Why are threads about this guy always deleted?

>>9432816
because fuck off

>>9432816
I dunno I just got a book by Ligotti tho

>>9432816
Because they seem to attract the stupid 'redpill' people who ruin all discussion.

>>9432816
Cultural Marxist control of the media.

>>9432816
He's a culture war meme for no-book dorks.

>>9432820
Yeah, they have incorrect opinions.

File: Sandro Botticelli | Birth of Venus (detail 01).jpg (2MB, 1456x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1456x2000px

>>9432816
because he's a fucking beggar, who's rise to popularity is due to carefully calculated shekel grubbing from the previously untapped "rightwing" internet demographic.

Same as Sargon, same as Styx... also why is this garbage being posted in /lit/??? I come here to get a break from /pol/.

>>9433013
>come to /lit/ to get a break from /pol/
>spend all your time seeking out vaguely /pol/-associated threads in which no /pol/posters have said anything and complaining about /pol/
You're almost too stupid to even deserve this (You)

>>9432866
I didn't say that, dear. It's the defensive sperging out that ruins threads. Much like your triggered response.

because the sticky says
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

now go back to your containment board
>>>/pol/

File: Sandro Botticelli | Birth of Venus (detail 02).jpg (1MB, 1407x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1407x2000px

>>9433018

see >>9433051

you shit-gobbling mongrel

>>9433100
>Anon insulted me and my behavior? Must be JIDF- I mean /pol/! Good thing I'm here to spam "oy vey goyim"- I mean "containment board"! I'm really preserving the white race- I mean intellectual community!
The only difference between our attitudes towards /pol/ is in level of obsession. Why don't you go find a discord or subreddit to hide in if you can't stop yourself from replying to me.

Here, I'll incentivise you to reply to me again: Botticelli burned his own work and was in love with another man's wife. Botticelli was a cuckold.

Now see if you have the self-control of a functioning adult, or if you're just Pavlov's dog hunting for your crossboarding dinner bell.

File: Henri-Pierre Danloux | 1st Viscount, the.jpg (1MB, 1634x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1634x2000px

>>9433135

Jesus Christ, do I have to spell it out? I would assume people on a literature board had good reading-comprehension skills.

I was simply complaining about /pol/ threads in non /pol/ places. Namely /lit/.

Good incentive, btw. I reckon you're a shitskin.

>>9433157
Now, I know this is going to be hard for your tiny dog brain to understand, but Peterson != Peterson fangays and Peterson fangays != /pol/. Frankly, if you allow Jung threads on this board (which we do because let's face it this is the de facto philosophy board), and you allow Zizek threads on this board (which we do because let's face it this is the de facto /leftypol/ board), there is no legitimate argument against Peterson threads.
There are many other boards without any /pol/ threads. There are many threads on this board - most, in fact - that are not /pol/ threads. Not every single thread involving some sort of conservative worldview is a /pol/ thread, and to claim otherwise is to be purposefully obtuse. Not every single person on the entire board is going to cater to you, and I hope you're able to come to terms with that. Some people genuinely hold to right-wing ideology AND read books at the same time. Shocking, but true. What might surprise you even further is that they're allowed to post here.
As for actual /pol/ shitposters, the more you whine about them, the more you encourage them. At this point I almost want to blame people like you for shitting up the board more than them because your posts are more numerous, equally shitty and often less relevant to the conversation. Flinging ideologically-laden shit is one step up from flinging shit at someone's ideology.

>tl;dr
Stop trying to paint every post you don't like as originating from the depths of the internet hate machine and
Just.
Ignore.
Them.

There, I've typed a lot of words. Reply to me again, you tremendous faggot, I know you want to.

File: 1484430002778.jpg (64KB, 547x605px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 547x605px

>>9433027
>dear
>defensive sperging out that ruins threads

Now this triggered me

>>9433201
>Jung
hmm, yeah
>Zizek
of course
>Peterson
holy shit are you fucking retarded? how do you leap from Jung and Zizek to this fucking nobody that's trying to LARP as a philosopher? just stop

File: Screenshot from 2017-04-26 21-02-49.png (235KB, 636x598px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 636x598px

>>9433201
>I know you want to.
Of course I do.

>Compares Peterson to Jung and Zizek.
If you think Peterson is a philosopher, than you belong in a third-world slum with your intellectual peers.

>Not every single thread involving some sort of conservative worldview is a /pol/ thread
Correct, but Peterson is an e-celeb who makes his living pandering to a specific online community (many of whom find their home in /pol/).

