon is literally not an expert on anything and Molyneux recites wikipedia to fool a gullible core audience into thinking he knows a thing about philosophy. And you're here having a complete shitfit about it which I thought was entertaining because it completely lacks substance. That's about all there is to this.

>>9374938
>thinking that any amount of scorn for random people will excuse your behaviour
Your faults are your own. The existence of those two cretins does not somehow make you unaccountable for your actions.

>>9353481
His blatant ideological agenda is important. His psychology is nothing special.

>>9372687
It's what I believe, in any case. What did you mean by this?

File: pepelättä.jpg (16KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x400px

I wonder why these threads always attract the worst fucking posters of this shitty board

>>9375403
Because the ideological ground Peterson covers is urgently polarizing on many different levels.