How the fuck did this guy get so popular? 99% of his shit is

right place right time. plus he's eloquent.

>>9364498

In a world of degeneracy these become novel things

really not surprising he's popular among a generation who were all given trophies, told judgment of all kinds is bad, and told that some people (read: "oppressors") shouldn't stand up for themselves

yeah, that's probably an oversimplification but you can't deny the coddling millennials have been through

>>9364498
https://youtu.be/mdA1vO2wYkE

>>9364506
This, he's intelligent for sure, but not a worldbeater. A bit like a Buckley figure.

forced memes

>>9364498

also something that isn't profound to you might be profound to others

remember this generation was only presented one version of the story, and if they were lucky they were exposed to strawmans of the other a la John Stewart and shoddy public schools

>>9364498
reactionary politics. centrists are the new contrarians/extremists in the west. passionate speech, good but not contrived rhetoric. His cult potential is worrying though.

>>9364498
Because people are in desperate need of guidance.

Because all over the media are left wing SJWs telling them they are no good and should move aside for some Indian or wetback

Because this man is taking a stance on it

forced memes

>>9364498

The standard for a "public intellectual" on the fight is pathetically low, a run of the mill college professor pedalling a shitty self help course is the best they have.

>>9364549

Ah yes, I'm forgetting about all those erudite left-wing intellectuals like Noam "every problem in the world can be somehow blamed on US foreign policy" Chomsky and the incredibly nuanced Ta Nehisi Coates and Shaun King.

>>9364556
Chomsky is probably the brightest public intellectual still alive (even if his ideology is garbage), beyond that there really is nothing on either side. I think Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are the most intelligent figures on the right alive today and they could beat match with their counterparts on the left.

The status of "public intellectuals" is sorely lacking.

>>9364506
I second this. I enjoy listening to his lectures while driving because it's very conversational. I wish he would stop wasting every media appearance talking about SJWs.

>>9364556

You might not agree with his politics but you can't deny Chomsky is a smart guy, he'd run rings around Peterson. So would even a coked out slav like Zizek. Peterson might be knowledgeable about psychology but when he tries to talk politics or society he sounds dumb as a wall.

I'm probably too old to be under his spell but I see that most of his popularity is that of a father figure. His message seems to be something that we should all have learned when coming of age but there was probably nobody around for a generation of lost boys to tell it. His whole persona and delivery seem to suggest it.

I find he goes off on tangents a bit too much in drawing deeper meaning from art and biblical stories. It can be entertaining but I think he reminds me too much of me when I talk and now I'm actively trying not to be long-winded.

>>9364565
Steven Pinker is a good public intellectual/pop scientist.

lmao /lit/ is so tumblr/sjw lately, i miss the old patrician days

>>9364562

>The status of "public intellectuals" is sorely lacking.

Not really, they're public intellectuals. Real intellectuals doing real, meaningful research are preoccupied. People who couldn't cut it in academia or people who use their tenure to story tell and grandstand are the ones who shine, which is how you end up with public intellectuals like NDT, Bill Nye, or Chomsky.

>>9364574

>he'd run rings around Peterson
>Zizek
>Chomsky

This is what leftists actually believe top kek

I don't deny Chomsky is smart I just posit that his framework is fucking retarded

>>9364586
summer 2015, right?

>>9364562

>Chomsky is probably the brightest public intellectual still alive

Then truly, we are in dire straits...

File: 1491861594494.jpg (208KB, 1086x723px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1086x723px

wtf is this thing?

>>9364975
Your new lover. Spread your cheeks hon.

>>9364975
I'm more worried about the thing in front of her to be honest anon

File: Vape Wedding.jpg (30KB, 544x414px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 544x414px

>>9364590
>I posit

>>9364521
As if any generation got more than one version of the story.

>>9364578
It really can be boiled down to daddy issues.

he owns that great depression fit hard desu

>>9364574
>So would even a coked out slav like Zizek.
*sniffs* "I say NO!"

File: e613d7c0994d1eb0a4814ccd61a9c81cf6342dd045f4d6725e3186cad0ac1e71.jpg (28KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x338px

>>9364586
old lit was leftist as fuck, leftypol literally started out as a lit colony

>>9364498
>ignores the substance and then says there's no substance

>>9364514
He is the only guy on the planet with an actually coherent and far-reaching naturalistic account of religion though. He's not exactly a lightweight.

>>9364523
A cult of people whose bastion is rationality and also overthink everything and never take any meaningful action. What will we ever do to combat such a sinister threat?

>>9364593
Hardly, I've been here since 2K12 when noone had even heard of 4chan.

you mean the guy whose replies "not if I'm compelled to" when he's asked if he would go by someones pronouns, even though it was made clear in the question that they weren't trying to compel him in the hypothetical

dude's hilarious. did an ama on reddit and said (I'm paraphrasing) that ignorant people underestimate problems and brush them aside and then when asked about global warming said he wasn't worried and that man will figure it out.

dude has no nuance when is outside the discussion of religion. i'm sure he's great at what he does in his field of study but its so obvious when he is out of his depth. maybe it's because he is so sure of himself but he doesn't seem to have any ability to critically analyse his own arguments when he is in the public sphere

>>9365121
I agree with him on Global Warming. I'm not worried either. There's only two options: either A) it's been overblown, or B) we're all gonna die because no matter how many electric cars we build and treaties we sign, nothing on earth can stop a billion screaming chinamen from polluting the fuck out of the earth.

>>9364975
that's an empowered transgender womyn

>>9365116
Explains everything t-b-h, 2012 was when moot brought back /pol/ and the anti-sjw scene became a thing. This place has become far more right since then.

>>9365116
>I've been here since 2K12 when noone had even heard of 4chan.
4chan became popular in 2007-2009 with Chanology and Internet Hate Machine. You are also ignoring the fact that around 2012 there was a huge influx of Evola nerds.

>>9364498
He's popular for standing up to SJWs, not for his work in psychology. He's an attractive, middle aged white man, who is a father figure for fatherless millennials.
Again, reasons he's popular: standing up to SJW, being a qualified clinical psychologist, being a middle aged, attractive, white man.
Not reasons he's popular: scholarly contributions to psychology and philosophy

>>9365116
>2012
>no one had even heard of 4chan

>>9365192
Yeah, but it has less to do with him being white, and more to do with those suspenders he wore in that one youtube video

File: 2032.png (423KB, 521x645px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 521x645px

Because leftist academics have dumbed down colleges so hard to the point that a professor doesn't really need to be exceptional in order to receive attention.

File: woodring2.jpg (156KB, 1205x829px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1205x829px

>>9364498
>How the fuck did this guy get so popular?
>99% of his shit is trivial
his popularity has nothing to do with 99% of his shit and everything to do with memez, pussycat

>>9365116
>ousting yourself as cancer

>>9365208
dont shitpost with kemono friends on /lit/

>>9364498
what are you talking about bro? science is overrated because it can't tell us what to do, and is an inferior method of truth-seeking to mythology. gah

>>9365192
He's drowning in citations though.

I actually just got out of a talk by Jordan Peterson, and truly thought it to be incredibly insightful. He's is an incredibly well-articulate, thoughtful individual and yes, his message is something we all know deep down, but it's also something we (as in young men) tend to forget frequently in this post-modernist society we live it -- at least I know I do.

I spoke with him briefly after the talk about found him to be an extremely pleasant, inspirational individual. I only wish I'd heard his talk earlier in my college career, as I believe it's definitely affected my outlook on life.

>>9364498
I'm so glad I don't live in burgerland. Look at OP's picture:
>professor's gestures scream: "I'm smart, I'm thinking"
>woman with glasses pretending to understand what the professor is saying, probably a feminist too.
>that ugly bitch behind her
>cuck with beard behind professor

Being a third worlder is glorious, my friends!

>>9365247
You know "that ugly bitch behind her" is a man, right? It's worse than you think, anon...

File: peterson.png (68KB, 324x289px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 324x289px

>>9365245

>>9365274
I'll straight up say it, I admire the fuck out of this guy

I really don't see how anyone can see him as anything other than a total pseud with a big vocabulary.

Like, are these threads all trolls, or what?
I refuse to believe that anyone who has ever read a book or enjoys reading books could seriously mistake this guy for anything but.

???

>>9364513
This, did the OP even watch/listen?

>>9365282
that's because you have issues with your father

>>9365335
Well, we have an entire thread unironically dedicated to self-help books right now, so take that for what you will.

HINT: /lit/ is full of pseuds.

>>9365247
>pajeet on the right is wearing a Captain America shirt

America, everyone.

