https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg 3NR76XpQ our favourite

>open the stream
>"..people who are using Pepe..."
>close the stream

>>9486149
This
>Open
>discussion on /pol/ autism and the meme war
Dropped

HAHAHAHAH HE'S TALKING ABOUT PEPE

/who is this academic cluster-fuck? why is he popular here?

having we given up on zizek as meme/buffoon "philosopher" of choice

>>9486035
Peterson constantly sounds like he's about to burst into tears

dragons have gold just like the future... it'll do you in... and that's why the hero goes and gets the gold (just like the hobbot and beowolf) this is the oldest story of mankind btw. it's totally chaos and the frog is the guardian. the frog is the thing that doesn't fit into categories... tadpole/adult... it doesn't fit. and it's thing that don't fit which blow apart the category... just like the transgenders... and they put you in the state of chaos.... so what are the rules when operating in chaos? Tell the damn truth. It's all you've got... that's the guidepost... truth is a strange thing.... often a hero has to assimilate their darkside before they can tell the truth... just like the in hobbit... that's the thing about telling the truth- it burns off deadwood... it's a sword... a truth warrior... in this time of chaos... and what emerges is sometimes catastrophe... sometimes it never swings back... the dragon just eats you and that's the end of that. We're in a transition period... an unstable period.... that's why this is resonating with people... it's not about pronouns.... well it is... but it's more than that... it's not a little thing bucko it's way deeper than that...

CLEAN YOUR ROOM BUCKO

>>9486173
well, 4chan is mainly comprised of nigger-faggits, so naturally, they either don't have fathers, or have daddy issues. peterson fulfils this function for both groups as he acts like a father figure.

>>9486180
hey, thats pretty good

>>9486190
no

>he will never be your father

>>9486180
I've mostly been ignoring this dude. How many people here take this guy seriously? I mean this might sound nice if you don't think about it at all, but its pretty clearly a mixture of obvious truths and wild associations that don't mean anyting

>>9486035
the interaction between these two is fucking surreal

>>9486180
10/10

>>9486238
how so?

15 mins in and they've already denied the existence of intersex people

>>9486234
I don't think many people here take him seriously. They're not reading and discussing his books or sincerely building their arguments around his ideas like you can occasionally see on /lit/ with Nick Land or Marx. He's entertainment, sort of like an even lighter Zizek. He's charismatic, he's well-read and intelligent, and he takes firm stances on society and culture that are already popular with 4chan's audience

People like to watch him talk and might follow him up on a book recommendation. His psychobabble doesn't necessarily reflect reality, but it's fun to think about and has enough depth that it could even provoke insight. At the very least, he seems to be inspiring a lot of aimless young men to get their shit together

>>9486035
this guy is off his fucking rocker.

Everything he has said in this podcast has been entirely accurate and /lit/ is just throwing a temper tantrum ITT because they can't compete with his ideas.

this is so embarrassing. anti-intellctual.

Ive never given much attention to any of the discussions around this person

So how do you sort yourself out exactly according to him? Or is it just a meme?

>>9486319
Accept Christ in your heart and buy his shitty selfhelp books

kekistan boys

>>9486319
by cleaning your room

File: 1419303064938.jpg (19KB, 453x470px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 453x470px

>him talking about Derrida

everyone who didn't sage is a viral marketer

File: [hand writhing intensifies].gif (3MB, 365x341px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 365x341px

>>9486319
Attend his online self authoring class for the low price of 20 dollars (limited time only).

>>9486234
He's good up until he tries to engage with his newfound audience. He's completely out of his depth there and it shows in the weird invitations he accepts. He made sense of one topic, now weird people are asking him to make sense of other topics, and he tries his best at answering them but that doesn't go too well.

>>9486291
What does "taking seriously" mean? He's not a philosopher, he's basically being a pundit. You can either agree with his analysis of society or not.
That's unless you venture into the metaphysical side of his lectures but no one really cares about that and it's certainly not where those millions of views are coming from.