>Not every single person on the entire board is going to cater to you, and I hope you're able to come to terms with that.
I can, and most of the posts here do not. I was simply stating that this post does not belong here (for reasons stated above).

File: holy triggerd batman.jpg (76KB, 760x840px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 760x840px

>>9433244
kekked & chekked

I'm seeing a lot of non arguments

File: plague.png (74KB, 596x391px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 596x391px

>>9433297
>e-celeb
*professor of psychology
Also, a man who has done legitimate philosophical writing: https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224
If you prefer lectures, you can get many of the same ideas starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Bu7oCB8_k
>but patreon
who gives a fuck, his work stands independent of his life. Nobody's talking about his biography here, or anywhere.

You have decided to hate Peterson because you first heard of him in the context of /pol/. Since then you have tried to come up with a justification for your distaste other than "he gets posted on /pol/" or "he's traditionalist." "E-celeb" is the nastiest insult that you could get to stick.
If you don't prefer him, don't post in the thread. But don't act like Zizek and Land belong on /lit/ while Peterson doesn't.

By the way Zizek is a delusional communist faggot. Reply to me again.

>>9433334
so close
>>9433333

File: stefan.jpg (64KB, 1453x862px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1453x862px

>>9433334
>Reply to me again.
ok.

You're right and I'm wrong. Anyone who has books for sale on Amazon and gives lectures is a philosopher comparable to Jung.

By that reasoning, I expect to see more Stefan Molyneux threads on /lit/.
(https://www.amazon.com/Stefan-Molyneux/e/B00HMCFDSI)

>>9433371
Funny, I don't remember Molyneux's series of lectures at Harvard. Or Molyneux picking up the work of Jung and tying it into modern psychology - making intellectual OC, if you will. But then, I'm not incredibly familiar with Molyneux or his work. Why don't you start a thread and we can discuss it?

Also,
>misrepresentation of the post you're replying to
is the sign of a defeated mind. Reply to me again if you want, but make sure you also reply to my previous post again and address it without strawmanning.
Or don't. You're the type of person who goes about seeking things to be upset over (friendly reminder that this discussion is about you calling things /pol/). I doubt integrity is your priority right now.

>>9433244
Uh, hun? maybe you should calm down maybe?

File: l.gif (956KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 500x200px

this board is infested with the mind disease of liberalism

a majority of modern liberals ARE radical ideologues who are unable to push pragmatic policy that isn't heavily reliant on feelings rather than facts

The liberals on /lit/ have a preconception that leftists are on the right side of history. They think leftists are the intellectuals, poets, authors, and philosophers and since they consider themselves a member of one or more of these creative groups, they opt for liberalism.

Because the lit libtards (I know they'll get touchy over that :) are threatened by their flimsy movement being under existential threat from simple scrutiny, they lash out at any diversity of opinion displayed.

In conclusion, Lit liberal retards are too pussy to bear the brunt of Peterson's red pills
xd

>>9433440
>They think leftists are the intellectuals, poets, authors, and philosophers
they are though

>>9433485
Good god, you've responded to bait! The only solution is to delete your post before the baiter comes into this bumped thread, sees your response and continues to post.

Because a select group of cucks report threads on lit.

I made threads about black people and women and got warnings for both.

File: 92c57eb4-c0ba-4e01-9e6e-b36c7112de41.jpg (177KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 500x500px

>>9433401
You're fun.

>picking up the work of Jung and tying it into modern psychology
>intellectual OC
Pick one.

>friendly reminder that this discussion is about you calling things /pol/
I haven't forgotten this, but the argument has turned into you telling me Peterson is a person worthy of discussion on this board, and me not agreeing.

>I'm not incredibly familiar with Molyneux or his work. Why don't you start a thread and we can discuss it?
You can go to /pol/ and contribute your many nuggets of wisdom to one of the frequent Molyneux threads (or Peterson threads for that matter)

>seeking things to be upset over
You're the one who got upset at me insulting your hero. A thread was started, where OP asked a question, to which I replied with an answer. Hardly seems out of the ordinary.

In reference to >>9433334
>a man who has done legitimate philosophical writing.
He wrote (one) book, borderline-plagiarizing real philosophers. I am basing that opinion off of his lecture series, under the same title, which i have watched a few installments of. If you are going to refute this point, provide me with one philosophical argument Peterson has come up with himself.