He's funny. I like listening to his insane self-help nonsense, it's weirdly therapeutic

>>9364535
this, he even talks about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMCQ94t98k

>>9364562
except chomsky just doesn't engage with people who don't agree to his terms. foucault, harris and zizek aren't memes but he just won't talk with any of them b/c reasons

the fact that peterson can't win debates doesn't even matter. he stands down mobs of braindead ideologues and the passive-aggressive cunts at the university and elsewhere. he's sincere about what he believes and that's why people love him

>>9365479
Harris and Zizek are definitely memes, and Chomsky already BTFO Harris a couple years back. Plus he went on Firing Line with Bill Buckley a long time ago.

Not that I like him, I think his ideology is total nonsense, but the man is there for a reason.

He seems like a silly man who offers little of real substance, but if he can convince a enough young people that dead a bunch of dead Frenchmen are responsible for all of their problems, he will have made the world a better place.

File: F.jpg (8KB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x224px

Everyone I don't like is a pseud: /lit/ edition

Literally every intellectual who ever existed is a pseud with nothing but trivial things to say to you guys

>>9365000
>her
it*

I honestly can't tell if anybody in this image except Peterson is a male or female (or some ungodly mixture of the two).

>>9365245

This. Not exactly a lightweight.

>>9365493
Modern literary academia is a joke. Non-pseuds these days choose science or IT fields to express their genius

>>9365192
>>9365207
These two hit the nail on the head.
I'm by no means a /pol/fag, but this picture or perhaps just the situation stirs an almost reactionary feeling deep inside me. The handsome, eloquent professor dressed in suspenders and a slim tie, his sleeves rolled with precision, standing by himself beset on all sides by the ugly, hateful forces of progress, trying his best to reason with them. It's almost romantic.

>>9365491
chomsky is a beast, it's true

who wins a harris/zizek debate? zizek seems to really dislike harris. i'd like to see that, harris must have considered it at some point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

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

you would think they could talk about islam

File: lMjwa5SL.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>9365192
this, he's the anti-sjw guru and people want gurus because it's the post-truth world and nobody knows what to think or even why

whether it's self-help or religion or cult or whatever it is, he's thriving because it is an age of unreason and irrationality

>brought on by bloody neo-marxist postmodern intellectuals

also this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4

>anarcho-masochist

>>9365498

haha yeah man shakespeare and nietzsche wouldve been app devs today haha /lit/ is right all academics are pseuds 420 blaze it

fucking retard

>>9365535
But those two were pseuds............

sorry for shitting up this fine thread, but listen to zizek defending religion & christianity here.

isn't this the same thing peterson is doing? isn't this what's going on, the return of religion - specifically Western/archetypal religion - against postmodernism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpRqxKbgF8

just thought that was interesting, since *sniff* zizek is a freudian and *sniff* peterson is a jungian

and so on and so on

>>9365535
Shakespeare was a cutting edge entertainer of his days, he sure as shit wouldn't by writing plays. Probably would've become a filmmaker, or a videogame designer

>>9365533
>>brought on by bloody neo-marxist postmodern intellectuals
It might not be exactly true or intellectually honest, but it at least helps people recognize the radicalization that's been going on at universities for decades and the texts being used to do it.

>>9365000

That's Jordan Peterson, the alt-rights cool uncle who treats them like a real adult and talks to them with big words!

File: Millhouse In Chief.jpg (44KB, 640x634px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x634px

>>9365042
It's pretty frustrating that you can't talk about most literary criticism in here anymore without be called a sjwcuck.

>>9365658

/lit/ was a lone leftyden on 4chan for years before the neoright started popping up

now that you guys have someone challenging your shitty retarded opinions formed in an echochamber all you do is bitch about it

>>9365491
I still enjoy Zizek's early books, but I met him last summer, and he told me he supports Podemos, so I feel ambivalent about his current politics at best now. He really seems to be riding the accelerationist train, and I'm not sure I want to go along with that.

>>9365493
If they accept anything more than a living wage, yes, they're a pseudo intellectual.

>>9365116
good lord

>>9365666
>now that you guys have someone challenging your shitty retarded opinions formed in an echochamber all you do is bitch about it
kek this.

>>9364498
His talks of personal responsibility and agency go against the increasingly fatalistic worldview of young people.

>>9365671
>not knowing why you should hate sophists
You have some more Plato to cover anon

/lit/'s favorite pasttime is bitching about how "inconsequential" or "trivial" or "irrelevant" certain things are

ironically

>>9365666
The problem is more that those on the right don't really challenge anything though. Or rather, they don't actually engage with anything they challenge. They just shout and say "looks like someone needs a helicopter ride" and other reactionary shit like that. I'd be more than welcome of actual right-wing critiques of post-structuralism or post-colonialism, or any other political or literary movement, but I haven't seen anybody, especially not on 4chan (shouldn't be surprised) give actual substantial critique to these ideas. It's odd, because post-structuralism was actually a boon to certain right-wing ideologies a few decades ago, but now it's "spoopy degenerate postmodernism" so it's taboo to even engage with it.

File: file.jpg (88KB, 600x531px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x531px

>>9365671

k so fuck all of human history, fuck everything and everyone

the only true intellectuals to ever exist, according to /lit/'s absurd criteria, are diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

fan-fucking-tastic guys, you did it

>>9365682

I see people actually engaging left-wing sophistry all the time, it's met with "x person you referenced is a pseud lel" and condescending name calling until it invariably turns into a dick measuring contest

this place used to be a piss-pot, now it's just a piss-pot with a different flavor of retard and more people complaining

>>9365597
that's exactly it.

on top of that, peterson has to deal with that radicalization *personally.* he's the one being de-platformed, shouted down, being forced to defend himself...i can't blame him for not engaging charitably with the other side because of what they are presenting to him. and now that he's acquired a fan base i see even less reason for him to do so. i can't begrudge the man his success when he's earned it the way that he has.

but he never loses his temper, never stoops to their level. and that is why i support the man. his arguments are not always so polished, but he believes what he is saying and he says it in a way that makes me admire his conviction and character in the face of those crowds.

>>9365684
and Jesus, don't forget Jesus.

File: 1361811689931.jpg (27KB, 386x520px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 386x520px

>>9365684
>diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

also pic related

>>9365699
Can you give me an example?

>>9365684
>diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

pretty good list but you forgot Stirner

He receives a lot of hate here because /lit/ contains a disproportionate number of Marxists and trannies. In reality though, he's quite an insightful individual. His views regarding religion, meaning and being are especially interesting.

>>9365463
Odd theory. Say how's your relationship with your father?

>>9365723
Sure thing, pal:
>>9365621

>>9365682
>I'd be more than welcome of actual right-wing critiques of post-structuralism or post-colonialism, or any other political or literary movement, but I haven't seen anybody, especially not on 4chan (shouldn't be surprised) give actual substantial critique to these ideas.
Their inability to critique post-structuralism comes from their reliance on a vulgar, anti-intellectual (and more politically effective) version of it. If the right were to seriously try to critique it, they would undermine their own project.
As far as post-colonialism is concerned, the disagreement is on an axiomatic level. It really is dependent on a conception of humanity that is breaking down (i.e. stopped being useful to the right after the fall of the USSR, though it hasn't completely died out and built upon shaky ground to begin with) among right wing people for the past few years. The notion that colonized people or formerly colonized people are at all worthy of consideration is laughable to them as is all reasoning that follows from that position. I personally hope it reaches the point where they renounce their humanity for any number of more specific identities.

does his book make his views clearer or is it more of the same sort of mess he says in his lectures?

>>9365814
>Their inability to critique post-structuralism comes from their reliance on a vulgar, anti-intellectual (and more politically effective) version of it. If the right were to seriously try to critique it, they would undermine their own project.

Which is part and parcel of the right's inability to criticize the left. The left has already pushed post-structuralism to its limits and highlighted its flaws many times. The right's blind embrace of a sort of bare-bones post-structuralism falls victim to the same fallacy of assuming an objective subjectivity that many on the left have already criticized ad-nauseum in regards to post-structuralism. The left recognizes that post-structuralism is another garbage can that they can't quite stop themselves from eating out of, while the right has enthusiastically started eating out of the same garbage can while blatantly denying that they are eating garbage or out of a garbage can.

In short, the right's embrace of deconstruction and post-structuralism fails to engage with contemporary dialogue on the issues of post-structuralism in favor of willfully blind implementation of it. They aren't having the same conversation. It's like a kid talking to his parents about the actions he imagines his action figures are taking while his parents are talking about the process and limitations of being able to talk about imaginary actions.

>The notion that colonized people or formerly colonized people are at all worthy of consideration is laughable to them as is all reasoning that follows from that position. I personally hope it reaches the point where they renounce their humanity for any number of more specific identities.

Wow. This statement actually reaffirms basically every claim that post-colonialists make regarding subjective identity between the colonized and the colonizers. Again, this is an example of the right embracing and in no way challenging the epistemological frameworks that the left produces, only to wallow in it. Effectively, this is saying, "no, I'm not eating garbage. This is a fine cuisine. This isn't garbage. You're garbage. I'm glad to eat from this garbage can. It's delicious."