>>9486312
>because they can't compete with his ideas
It's not even that, it's mostly just /lit/ being three things: gay, Marxist, and, and especially contrarian

>>9486346
lel

The """"""""""""Postmodernists""""""""""""""

>Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan podcast

Can't get any more pseud than this. SAGE

I've been listening to this shit for 10 minutes.

Peterson is more of a retard than Rogan. Holy shit.

>>9486396
>when the brainlets try to punch up

a bit pitiful to be honest

>>9486396
How so?

>>9486413
>>9486414
ZEBRAS

UNEMPLOYED AND ON HEROIN

well no because
*brings the mic closer*
every 10 years your cells in your body actually completely change.
i was reading this article about how DMT can actually advance this process into only taking 6 years because your pineal gland- jaimie could you get that article up? yeah but its because your pineal glands can actually make your cells rejuvenate faster ... here we go
*looks over at the screen*
look at that ...
yeah that chimp must be what? 400 pounds? jesus those things will tear you to shreds

>>9486346

kek on the file name

>>9486396
his anger and resentment shines through and its made him intellectually lazy

>>9486421
lol

>>9486434
him and rogan talking about "toxic masculinity" was great, along with the part about the 1% SJWs.

>>9486035
gotta say he came across as kind of a lunatic on this one

he must be really tired :(

love u jp

>ha ha BASED PROFESSOR BTFO SJWS

he's a fairly smart guy but this is the only reason 90% of people watch him. i'm not leftist either, i'm just sick of this retarded us vs. them meme culture. get fucked.

that podcast was based as fuck. He btfo out of liberals, sjws, hillary, postmodumbism, and marxists. it's about time actual logic is being broascasted to the world instead of the emotions and subjective feelings of dumb ass leftists

>>9486465
It shows >>9486473

>>9486180
https://youtu.be/QQ5oqgJWJyw

>>9486455
I didn't watch it but at this point he can really only repeat himself and he gets more rambly with every new interview. If you already know all the arguments you can digest it just fine and get your fix, but to every new viewer he must appear worse and worse so I'd advise him to take a break or at least to go easy on any topic he hasn't thought about for longer. There's no point to an ad hoc synthesis of Pepe, Jesus, archetypes and electon results.

>>9486465
I think the best part about him is actually how he tries not to feed into the us vs. them and encourages dialogue and to look at your own pathologies before you masturbate over someone else's flaws.

>>9486475 I choose to believe >>9486473 is bait. I really like JP's psychology. also quite liked Maps of Meaning, but I really wish he'd read Heidegger first

>>9486495
What would be different if he had read Heidegger? (Who taught at my university and now we have to rename streets named after him because of SJWs)

File: IMG_0874.png (401KB, 779x364px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 779x364px

Good pol OC :)

>>9486473
lol good post bro

>>9486504
Dasein and Aletheia are two ideas that might have taken him a little further along in his investigations (especially in his first presuppositions about objective/subjective meaning).

also, unrelated, and it's unlikely that he'll ever be able to get round to a follow-up now that he's a celebrity, but would have been interesting how interacting with tens of thousands of others shaped his beliefs around world-pictures

>>9486517
This guy is good for /pol/ I'd like all /pol/fags to become like Peterson

File: IMG_0875.jpg (125KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x554px

Who /petersonfan/ here?

>>9486548
That's actually a pretty good picture, apart from the title.

>>9486536
>>9486568
S-stop, just let me be cynical anon

File: JBP.png (652KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 800x554px

>>9486568

File: 1441939180183.jpg (17KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x270px

I can't reply to this epic bread

Why is this on lit, what kind of literature related things are being discussed?
Nice job sneaking a >>>/pol/ thread into /lit/

>>9486622
he talked about his book maps of meaning in the podcast

>>9486548
https://youtu.be/A6g_geYeL4U

>>9486597
Ha thanks, my problem actually wasn't even with "admiring", it was more with "philosophy" because the whole pronoun thing is more common sense than a philosophy but on second thought, at least his stance on a metaphysical prerequisite for morals deserves the term.
Either way, unironically glad people like him, even if it triggers /lit/.