>but patreon
I called him a beggar and shekel grubber, but I never mentioned patreon. that was in reference to his "Self Authoring Suite, which he sells on twitter next pictures of frogs and references to 4chan.

>You have decided to hate Peterson because you first heard of him in the context of /pol/
I did not first hear of him in context of /pol/, he pokes his head into many different podcasts and Youtube channels has his own popular Youtube presence, which did not exist before he uploaded videos of himself hollering with college students about trannies and freedon of speech laws.

>If you don't prefer him, don't post in the thread.
The topic of this thread is not Peterson himself, but "Why are threads about this guy always deleted?" I gave a reason, which I still stand by: >>9433013

>don't act like Zizek and Land belong on /lit/ while Peterson doesn't.
I quote from the sticky:
>ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
So take some points from his (one) book and discuss them. But don't make general "why doesn't /lit/ like Peterson" threads.

File: dog.jpg (11KB, 150x176px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 150x176px

>>9433485
not exclusively like they seem to believe.

They actually believe that poetry, writing and philosophy are inextricably tied to leftism and that you cant like conservative policy without your creativity being compromised.

Because leftism has, for the longest time, been the rebellious cultural fringe side, many creative types have been leftists. Here are the problem with this faulty thinking: 1. I think the side of the intellectuals is going to flip very soon considering that modern day leftists have become the puritans and right wingers have become the rebels and 2. I think that writing, poetry and philosophy can and should be entirely separable from a political party as the two are really not connected in any important way

also
>>9433491
uh oh- we got a triggered one

>>9433544
hi (sorry for bad english)

>>9433485
>he fell for the leftist intellectual meme
Genuinely some of the most retarded creatures to ever walk on the face of the earth.

As far as the thread topic goes, the mods just delete whatever goes against popular opinion. The liberals on this board can't handle other opinions, so they always start insulting whoever they disagree with and it shits up the board.

File: 1492239579228.png (2MB, 1080x829px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x829px

>>9433549
>>9433556
obvious samefag

>>9433297

neat, I didn't know the future authoring programme was free

>>9433585
>Free 4 U 4 1 wk
Free for you for one week.

Why does he claim to be against authoritarianism, but he has an army of trolls who attack anyone who dares criticize him? Why does he act as if he's an authority on everything? Why is he so obsessed with authoritarian dictatorships?

>"We'd be Nazis too if you we were Germans back then, if you think you wouldn't be, you're retarded!"
Hmm, kind of a strange belief to have...

File: smuganimu14.png (121KB, 500x584px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x584px

>>9433533
>your hero
You can't seem to separate your actual points (some legitimate, others not) from your desire to project an air of contempt everywhere you go. It's one thing to talk down to someone, it's another to continually misrepresent them. If I were a lesser shitposter I would make some extended reference to insecurity prompting sarcasm as a defense mechanism, but I think you can follow that train of thought well enough yourself.
>borderline-plagiarizing
Did Marx plagiarize from Hegel? You're trying very hard with this one, and the fact that you didn't finish the book before passing judgment on it really makes one think.
>the topic of this thread, etc
Now this is a sly one, prompted by a slight lack of clarity on my end, which I'll take responsibility for. You certainly were quick to leap on it.
The topic is "why are threads...deleted" and you responded with a (I believe wrong) opinion. However, there is nothing wrong with you posting in the thread. The problem arises when part of your post reads "I come here to get away from /pol/," to which I pointed out that you seemed to be seeking /pol/ out. This is the reason I told you not to post in this thread or any other conservative-leaning thread on the board, and the reason I don't take you seriously in conversation. You're not trying to get away from /pol/. If you were here for comfiness you would hide this thread and move on, but you keep replying to me. You want to fight. For whatever reason, you want /pol/.
>don't make general "why no liek" threads
Context changes many things. It's equally standard practice to refer to a work or an author in an OP. Sometimes we have "why no liek Rand" threads, other times "why no liek Atlas Shrugged" threads. Also unique circumstances surround Peterson in particular as a subject of moderation, pushing him further outside standard discussion. And as long as the mods (or you, with dedicated enough shitposting, or more likely people like you and people like /pol/ feeding each other) continue to shut down discussion around him we'll never be able to address Maps of Meaning and establish him somewhere in the unwritten list that dictates who gets talked about on this board and who gets six "kys" posts before their thread dies on page 10.
As for unironically quoting the sticky, well, bless your heart.