I'm sorry this did come off more disparagingly than I had hoped. I actually think it's perfectly fine for people to make different subjective value claims as long as they can provide adequate justification, but it sincerely feels like two completely estranged conversations.

This last example where you say that you want those that recognize themselves as colonized individuals to "renounce their humanity" seems emblematic of this problem. Post-colonialists would argue that the colonizer does seek to dehumanize the colonized subject, so anyone making such a claim does nothing to challenge the epistemology of post-colonialism, or at least they do nothing to challenge it by making that statement. Instead, they just assume their role as colonizer uncritically. It seems like a more fruitful argument against...

>>9365814
What's this conception of humanity that you talk of? I've been getting close to this same point for a while and I'd like to see if I can clarify my own ideas by looking at yours.

>>9365902
Continued

post-colonialism would seek to undermine the core arguments and criticisms made by post-colonial scholars. They would look at the underlying assumptions that scaffold their epistemologies, looking for any unjustified subjective value judgement or fault in prior critical interpretation, but assuming one of the subjective roles established in the epistemological framework of post-colonialism doesn't seem to critically challenge or undermine it in any meaningful way.

>>9365533
Marxism and postmodernism are completely incompatible

>>9365550
Zizek is lacanian and wrote his book about why the christian legacy is worth fighting for.

But zizek is more Hegelian than psychoanalytical

>>9364498
I give Dr Peterson $50 a month because of whiny bitches like OP.

>>9365902
You seem to be on the right track - from following recent politics I'm getting the impression that the right and left aren't even speaking the same language anymore, they're following completely different epistemological foundations, and neither of them are even coherent when looked closely at.

>>9365930
While they reject specific tenets of each other, postmodern discourse is contingent upon criticisms of earlier Marxist modes of discourse, so the relationship is a bit more complicated than just "incompatible." You can't get to Said without Gramsci, and you can't get to Derrida or Butler without Benjamin.

>>9365009
They did.

>>9365944
Well often the right seems to uncritically implement the epistemological frameworks that the left works to criticize. For instance, Tucker Carlson's interview technique is more or less a basic form of deconstruction that does all the things that critics of Derrida complain about, primarily that it assumes that the subjective position of the one doing the deconstruction is somehow universal, when in fact it is not.

More broadly speaking, Trump's embrace of the term "fake news" comes from other postmodern discourses that reject centralized, hierarchical truth in favor of subjective meaning. Trump embraces this uncritically and solely for personal gain without acknowledging the slippages of meaning that he himself commits, slippages that more critical interlocutors would (and ostensibly do) call him out for.

I hate to keep going back to Zizek's analogy, but we're all eating out of the trashcan of ideology already, it's just that the right doesn't want to recognize or criticize the practice in any way, shape, or form.

This frustrates me, because I would like to see an academia that has space for both leftists and rightists, but it seems that for all of the faults with different theoretical movements right now, only leftists are willing to engage with the actual critical academic discourse.

Rhetorically, this is somewhat understandable. It is hard to argue for positions that are further away from the accepted norms of academic discourse if the conversation has shifted away from your position, but if the right cannot figure out how to actually engage in this discourse, there's no way they'll be taken seriously by the left academically.

Now it would be difficult to undermine all of the left's discourse, and personally I think a lot of it is very justified, but small victories within that discourse are definitely winnable for people that hold positions to the right of current academic norms. Furthermore, it seems that if the right's bolder claims that skew further from the goals of the left are justifiable, right-wing academics should be able to effectively navigate through the contemporary discourse, deconstruct the flaws that they see apparent in the current epistemologies of academia and work back to the positions that they value. It would be a daunting task, but if their opinions are actually worthwhile, they should be able to do it.

>>9365930
seconding
>>9365945

Serious Marxists and ultra-postmodern types may have little to do with each other, it's true, but there is no postmodernity without the presence of Marx (and Freud, and Nietzsche, etc.) in the discourse.

One of the best examples of this is Baudrillard. Starts out Marxist, leaves Marxism for Nietzsche, and as he does so becomes "postmodern" (even though he's really just looking at what is happening to modernity with a very particular kind of language). He's not really Marxist/postmodernist at the same time - well, technically, he's doing all of his writing with the same brain - but his alienation derives from what he believes to be an increasing presence of simulacra/simulation everywhere, all of which is the product of capitalism in culture.

>>9365940
You're right, I should have said Lacanian.

File: 1473359274144.jpg (188KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1920x1080px

>>9364578
do you think claire listens to him ?

>lit hates peterson

Is there no end to your contrarian ism

>>9365988
>only leftists are willing to engage with the actual critical academic discourse.

Thankfully, this is beginning to change. Not only is the right starting to engaging more critically with the discourse, but the rhetorical techniques employed by the left to quell such discourse are weakening at their foundations.

>>9366046
When has /lit/ ever cared for e-celebs?

>>9366059
>the rhetorical techniques employed by the left to quell such discourse are weakening at their foundations

I think this is a result of the left engaging with and adopting the very frameworks they claim to criticize. Frameworks that the right now know how to dismantle.

>>9365988

>Trump embraces this uncritically and solely for personal gain without acknowledging the slippages of meaning that he himself commits, slippages that more critical interlocutors would (and ostensibly do) call him out for.

This is what Alfred Rosenberg did as well. I don't really blame either of them for doing it, it's a useful tactic.

>>9365902
>The left recognizes that post-structuralism is another garbage can that they can't quite stop themselves from eating out of, while the right has enthusiastically started eating out of the same garbage can while blatantly denying that they are eating garbage or out of a garbage can.
I agree, but but the right will reach the bottom of the can first. As far as politics is concerned, that's what really matters.
>In short, the right's embrace of deconstruction and post-structuralism fails to engage with contemporary dialogue on the issues of post-structuralism in favor of willfully blind implementation of it. They aren't having the same conversation. It's like a kid talking to his parents about the actions he imagines his action figures are taking while his parents are talking about the process and limitations of being able to talk about imaginary actions.
You really have said it better than I ever could (that really is a wonderful metaphor). My only assertion is that for some reason the kid's conversation is more politically effective than the parents'.
>I'm sorry this did come off more disparagingly than I had hoped.
It's cool. I came off as too supportive of the right and its recent behavior. I'm simultaneously excited and horrified by it. The "left" on the other hand seems to have become impotent.
>but it sincerely feels like two completely estranged conversations.
And again I agree with you (I'm going to stop in just a little bit). A friend of mine recently liked a facebook post by Robert Reich and in it asserted that Donald Trump had lied about "draining the swamp." this completely ignores how "liberals" and "conservatives" see how power is and should be organized (for lack of a better word) in this country. They're using the same phrase, but it means completely different things to each side.

cont'd

>>9366127
>This last example where you say that you want those that recognize themselves as colonized individuals to "renounce their humanity" seems emblematic of this problem.
I don't think they recognized themselves as colonized. I just think they seem themselves as threatened colonizers who are slowly realizing that the postwar conception of humanity requires admittance of guilt that has allowed a rising third world to hold them accountable. Now instead of trying to rationalize colonialism by saying it was in some way beneficial to the colonized (which was even necessary when it was happening), they'll only consider the benefit it provided to themselves.
> Post-colonialists would argue that the colonizer does seek to dehumanize the colonized subject, so anyone making such a claim does nothing to challenge the epistemology of post-colonialism, or at least they do nothing to challenge it by making that statement. Instead, they just assume their role as colonizer uncritically. It seems like a more fruitful argument against.
The difference is that this dehumanization is more conscious and deliberate than that which is forced upon the colonized. It really isn't possible when they are the ones with the power in this situation. I agree with you that they don't challenge it in any fundamental way, but I do think, and I use this phrase very loosely, that they've turned it on its head and charged it morally in a specific direction.

File: 17352635_1102369676576159_2114652545_n.jpg (36KB, 500x445px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x445px

>>9365051
Looks like you've been watching one too many of his YouTube videos and not his actual published books. "There isn't a difference, YouTube is another source for information by the man."

>>9365098
I see that got your cuckoldry rustled. muh Christianity is compatible with non-theism. Let's just strengthen apologetics because muh European heritage, rather than build upon so called Christian ethics and mythology.

>>9365914
I'm mostly talking about the conception of humans has being something endowed with certain rights just for existing as members of our species that was first implements globally after WWII. This allows developed capitalist nations to justify the domination of undeveloped or communist nations with having to resort to blatant imperialism when these nations inevitably fail to protect these rights adequately, and when their domination makes things worse it only allows them to further justify it. While these powers can support foreign nations who violate these rules, they have to respect them within their borders to the extent that allows them to justify their behavior with regards to foreign policy. The rise of certain developing nations and the obligations of the developed nations (particularly towards immigration which also helps with certain issues of population decline in developed countries) has shifted the balance power so that developing nations and people from them can make certain demands of developed countries and their citizenry. The system just isn't sustainable in any way.
This just a prediction that I hope I'm wrong about. I personally find it horrifying. Essentially, white people in developed countries are starting to see that they're getting less and less out of being human and are having more and more demanded of them because of it. It's only a matter of time before there's a popular right wing movement that is openly post-human. At the very least that's my take on it. I'm more likely than not horribly wrong about the whole thing.
>>9365930
The short-term political goals of those who hold take these positions tend to be similar (or at least non-contradictory) enough for their opponents to see them as the same. That they both take critical approaches to existing conditions tends to be enough and both broadly part of "the academic left" more or less justifies it in their minds.