>>9486622
>author does an interview, discussing his book, society and philosophy
>choose to screech here instead of any of the shitty threads open right now just because your ideology is triggered

>practising psychologist and professor who has studied marxism, fascism and the dangers of ideology for 40 years

>retarded post-modernist marxists on 4chan

Who do you think draws more weight in their arguments?

>>9486887

Do you really think a Ph.D in psychology makes you an expert in Marxism?

15 minutes of fame.

>>9486630
I talked about Don Quixote while filming your mother's latest scat video.

I like Peterson and I study a lot of the things he attacks. I think his heart is in the right place and he's an interesting and insightful guy. But even more than that, I think it's good that people are latching onto these sort of grassroots public intellectuals instead of having "Acceptable Public Intellectuals" decided for them by the media.

This is a professor who devotes a considerable amount of his time to activism, to speak out against a social issue he cares about and many people clearly also care about. He's on a free podcast that hundreds of thousands of laypeople will listen to. It may not be perfect, but it's a good example of civic engagement.

POSTMODERNISTS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>9487127
post it

>>9486887
Nice appeal to authority.

>>9486927
>professor who has studied marxism, fascism and the dangers of ideology for 40 years
>dangers of pathalogical belief systems
u r dumb

>>9487914
Not an argument

>>9487916
Neither was yours.

>>9487920
Yeah, it was a question, idiot.

>>9487925
It was clearly a rhetorical one, considering your greentext.

>>9486201
I'd much rather have Zizek as a father than Peterson.

File: 1485899842176.jpg (158KB, 869x719px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 869x719px

>So you're saying everything we know about the world is a posteriori knowledge derived from our interpretation of sense data transmitted from noumena, and that the mind is a separate entity creating a dualistic reality where we can also uncover a priori truths?
>Wow... that's insane *pause*
>Did you see that video of a lion getting jacked by an eagle? Holy shit Jamie pull that up.

>>9486035
>Joe Rogan

I don't know much about him, but he sounds like a "dude weed lmao" character. Why would an intellectual go to his show? Made me lose some respect for Jordan, desu.

Wow, i feel like a kid at the movies right before watching Joe interview Peterson. Deep breath, get comfortable, have a glass of water and let the education begin. Peterson is quite possibly the most important guest. His information could be the difference between life and death. He's right in the eye of the storm.

>>9487987
Peterson has gone on molyneux, crowder, pretty sure a few more dumbfuck youtubers. He's not an intellectual in any field other than his own he's just riding the anti-SJW wave and getting money from his dumbfuck minions.

>>9487915
Where do you get that he actually studied those things properly? Plus you can't even spell pathological and you're calling someone dumb you're a fucking retarded cunt.

>>9488076
As a fellow marxist I have to agree with this post.

>>9488088
Nah I'm an egoist just that anyone who listens to a preacher with academic credentials is a dumbfuck.

>>9488076
i saw the molyneux one and it was surprisingly interesting, the bald guy didnt seem as crazy as pol says he is

>>9488078
check his book Maps of Meaning bro. There are lectures that explain it quite well. Guy's done his homework for sure

File: communism.png (104KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 644x598px

He does ask a good question at the start of the podcast; why it's acceptable to flaunt the hammer and sickle flag when carrying the Nazi flag isn't.

>>9488125
(((They))) allow it. To be honest, Peterson keeps wailing about marxists and telling the truth he never mentions how Jews permeate marxism. Also, when talking about male feminists he never mentions the similarities they share with MtF transsexual freaks. Being a man is hard. So it's easy to be a woman or their "ally". Peterson doesn't listen to his own advice although a lot of the time I don't listen to my own advice so who am I to tell the world how the economy should be run when my room is dirty.

>>9488125
Because the communists didn't target anyone who wasn't white, are you retarded?