I see your tumblr image and raise you smug anime. Reply to me again.

>>9433591

code still works 2bh femme

Peterson isn't on the same level as, say, Habermas (yet maybe, I don't really know if he will keep making stuff), but his insights on Jung and Nietzsche are extremely rich and you'd be a retard to not listen to him. He is very smart and knows about what he is talking about when he is on those topics.
It's like throwing your whole plate to the thrash because one of your hairs was on it.

I'm not saying he is perfect, but if you can't differentiate his political ramblings to his lectures about psychology and tangentially to philosophy, then you should exit this board.

And he isn't the first person to mix their academic work with politics. Fucking Sartre was wrong on so many things politically speaking, but it's not like it makes his work thrash. Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party and he is still respected by any intelligent person.

This place is getting worse by the day because people get triggered by a guy that doesn't share their political view. Grow the fuck up guys.

File: b10915f1-02bd-44b9-b75f-0f6c131b2996.jpg (167KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 500x500px

>>9433599

>I called him your hero, but that is misrepresenting your views.
I concede, he is not your hero, that was an minor attempt at insult. You are clearly defending him from a non-partisan standpoint. From where you stand, other than in opposition to where I stand, remains to be clearly stated, or if it was, it remains to be clearly understood)

>desire to project an air of contempt everywhere you go
I believe you said i had a "tiny dog brain."

>Did Marx plagiarize from Hegel?
Marx has some ideas that are distinctly his own and can be attributed to him, even if he clearly draws influence from contemporaries. Peterson, from the lectures I've seen (You're right, I did not pay $49.94 for his book) has no ideas of his own. He mostly quotes popular philosophers and gives lame Nazi anecdotes (non original or thought provoking)

> we'll never be able to address Maps of Meaning and establish him somewhere in the unwritten list that dictates who gets talked about on this board
I already said I have no problem with a discussion of the man's arguments. I still think OP's post is abhorrent and does not belong here.

>I don't take you seriously in conversation
Yet the conversation goes on...

>>9433604
the code is for one free week.

>>9433599
STOP IT YOU'RE KILLING THEM, STOP! PLEASE!!

File: smuganimu15.png (226KB, 900x969px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 900x969px

>>9433689
>tiny dog brain (btfo)
The main difference between my contempt and your own is that I do not let mine influence the actual substance of my posts. Multiple times now you have let you condescension lead you to say things that simply are not accurate.
Feel free to read a book sometime: https://joeclark.org/peterson/peterson_mapsofmeaning-en.pdf
>Most of the scholars who have followed his lead have adopted this central assumption, at least implicitly. This position requires some modification. We do model facts, but we concern ourselves with valence, or value It is therefore the case that our maps of the world contain what might be regarded as two distinct types of information – sensory, and affective. It is not enough to know that something is. It is equally necessary to know what it signifies. It might even be argued that animals – and human beings – are primarily concerned with the affective or emotional significance of the environment.
(p. 30)
Doesn't sound like a pop-philosopher quote or Nazi anecdote to me. If you're curious, he goes into more detail on the idea in the book that you didn't read.
>I have no problem with a discussion of his arguments
Aside from the fact that for most of the thread you've made it very clear you have a problem with a discussion related to Peterson happening on /lit/:
>Q: Why are these threads deleted?
>A: Because he's a fucking beggar... why is this garbage being posted in /lit/???
You have an interesting way of showing acquiescence.
>I still think OP's post is abhorrent
Again, there are specific circumstances surrounding this particular man. Unfortunate ones? Yes. I, like you, would rather not see seven Peterson threads full to the brim of shitposting. But considering the mods themselves have been pulled into this issue, it's entirely reasonable to discuss thread deletion while also setting the ground for an actual approach to Peterson. Also, I still don't care what you think about OP, I'm mainly concerned with your obsession over /pol/.
>the conversation goes on
I'm staying up until 3:00 AM to watch a bunch of socially inept losers play video games for a prize pool that's bigger than my annual paycheck will ever be. Is that what you wanted to know? Why I'm still here? I've got nothing better to do for a while. Why are you here? To get away from /pol/? Would you say you're succeeding right now?

Reply to me again. I've got time to spare and apparently so do you.

>>9433757
i like being dominated in intellectual debate by what i willfully pretend is the anime girl in pic related

>>9433757
I'm happy you stood your ground anon. The guy you're replying to was a real self-righteous jerk. I mean, a real jerk. I think this did him good.

AND THAT'S THAT