File: image.jpg (173KB, 374x452px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 374x452px

>>9364498
>How the fuck did this guy get so popular?

2 steps:
1) pander to losers by pretending that you're a martyr for not using preferred pronouns (fucking SJWs, right?)
2) tell do said losers that they're doing everything wrong, and that by following your advices they will become successful and find meaning in their life

That's it. First he found out who were the biggest losers in the internet, and then he established himself as a daddy-guru figure who, for money (of course) will help them definetely solve ALL their problems, both real and existential ones. He's basicslly playing the Jesus game on 4chan kids.

>>9366177
I think the memes have bored holes in your brains, friend.

>>9366198
You are triggered as fuck, son.

>>9366198
>he found out who were the biggest losers in the internet
>for money

This guy's spot on. I bet it'll take less than 20 minutes for a batch of dim /pol/ disciples comes and complains about the mean treatment.

>>9366198
This guy is right, and I legitimately feel sorrow for said losers.

>>9366198
>He's basicslly playing the Jesus game on 4chan kids.
wait, does this guy have acid?

>>9366198
>>9366221
>>9366229
Hello, samefriend.

>>9366198
This would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that he's being saying the same for shit for 15 years. I remember listening to a lecture of his back in 06.

>>9366217
no mate, I find his non-theistic Christian apologetics -building upon the archetypal psychology of Biblical characters- tiresome. But I welcome any attempt of secularising religion, so I welcome his work as long as people aren't taking it too seriously and go through a Molyneux stage.

Either divorces have crippled the children of the internet, or people need better fathers. Peter Jordanson is alright as a father figure, but the devoutness and inspiration that these hoards get from him is autistic.

File: image.png (305KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 2048x1536px

>>9366234
I'm not sameposting.

>>9366220
I'm not troggered by the whole preferred pronouns feud, I'm just triggered by intellectual dishonesty: he has been famous for almost a year now, and to this day NONE of his critiques ever went in any sort of detail. Not one quote, not one rebuttal to a specific concept or book, no real debate against any sort of academics, no new source of criticism. It's stale, he always says the same things in different guises and those things are not interesting and original in the first place.

He's not as bad as Sam Harris, but he's still not worthy of admiration.

>>9366246
>intellectual dishonesty
here we fuckin go lads

>>9366198
Are you a tranny or a Marxist or both by an chance?

>>9366250
Imagine a leftist Jordan Peterson, who always ramble about how everyone is a nazi without ever giving examples: McCain? A nazi. Obama? A nazi. Trump? Of course he is a nazi, and so was Hegel. Do you believe in capitalism? This is pathologic, look at what happened in Rwanda, you're clearly not well adjusted enough to see the truth. The academia at large? The humanities are okay, but the STEM departments are filled with fucking nazis, we should defund them.

Is there any validity in these criticisms? You may agree with some of them, but he virtually never offers you a solid argument to justify these statements, he just says them, hoping that the spectator will take them as self-evident. Not that the spectator will have a second point of view on these matters, since most of his contents are monologues, and when he debates someone that does not agree woth him, he picks random interviewers and youtube personalities.

This is intellectually dishonest.

>>9366246
>he has been famous for almost a year now, and to this day NONE of his critiques ever went in any sort of detail.
Read his fucking book anon, you're embarrassing yourself. There's a free pdf of it on his website so there's no excuses either.

Either do so or head back to /r/books.

>>9366234
>multiple people agree that I'm a douchebag
>oh god, damage control, call them samefags

Get a new script, /pol/tard.

>>9364562
Chomsky's a hack who wouldn't be taken seriously in any intellectually productive era. His worldview is simple and childish.

>>9366267
Not him but why should he? To criticize Lauren Southern do I really need to read all of her tweets and books? Is it a prejudice if I'm not reading her writings cause of virtually everything I've heard her saying?
What I'm saying is that nothing in JP lectures warrants for a ulterior reading of his writings, if anything the mediocrity of his speeches is a good indicator of the fact that you should avoid this pathetic hack.

>>9365491
Beating buckley is nothing tho
A nixon or an rfk would have made mince meat of him

>>9366269
I've still yet to see anyone offer a solid critique of his ideas in general that doesn't vastly simplify them while offering no substitute for what he actually aimed to explain.

>>9364498
don't know who this guy is

why do you?
why do you care?

that's you're answer to the question in the op. you're the shit the fungus grows in.

>>9366264
>McCain? A nazi. Obama? A nazi. Trump? Of course he is a nazi, and so was Hegel. Do you believe in capitalism? This is pathologic, look at what happened in Rwanda, you're clearly not well adjusted enough to see the truth. The academia at large? The humanities are okay, but the STEM departments are filled with fucking nazis, we should defund them.
This but unironically

>>9365917
Examples?

>>9366272
Is it fair to critique Marx without first having read Marx? Is it fair to critique anything without first understanding what you're critiquing? JP is psychologist first and foremost, not a public speaker. Read his shit or head back /r/books.

>>9366277
Hitchens fid.

>>9366264
>but he virtually never offers you a solid argument to justify these statements, he just says them
You haven't been looking hard enough then. Read his book as the other anon suggested.

Either that or you're possessed by ideology and can't see the forest through the trees.

>>9366264
Nice collection of sophisms there friendo. Perterson claimed that marxism in academia was prevalent in the social sciences, which is self evident to any university students taking courses in this field, such as myself. It is also proven that more professors self identify as marxist compared to the ones that self identify as conservatives. Approximately 1/5 teachers in social sciences self identify as marxists. These studies are easy to find.

>>9366292
Not understanding the argument is not an argument.

>>9366264
That's not hard, just think back to college campuses during ww1. The principle threat to campus culture now comes from the left

>>9366298
Pretending I did not understand your "arguments" is not an argument.

>>9366292
>Approximately 1/5 teachers in social sciences self identify as marxists.

HOLY FUCK 1/5?! ACADEMIA NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED

>>9366305
This, only 20% of our professors subscribe to seditious ideology. What's the big deal?

>>9364562
Chomsky hasn't brought any intelligent insight as a political / sociological figure.

I read he is super well regarded in his profession. But as a public intellectual he is trite. Umberto Eco was much more fun

>>9366311
Social science professors. Of all professors the percentage would be even smaller.

>>9366323
"Even," as if this is particularly miniscule.
And that's not including anarchists, etc
I doubt if less then 80% are leftist

>>9366255
Like the one that lurks in the theory section of City Lights?

>>9366264
You're right about how he does kind of stretch the meaning of Marxist so he can tar every social justice group prevalent in academia with the same brush. With that being said I do enjoy his lectures on archetypes and Christianity though.

>>9366328
Good study.

>>9366323
>only 20% of muslims in the country are radical, but it's fine because they only represent 10% of the country's population, which mean the percentage of radical muslims overall is EVEN SMALLER! There is no problem dude!

>>9366350
Wish their students could say the same

>>9366341
The problem is that the goals of these groups in the short term aren't meaningfully different enough for their opponents to differentiate between them .

>>9366353
Put those goalposts back.

>>9366355
Imagine if this post made sense in the context of what it is replying to, that would have been great.

>>9366198
Pretty much this. It's amazing how simple people are.

>>9366363
First time i hear this expression (non native english), it means i deviated from the subject? Curious.

>>9366190

Have you read Alain de Benoist? His book Beyond Human Rights discusses all of this. I suspect you're wrong about renouncement of humanity - a reframing of how rights are distributed would be less of a drastic overall and achieve much the same thing, e.g. instead of rights bestowed for being a human, rights are only bestowed by/in a polity for being a member of it. You wouldn't so much claim you're not human so much as you would declare yourself a European (or whatever) as a primary and defining identity.

>>9366385
Yep, my original point was regarding the claim that Academia is full of Marxists. But that is a politically-motivated exaggeration.

>>9364507
What coddling? I work a 40 hour week and can't afford housing above rotting apartments or basic healthcare.

>>9366292
I personally will just throw this in: I'm an English Lit & Classics student, and I've had several professors teach Marxian understanding of certain works, but none of them have specifically advocated it. They also teach other perspectives. I think sometimes students, especially undergrads, misconstrue the introduction of certain philosophical & critical analysis of texts as some sort of defense for these criticisms. I go to a fairly disregarded public university in the Western US, but I've found that none of my professors specifically push any beliefs on the students, and for the most part don't have a lot of beliefs themselves, but just want to introduce their students, pedagogically, to various points of view.

Is that wrong? If you think it is, then I believe you shouldn't be involved in academics.

>>9366390
I guess we disagree on the fact that the current percentage of marxist teachers is "problematic" or not. I listened to a couple of Peterson's videos, and he takes the time to specify he is referring to social sciences (which is what he teaches and knows), not the whole of academia.

>>9366292
This is >>9366398 and I hope that you are willing to have a dialogue with me, because I'm interested in what you're saying. I could be wrong about your professors. Would you be willing to tell me what university you go to? Because I'm sure it varies, and I feel like on the east coast especially things might be a lot more politically charged in academics.

>>9366366
Brainlet

>>9366388
>Have you read Alain de Benoist? His book Beyond Human Rights discusses all of this.
No, and to be honest, he doesn't really interest me. Anti-intellectualism is an asset for the right. whenever someone tries to turn it into an intellectual or coherent worldview it falls apart. I'm also not aligned with the political right in any way.
>I suspect you're wrong about renouncement of humanity - a reframing of how rights are distributed would be less of a drastic overall and achieve much the same thing, e.g. instead of rights bestowed for being a human, rights are only bestowed by/in a polity for being a member of it. You wouldn't so much claim you're not human so much as you would declare yourself a European (or whatever) as a primary and defining identity.
That's closer to what I meant, but I think in order for them to meaningfully accomplish such a thing, they must renounce humanity. Any conception of humanity we have today requires a sort egalitarianism. You can't abandon the equality without first renouncing humanity. It also provides the far right with a means of abandoning the racialism which is one of its weak points. One of the big problems with the right's critique of human rights is that they focus more on rights than they do on humanity.

>>9366398
>>9366403
I'm a grad student from Québec. Part of the problem, I will admit, is that Peterson (and myself) are quick to lump everything that is considered "social justice" or "leftist" ideas together and label them as marxist ideas, which of course it is not. My main issue is that some teachers I had, mostly with pre-university courses in sociology and anthropology, were often pushing ideas that I disagree with, and I believe it has a strong influence on students. Example: gender is just nurture not nature, all cultures are necessarily equal, general disregard for scientific facts, negative comments about conservative parties, pro-immigration stance, etc.

>>9366428
>I'm a grad student from Québec.
ay yi yi. I've never been to Canada, but I'm sure it's much different. One of my absolute favorite professors is from Alberta and he made sure he got the fuck out and into the USA while he was able to.

> lump everything that is considered "social justice" or "leftist" ideas together and label them as marxist ideas, which of course it is not
Great, I'm glad you're willing to concede this, you're a lot more honest and aware than a lot of people using similar rhetoric.

>were often pushing ideas that I disagree with, and I believe it has a strong influence on students
Just as a curiosity, how do they "push"? Maybe I'm just blessed with professors who aren't politically aligned, but I've never felt like they've "pushed" anything on me. Professors who I like and admire have, regrettably, made the venture into making benign criticisms of Trump (unwarranted and unnecessary), but I never felt like they were jamming ideology down my throat. I feel like all of the professors I've had are way beyond that.

>find your passion

He doesn't really say this, maybe on the surface but deep down he just wants to say "get a job and deal with it, leave the thinking to me", something he apparently didn't really have to do, looking at his career

>>9366292

>Approximately 1/5 teachers in social sciences self identify as marxists

yikes

i think its because hes a smart, wellread and sensible dude

>>9366425
Say it to my face not online and see what happens

>>9366446
Concerning criticisms of Trump, all my current teachers indulge in that, but I'm from Canada, it is to be expected and I do not mind that much at this point. Regarding how teachers push some political ideas, it happened less and less as I climbed the education ladder, the worst was in my pre-university program in social sciences (CEGEP). It is not pushed very subtlety: my statistic teacher saying we have a lot of space in Canada, and the population of the rest of the world is growing, inevitably we will have to welcome them here in the future; My sociology teacher saying that the testoterone hormone has no effect on agressivity in males, it is solely the way we are brought up; a one-sided story about a history teacher who voluntered to help palestinians, and he talks about evil the Israelis are. This is what I can think of right now. I believe there are a lot of this kind of teachers in many fields.

It seems to me many honeys ITT are unhappy that he's getting substantial cash on Patreon.

>>9366486
Whose mad about it. It's provided me with a few good laughs, so I'm not complaining.

>>9366478
>he talks about evil the Israelis are

Call the police on that fucking anti-semite. You do have laws against anti-semitism in fucking Canada, don't you?

>>9366489
Imagine his face, getting arrested 5 years later because of a talk where he made an exhaustive and one sided list of the crimes comited by Israelis against Palestinians, without offering the other side of the story.

I've been following this guy for a while now and I enjoy his talks a lot, however, I am not a very well read person. I've been trying not to fall into a braindead "he's always right" mentality, my lack of knowledge on most of the ideologies he speaks about pushesme towards a tendancy of accepting the premise of how corrupt academia really is. I've seen plenty of videos and articles about "sjw" types in universities that I find insane, but I guess my question is, to what extent is it actually a problem?

>>9366498
>I've seen plenty of videos and articles about "sjw" types in universities that I find insane?

If you find opressed folks trying to get back their dignity "insane", you need to get back to >>>/pol/.

>>9366507
I'm just trying to get myself out of an echochamber mate, hit me up with stuff I should read/watch to convince me otherwise, I need new perspectives.

>>9366507
>SJWs in universities are "oppressed"
Now I have truly heard it all.

>>9366518
>>9366517
Whites look down on them.

>>9364507
>coddling

This generation is working more hours for less money and can't even afford to go to the doctor but ok thanks for the participation trophy that literally no child ever asked for.

>>9366507
>folks
I don't know why you guys keep using that term. It sounds so phony coming out of your mouths.

>>9366521
Gee I wonder why

>>9366521
Why whites specifically? Surely it's just people.

>>9366526
Racism.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

What would a Zizek vs. Peterson debate/beef look like? The Lacanian vs. The Jungian

They're both so bitter and disgusted. Would probably be really fun.

>>9366536
Zizek would turn poor Jordan into a sobbing mess, I don't wanna see that

>>9366536
Peterson is bittersweet, the best kind of sweet.

>>9366536
Zizek isn't bitter in the slightest i m o. Peterson would likely attack Zizek in his typical anti-marxist fashion

The debate would involve a whole lot of backpedalling and jokes by Zizek in an attempt to find common ground. They don't really overlap much, Zizek is concerned with entirely different things.

>>9366545
They're both concerned with psychology (one certainly moreso) and how it affects culture at large. Along with religious structures, belief, Marxism, capitalism, ideologies, etc. I'm sure they could find lots to talk about.

>>9364498
His lectures on symbolism in mythology are absolutely genius, though.

>>9364498
He just got big on the back of autistic neckbeard NEETs because he BTFO some retarded SJWs that everyone with a high school diploma and 3 books read in his entire life could.

File: zizek.jpg (576KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1024x682px

>>9366536
Zizzy makes some drawn out joke about how Jung had a nightmare he could never figure out and it was of Freud sucking his mother's penis. Every laughs. Jordan mutters something about "true dialogue". Zizzy goes home and bangs his wife. Jordan uploads a sanctimonious youtube video where he ends up crying. Again.

>>9364562
Shapario is great at public speaking and debating but his arguments are retarded a lot of the time.

>>9366524
They also live at home the longest now.
manchildren

>>9364535
>all over the media are left wing
I assume you don't live in America.

>>9364535
Neckbeard Neet detected

>>9366592
Please tell us which mainstream media outlets are not left-wing in America.

>>9366597
Fox is the most watched outlet in America. Also, if there was such a demand for right-wing outlets, the market would have provided right?

>>9366613
>Fox
So just one?

>>9366613

The market would have, but (((they))) wouldn't let it.

>>9366623
Most are centrist by American standards but you're so far gone you can't even tell any more.

>>9366626
I can't tell if it's ironic or not.

>>9364498
Because he explains why most people inherently aren't able to do those things and then proposes ways in which one can begin working on those things. Very difficult to understand, OP, I know, I know.

File: suddenpissglass.png (319KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 803x688px

>>9366507
>opressed
>dignity
>insane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbPkF1qhY8

Postmodernism btfo, Marxism btfo, '''intellectuals''' btfo

File: Screen+Shot+2017-04-11+at+8.33.24+pm.png (42KB, 593x165px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 593x165px

holy.....

>>9364498
Mediocre attracts mediocre.

>>9366644
This proves that children can decide to transition their gender.

Checkmate, /litpol/.

>>9366627
>Most are centrist by American standards
No they're not. There is literally no difference between left-wing shit piles like CNN or MSNBC compared to the left-wing media shit piles in Canada or England or Australia or Sweden or German and so on.

>>9366651
So make your own fucking news network and stop bitching.

>>9366665
No one is bitching, child. Simply stating a fact.

>>9366722
>left wing shitpiles
>not bitching

Have words changed meaning lately?

>>9366726
Left-wing shit pile = fact.

>>9366733
And you're the one to call me a child.

File: 1491503585155.jpg (690KB, 1361x2007px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1361x2007px

He is literally fighting nu males (female[male]).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p93NCyV5Hws

>>9366746
YEAH MAN WHAT WOULD CIVILIZATION DO WITHOUT HIS CONTRIBUTION

>>9366751
Not need to be rude, white boy.

>>9366746

>autist eyebags and poop on her nose

High resolution was a mistake.

>>9365902
>it's not a critique unless you propose an alternative that goes off into a completely different direction
I don't think any serious critiques of the left challenge the notion that there is such a thing as power relationships - that kind of claim would be ridiculous. They instead re-frame what power is as well as how and why it is used, moving away from a simple oppressor - oppressed model.

File: Capture.png (322KB, 587x536px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 587x536px

Hey, Jordan, how you doing?

>>9365988
Not viable because the power structure of academia makes sure that if the academic discourse is dominated by intellectuals who subscribe to a certain ideology, those intellectuals will mostly give open positions to people from their own ranks, make it easier for them to get promotions and so on. Plus the student body needs to be willing to engage in that kind of cross-ideological discourse as well, or they'll just boycott any seminar that could conceivably challenge them in the way you are hoping for.

>>9366751
What would civilization do if people didn't get to choose their special pronouns?

>>9366844
Students aren't going to boycott en masse because someone teaches conservative discourse. The loud minority are smaller than the media makes out, spread across multiple disciplines, and if they are 'radicalised' or however you'd like to describe it at university, then by the time they're ready to boycott they're almost out of the door anyway.

>>9366850
You could just ignore them. But we both know you're too autistic to do so.

It isn't hard with the current state of left-wing ideology; MSNBC/CNN have managed to make Fox seem reasonable.

>>9366885
Kekkerino

>>9365976
Well thanks for clearing that up. Don't need examples or explanation. Just putting a period after your two word answer is all the convincing i need.

>>9366887
Did you know Trump, Assad and Putin are working together to install a Alt-right Reich in France?

>>9366891
Do go on

>>9364507
I like how people on this board pretend they're not all 14-22.

Not that I'd want to admit to being over 25 and still browsing this board but still.

File: the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell.jpg (44KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 360x270px

>>9366894
What do you mean?

>>9366895
I think /lit/ actually is an older board than most. Altho ye that's the median.

>>9366891

>Trump, Assad and Putin are working together

This is the kind of conspiratorial "fake news" talk the left engages in today. Some1 please tell me one piece of legislation that the left wing want to pass, because it looks like the left has stopped trying to improve people's lives and just spend their time throwing shit at the right.

>>9366901
That was literally a quote from >>9366899 senpai.

>>9366904

don't know who the fck that it. I'm british

>>9364498
because he's a doctor writing non-fiction and giving talks on his work

>>9366570
Just once I'd like someone to bring one example when writing someone off, just once.
Always these vague as shit critiques, so sad

>>9366284
>Is it fair to critique Marx without first having read Marx?
It is fair to most!

>>9366937
How about post an example of a good Ben Shapiro argument (and not one where he's facing off news anchors or college kids). He's not terrible and I lean right-of-center on some issues, but he's basically just a very smart Rush Limbaugh, a Republican cheerleader that knows how to play the divide-and-conquer tactic flawlessly. He classifies everything into bundles that he either accepts or rejects ("That's the liberals' argument" or "There are two kinds of conservatism" or etc), make obvious and frankly spineless concessions when attacked on identity politics ("Am I saying racism doesn't exist, of course not"), validate arguments by quantity of data ("Here's a list of 50 Muslim nations various facts I've squirreled away in my freakishly smart Jewish brain, all of them are worse than Israel, checkmate"), and then add a cute "Ok, folks?" or "I mean really?" to try and appear human. In some ways he's a fascinating guy, that video of him at the age of 10 shows he has a dedicated, possibly autistic passion for conservatism (kinda like Ted Cruz as well), but he's not a philosopher of any kind.

>>9366980
The argument wasn't that he was a philosopher, you claimed he made retarded arguments.
The only time I can catch him on that is when he talks about Israel, the dude thinks Israel can do no wrong.
Calling him a smart Rush Limbaugh or how he says Ok folks is not an argument.

>>9367025
A solid three sentence response

>>9367031
Your post didn't deserve more.
>wow this guy is reassuring insane activists that he does believe racism exist, can you believe his shitty argument XDDD
Show me a serious debate he's in in which he makes shit arguments.

>>9366891
>Did you know Trump, Assad and Putin are working together to install a Alt-right Reich in France?

CNN are as left as a fucking senile hillbilly and these claims are as outdated as the Tomahawks used against Al-Assad. There's no left without anti-imperialism.

>>9367036
>Your post didn't deserve more.

A classic line. I didn't make the post by the way, I can just tell you're trying to control the damage as it were.

>>9367042
Wow thanks for adding so much to this thread mister big brains

>>9367045
If you seriously passive-aggressively asked for a full critique of some dude, then someone gives you a solid paragraph of criticism and in response you think it's adequate, given your request, that three sentences will do while engaging with very little of the post itself while claiming 'you don't deserve more' then you set the precedent for non-additions to threads. Do you have some sort of brain issue?

>>9366639
>That's the problem that the death of God creates, there's no fundation under my claims or help me determine what life is worth under these tragedies so I need something to replace that, and poof that's the state, since if you think God is bad...

Curiously, an anti-marxist doesn't understand the basic concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and doesn't even address it. Seriously, you can say comunnism is murderous allright, but at least try to understand it at a conceptual level to say how and why.

>>9367057
>a solid paragraph of criticism
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>Do you have some sort of brain issue?
No, I just point out the flaws in his post to maybe work them out, what do you want from this exchange?
I asked for some serious critique, calling him a smarter Rush is not a good critique, it's nothing, could have been slashed entirely.
And pointing out he says Ok folks is nonsense as well.
Validating arguments by quantity of date? oh no the horrors of using stats to back up your argument.

fuck off brainlet, it was a shit post and you're pretending not to be him, super pathetic.

>>9367072
Oh I get it, English is not your first language.

>>9367036
Like I said, post a video of a good argument from him, that's all I want. If you like him purely because of how much you agree with him, you are in no position to judge the quality of his arguments.

>>9365682
I am more of a centrist but how the fuck am you supposed to critique them? Whenever I state that science disapproves something like that I get called a STEMlord or positivist

>>9365030
I really want Zizek vs Peterson at some point

>>9367080
Stellar response, lesser mind.

>>9367087
You're asking a lot from me, since you were the one making the claim first but here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Vj3DXwOBI
Not being American I listen to him mostly to get the right side of the argument, I'm no fan and I think he goes too libertarian at times.
But of course you listen to people you agree with mostly, that's what everyone does.
If you can listen to someone who you consistently disagree with then hats off to you, you're special

>>9367102
First off, he's debating a total moron and a guy that doesn't even want to debate. Secondly, it takes him a minute to actually form an argument, at which point he wins only by talking down his easy opponents. He's factually wrong but people aren't willing to call him out on falsehoods such as: crime and other black issues being lower in the 60s than the 90s, blacks not being disproportionately targeted for arrests or longer sentences beyond the crime they do commit, the majority of blacks are in prison for violent crimes, etc. Further, your video is selectively edited and features numerous cuts before the others respond (but you don't need to post a full video, I've watched it and this was exactly the kind of thing I was talking about earlier).

>>9367205
>crime and other black issues being lower in the 60s than the 90s
He was talking about single motherhood, which was lower back in the day.
Sure single motherhood overall has risen but nowhere so drastically as in black communities.
>blacks not being disproportionately targeted for arrests
Prove that they are. The fact is that black people tend to live in areas with high crime, and where there is high crime there will be more police present, which could land you in jail for things people don't usually get caught for like marijuana.
>the majority of blacks are in prison for violent crimes
He never said the majority.

I don't think Shapiro turns down a tough debate, it's hardly his fault he's arguing idiots, it's the idiots who were assigned to defend the idea of a racist america.

File: image.jpg (55KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x394px

I honestly can't stand Shapiro.
At the end of everyone of his debates I always get the same impression, which is that he is technically (semantically may be a better word) right and that's it.
He's certainly a master debater: his main skill is to corrupt everything he touches. If you have a strong, comprehensive point he will just pick a part of it and start either cherrypicking datas to just say "nah you're wrong" or being literal about something you said.

I'm pretty sure that no one can win a debate against people like him without whoring out their points for rethoric's sake. He comes off as a rather hollow person: once you deconstruct him, once you take away from him all of his debate techniques, nothing remains but a very confuse, hazy support for the actual status quo.

It's people like Shapiro that makes me realky doubt the efficacy of human discourse. The more you deconstruct something and the less it makes sense (one could say that this happens because there is no real, actual foundation for what we say, and what we say is just an approximation of something that we won't ever be able to individuate with tools more precise than words, which, as I've just stated, are fallacious at their core), and he knows it. He knows that he can be right about every possible topic and every possible stance which is not taboo, especially when the arbiter is the general, (mostly) uneducated public. His strenght is not in his ideas, rather in the way he talks and in the succession of rethorical tools he uses to discredit all of his opponents.

Sorry for the rambling, I just had to vent about internet sophists I don't like.

>>9367212
>The fact is that black people tend to live in areas with high crime, and where there is high crime there will be more police present, which could land you in jail for things people don't usually get caught for like marijuana.
If that's the case, then it disproves his "cultural causes" argument, both of crime and single motherhood (rising single motherhood is fueled in part by fathers with arrest records that are virtually unemployable).

>>9367250
It's why asians excel in western countries.
They too live in bad neighborhoods but due to their culture which is very focused on succeeding career wise they tend to stay out of trouble, even more so than white people.
This is not to say it is a race thing, it is cultural since Africans that immigrate to the U.S are on average more successful than a southern black american.

Black father being arrested does add to the fatherless upbringing problem, but then you can say the real problem is the fact that you, with a child coming decide to commit a crime. They're not innocent let's be clear, they made the decision to commit a crime and therefor risk missing out on their child's upbringing.
Let's hope marijuana just gets legalized, which will help but the culture is still not all right, I think you're doing them a disservice by saying they're doing well and it's all the systems fault.

>>9367249
Can you name an issue with which he does this?
Kind of want to see it in action.

>>9367264
I have a few videos of his bookmarked on my PC. I'll link them and reference his technique extensively in a couple of hours from now, as soon as I get home.

>>9367276
Nice

>>9367249
I don't even like Shapiro, but that's a fine piece of sophistry you just burped up.

If it is simply the case that he's a good debater, you should be able to find an argument that undoes his argument, or at the very least genuinely tests it.

You presume to have the moral higher ground, and it has made you too lazy to figure out how to defend your own views respectably.

>his main skill is to corrupt everything he touches

Moral argument that you located among the hills of the moral higher ground. This, not Shapiro, is the beginning of the corruption of discourse.

You shamelessly lazy person.

>>9364513
great video as always

>>9367260
I'm not saying culture is unimportant, but that alone fails to explain a lot. For one, Asians are difficult to use since our immigration system exclusively accepts successful/educated people from other nations; we get the cream of the crop. Asian groups that came over here as refugees, e.g. the Hmong around the Vietnam War time, are significantly poorer than other Asians and also have higher crime. Better off than blacks, Hispanics, and many whites still, but regardless a constant gap persists.

Further, how does culture explain things like single mothers? Ben's argument that victim mentality causes blacks to blame others and not better themselves is at least somewhat plausible, but it makes no sense why black culture would suddenly change in the 60s-80s and cause singlemotherhood to explode.

>>9366895
I'm 22.

>>9367286
it's a 3 paragraph post about a guy with thousands of hours worth of debates on the internet, of course it's a generalization.

Also I honestly don't know why you're talking about morality, nor I know why are you picturing me as a moralizer who puts morality at the basis of every single one of his arguments: there is no mention of it in my post (which was, instead, about, sophistry and debating techniques that are detatched from the arguments themselves).

I've also told to thst other anon that I'll post specific examples of it as soon as I get home: if you know what I'm talking about fine, if you don't you can wait, I'll show you.

>>9367296
The problem isn't really the gap, rich people will always commit less crime.
But when it means that 13% of the population commit 50% of the murders we're speaking of a massive issue.
What's the cause of this issue is what's important.
I don't know the stats for the Vietnamese refugees but I doubt that they'd be responsible for 50% of the murders were they 13% of the population.
And we're comparing war refugees with people who have been here for hundreds of years, the fact that we're comparing them is crazy by itself.

>Further, how does culture explain things like single mothers?
The role models aren't great for black people, I'm painting with a broad brush but what's seen in the media is either:
A) basketball player, something very very few people can become
B) Rapper, which often promotes degenerate and short thinking behaviors.
C) Racial activists (MLK, Malcolm X etc)
Add to it the fact that there is a narrative that the system is keeping you down the obvious reaction is to revolt the system by disregarding their laws.
This is all speculation but I haven't seen a better explanation why the (southern) blacks have progressed so little over the years.

>>9364498
Isn't this that faggot bitching about Frozen? What a fucking loser.
>wearing suspenders
Get a belt fucko

>>9367317
>This is all speculation but I haven't seen a better explanation why the (southern) blacks have progressed so little over the years.

Not that anon
This is anecdotal evidence, but here it is anyway: I've lived near Humbolt Park in Chicago, a terrible area (and a terrible way to save money for your rent but hey, it's close to my campus) I'm Italian but I look somewhat arab, so I just blended in.
The strongest impression I've gathered from this experience (which is now thankfully over) is this: had I been born there I would have become a gangster. There is literally no doubt in me when I say this. Every single element that lead to that life is embedded in the background itself: to escape it you have to deconstruct it and all the narratives that you've mantained for your entire childhood/teenagehood, you basically have to have, by yourself, a "fuck I was wring and so was everyone else around me" epiphany, and then (and this is even harder) act upon it instead of simply accepting it.
This applies to virtually everyone I know: if you're anything short of brilliant and you're born in a bad South Chicago block you're trapped. The fact that I was not dealing the worst drugs at 13 was merely a question of luck, since I wasn't born there.

I may expect this from people I know, but not from communities at large, especially not from communities who have been wrecked bye verything bad that can happen in a modern, Western society, from crack addiction epidemic to the corruption of the ideals behind said communities. It is really hopeless, to a point where I have really nothing to offer to the discourse but the certainity that whatever solution we will get will be a harsh compromise.

>>9367312
Your moralizing is implicit. I quoted you, silly. Need me to spell it out for you twice?

>his main skill is to corrupt everything he touches.

This is a moral judgement. Most of what you follow it with is in the same vein. When Shapiro (rightly or wrongly) puts forward an argument that is hard to refute but gives you the heebee jeebees nonetheless you fall back on a polemic against all his "rhetorical techniques".

Step one would be to undermine Shapiro's facts if you ca.

Step two would be to illustrate where Shapiro one of Shapiro's arguments is in fact merely rhetorical posturing.

All you've done is assassinate his character (which is always inherently a moralization) in the most vague and insubstantial way imaginable because you're lazy.

File: image.png (8KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 253x199px

>>9367394
>This is a moral judgement.
It's a epistemic judgement. There is an argument, he takes it and trivialize it through techniques that I do not respect (i've mentioned being literal about parts that are not meant to be literal and cherrypicking datas, at times he will just straight-up lie about them).

>When Shapiro (rightly or wrongly) puts forward an argument that is hard to refute but gives you the heebee jeebees nonetheless you fall back on a polemic against all his "rhetorical techniques".

At this point you're just making shit up.

>Step one would be to undermine Shapiro's facts if you ca.
>Step two would be to illustrate where Shapiro one of Shapiro's arguments is in fact merely rhetorical posturing.

I've literally told you multiple times that I'll do so as soon as I'll get home. Can you read?

>All you've done is assassinate his character (which is always inherently a moralization) in the most vague and insubstantial way imaginable because you're lazy.
>tfw this guy thinks he's smart
pic related, you're funny but your existence is enough for me to feel sorrow

>>9367376
Oh for sure.
That is it a cultural problem does not make it in any way easier.
solutions are hard, what we do here in rotterdam is in certain areas (the bad ones) you cannot rent a house if you have a previous conviction, this has the effect of separating you from your bad environment or at least making it less shit.
The most effective solution would be to just simply spread out the problem across the country, move them involuntarily but obviously that is impossible.
Tough situation, very tough.

Confirmed for not watching any of his lectures. Yeah, he tackles popular and common issues, yeah he might arrive at some "trivial" or obvious conclusions, but the process of coming to the conclusion is what is important, that's the insightful part. /lit/ just being blindly contrarian as always.

>>9367102
Wow this guy is basically a walking /pol/ infographic. The only consistency in the evidence is that it all supports the same view. His tactic seems to be pointing out the misleading nature of other arguments while being dishonest about his own. I hear a lot of equivocation, unqualified statements or values, straw men. The reason people like him win debates is it almost seems like a waste of time to actually engage his points since they're brought up so quickly, all you are expected to do is respond to his narrative with one of your own. He's not a thinker, he's a talker.

His offense at the use of 'uprising' is a non-point. It's a lack of values he says, but what does he mean by 'values'? If people seem to be 'uprising' against something you can't make sense of when you list possible reasons, could it be that you are mischaracterising those reasons? Perhaps the cycling of minority faces through a system seen as inherently oppressive isn't actually a satisfactory solution and those who are disenfranchised by this inadequacy are acting out, since, like Shapiro's arguments, it's a waste of time to sit down and engage with the problem honestly. He says he doesn't see what the riots are seeking to achieve, well probably because he hasn't bothered trying to find out. That is one conclusion someone could reach. "Act like a human being" -- another meaningless point. "It's not useful" -- what is 'usefulness'? "The more outraged you are the more justified you must be is nonsense" -- who says this?

"Because it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture" -- so the self-perception of one's race has no influence on their culture? "Explain to me why 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murder" -- I don't think the entire black population is responsible for half the murders, misleading use of a statistic. At some later point he states a white man in some confrontation with police has a higher chance of being shot than a black man. Is he taking population percentage into account for this statistic as well, like he did for the ones where black people are the problem? All sorts of justifications but like I said, no real consistency. I can't be bothered going point-by-point on this because you should understand I am saying he doesn't really qualify his arguments, just leaves the space between statement and evidence to kind of 'speak for itself' based on what we are supposed to believe by our capitalist ideology.

I'm not interested in anyone greentexting the points I made trying to answer for him, because the point is that he has not clarified himself.

>>9366746
>1:45
>that poc face

>>9367317
>But when it means that 13% of the population commit 50% of the murders we're speaking of a massive issue.

Are we? Assume 16000 murders a year, half being 8000. 8000 murders by 37,000,000 people? How is that a wider 'cultural issue' when 0.02% of the black population commit murder? I'd be more concerned with cancer.

>all these pseuds mad that jordo makes 30k a month on patreon

>>9367433
First paragraph is useless, delete it.

>could it be that you are mischaracterising those reasons?
Hard to do when he's literally in a conversation with the people making their point clear.
You can watch the entire thing, this was just an edited piece.
And the reasons are clear for anyone, you seem to be playing dumb.
It's their rage against what they see is a racist institution (the police force and the judicial arm ''protecting'' those who they per-judged as guilty)

>Perhaps the cycling of minority faces through a system seen as inherently oppressive isn't actually a satisfactory solution
What in the fuck is written down here?

>He says he doesn't see what the riots are seeking to achieve, well probably because he hasn't bothered trying to find out.
Then please do tell us, what are the looters and protestors trying to achieve?
You continually say he doesn't understand while you make 0 effort to explain what he missed.

> I don't think the entire black population is responsible for half the murders, misleading use of a statistic.
He only said it as a response to those two knuckleheads laughing at what he proposed was a reason why the black people under perform in almost everything. If it isn't a cultural thing then what is it?
This is what he said, you disregard is by smearing him as a racist.

I'm leaving it at here, your post is a jumbled mess missing arguments.

>>9367472
>I'm not interested in anyone greentexting the points I made trying to answer for him, because the point is that he has not clarified himself.

>>9367474
Then you shouldn't have posted, we could have missed your poorly worded reply easily.

>>9367457
Explaining why murder is a big problem is pretty hard I just learned, I didn't think I'd ever have to do it.

>>9367485
How does it feel that I called out your response before you even wrote it? In any case having an argument over the points he brought up is beside the point. I'm criticising his style of argument not the arguments made. There are many conclusions one could reach if they approached evidence honestly, which Shapiro, being a partisan stooge, is not interested in doing. No concern for truth in this man.

>>9367496
The issue isn't that murder is the problem. Everyone knows murder is a problem. The problem here though is that murders are disproportionately commited by blacks. But if 0.02% of the black population is committing murder, is it really that widespread a problem as it seems to be implied, i.e. a 'cultural issue'? Do you actually want to respond to the point made or do you want to take those goalposts with you?

>>9367498
You should watch the full debate and not the highlights.
There is nothing impressive in dissecting a debate, because there are a lot of agreed upon positions that he can't repeat each time he brings up an argument.

>>9367503
Then you tell me why they commit the majority of the murders, it's always easier to shoot down an answer than to formulate your own.

>>9367517
>Then you tell me why they commit the majority of the murders

Because they receive alien signals, I don't care. It's not the point. I'm not required to formulate my own answer.

>>9367545
Ah, so you've never thought about the issue or what?
You'd be a stuttering mess on that debate stage, keep it to 4chan shitposting about people who are more knowledgeable than you, you might fool a few anons to think you're bright.

>>9367550
>Ah, so you've never thought about the issue or what?

Sure I have, but it is of no concern to you or of any relevance to the argument. If you're looking for some sort of axiomatic narrative to replace your own opinion or for you to shoot it down without supplying your own (as you accuse me of doing) then you're out of luck.

>You'd be a stuttering mess on that debate stage, keep it to 4chan shitposting about people who are more knowledgeable than you, you might fool a few anons to think you're bright.

Do you feel better now?

>>9367575
Maybe you have a really bright idea as to why the murder rate is so different by race, maybe you can convince me!
But uh oh, you're afraid I might disagree with it, can't have that!
It's so sad, you're in a discussion but not willing to share your view, only wanting to knock down what other people think, takes little effort and can ruin discussion, like you did right now.
I'm thinking of why someone who might have the answer to an issue would keep their mouth shut, very odd.

>>9367584
You're sure spending a lot of effort avoiding the argument I made 30 minutes ago.

>>9367594
Right back at you.

>>9367601
Like I said, I'm not required to formulate an answer. You explain to me how 0.02% of the black population committing murders could ever be qualified as a 'cultural issue'? Because of the absence of any other explanation? That's not how it works.

ITT: trannies

File: USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.png (5KB, 314x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 314x300px

>>9367608
It's either race or culture dude, not that hard.
If you think it's their race then you can think that, but I think it's culture.

>>9367613
>not that hard.

Yes it is the conclusion of someone who doesn't think very hard.

You avoided the very specific wording of the question though. Between that and the misleading interpretation of your statistic (literally the entire black population is responsible for half all murders), I haven't been able to reasonably conclude that you're very observant, insightful, or intelligent. It's better that the 'discussion' we're having (and the one you think we're having) just ends at this point. (You)

>>9367635
Okay then I don't know.
Please tell me what it could possibly be, oh wise one.
Otherwise you're literally less useful than me.

>>9367635
like a cockroach when you turn on the lights he flees when he has to bring up an idea of his own.

>>9367662
Old.

>>9367662
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE I MUST REDIRECT THE CONVERSATION TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE

File: 1486520803873.jpg (90KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 720x720px

>>9364498
tfw every JP thread gets 200+ posts.

>>9367692
I admitted I didn't know, you're too insecure about your own convictions to put your own ideas out there, very pathetic.

>>9367736
You just don't listen do you

>>9367702
>using a wireless mic in the studio
fucking why

>>9364549
Wouldn't say jordan is a run in the mill professor though, but the standard is low for sure

>>9364975
Omg did you just assume a gender?

>>9364498
We need to put white people back in their place as slaves to the Arabs

File: 1463254525950.jpg (19KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x375px

>>9364498
He got popular because he is a Romantic in an age where it is considered socially unacceptable to be anything other than a materialist and hedonist.

>>9364498
He's riding the wave of people raised without a father figure.

>>9367807
If so that explains the over usage of "cuck" and berating stepfathers or alternative figures.

>>9367748
lmao you don't even have an answer.

>>9367807
This is true, but it's also a bit deeper than that actually. The West really doesn't have a concept of heroic masculinity, and yet all it's enemies do, and it'll be our downfall.

>>9365567
From what we know, he was mainly an actor and leader of a theatrical troupe. I'd reckon he'd be a multifacetic same-cast-in-every-movie James Franco-type character, only with superhuman writing ability.

>>9366879
>if they are 'radicalised' or however you'd like to describe it at university
I don't just parrot peterson, so no I don't think that. I know for a fact that most people who are prone to this kind of radical ideology already fancy themselves revolutionaries or enforcers of justice by the time they enter university, and usually join antifa, an lgbtq council or similar within their first year there.

I don't blame universities for radicalizing people or for giving them a platform, it's that they allow those radicals to enforce their own rules within university. We had two cases of a highly qualified professor being shoved to the sidelines in favor of one of minority status in philosophy just this year, and these decisions add up over time.

>>9366167
I read Maps of Meaning.

>>9365994
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS? IS SHE BACK?

>>9364498
He specifically rails against the idea of "finding your passion".

Are you false flagging?

>>9364498
The trivial shit is the shit people are stumbling over these days.

>>9366536
Zizek is too gregarious. He'd crack jokes and quietly take over the stage and Peterson would fume. He did it to Graham Harman as well, not really engaging too seriously with his points but just winning over the crowd mostly by personality and charm.

Peterson's good at handling himself in debates where he's being attacked or is under siege, but Zizek isn't going to put that kind of pressure on him.