>>9488152
So what you're saying is that genocide and human rights abuses are totally fine as long as you're not a racist about it.

>>9486174
that's because he is

>>9488125
Because communism is at least good in theory. Fascism is shit in theory and practice.

>>9488150
>Peterson keeps wailing about marxists and telling the truth he never mentions how Jews permeate marxism.
>>>/pol/124878598

>>9488198
This argument (being generous here) doesn't make any sense.

>>9488125
Communists promise a world in which all people are free, democracy is universal and no man may stand on another man.
Nazism at its core promotes dominance, subjugation and outright extermination of those outside its accepted group.

You might admonish its practicallity and associate it to what has happened under people who acted under its banner but there is nothing wrong in believing in its ideals like Nazism no matter how many times you tell people to read muh Gulag Archipelego

>>9488164
Yeah thats what he's saying, you're a smart one

>>9488076
>He's not an intellectual in any field other than his own

Thats being very generous, unless by field you mean Jungian occultism

>>9488198
>Because communism is at least good in theory.

when will this meme die? it's an unfair system in it's basis.

>>9488204
>Communists promise a world in which all people are free
lol

>>9488216
Yeah buts at least its not outright trying to be

>>9488217
Its the promise, I'm saying they'll come through with it

>>9488125
Because they were on our side during WW2, dumbass. Isn't that obvious?

>>9486348
>What does "taking seriously" mean? He's not a philosopher

Oh fuck off with this. I don't claim to be a Dentist but if I have my fingers in your mouth I deserve to be called out for it

>This guy blablabla
>Not even one smart argument against anything he is saying

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

The dominance hierarchy of the messiah is in the serotonin conceptualizing the hero killing the pathological snake and rescuing the virgin from chaos, that's the SJW postmodernist neomaxism paradigm, the 95% deadwood that gets burned like Pinocchio by the meme god Kek

I used to worry I'd have to go through the effort of coming up with complex understandings of his arguments in order to dismiss the followers of this guy from here.
Should have realized I could just sit back and let him ruin any credibility by himself

>>9488262
Yes of course the goal is to find arguments in order to "dismiss" people. Never mind what they are actually talking about.

test

>>9486672
why the fuck would anyone start taking antidepressants at 12
is that a bit fucked up or what?

>>9488281
It's not fucked up if you consider the alternative, e.g not being able to even get out of bed and eventually committing suicide.

>>9488291
didn't know people could be depressed that early

>>9486180

AVIN A GIGGLE THERE M8?

>>9488267
When they're such obvious clowns from the outset of course. Same with all the alt-right goobers like Milo

>>9488298
Probably has something to do with puberty in her case.

>>9486221

sort yourself up

>>9488303
Or having a fucking nutjob for a father breaking down crying everyday

>>9488307
Yes of course.

>>9488308
Just saying a guy this off kilt just so happens to have a daughter this fucked, can't be a coincidence or down to "puberty"

>>9486421

kek my good sir

>>9488312
Look, I get that you don't like him you contrarianfag, but you don't have to cloak it in a veiled attempt at making him and his family seem like psychos.

>>9487948

wtf i

File: [bucko intensifies].gif (151KB, 265x265px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 265x265px

>>9488259

>>9488324
He was probably unironically reading her the Gulag Archipelego for her bedtime story to make sure she didn't become a Neo-Marxist

>>9487914
nice appeal to a fallacy fallacy

friendly reminder not to listen to men who can't deal with the fact that they're balding (I'm talking about Peterson here)

just shave it off and grow a beard, you frog-sounding fuck

>>9488339
Nice fallacy fallacy fallacy

>>9488341
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4

File: 1480840384175.jpg (182KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1440x1080px

>>9486887
>Academia is a meritocracy

File: Mikhaila Peterson.jpg (958KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 1920x1080px

>>9486672
>when you show her your snake and she has no logos

>>9488344
Well parts of it is.

File: 1489398936764.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

>>9488355
>Humanities psychology is a meritocracy

>>9488198
>

File: 1489505306166.jpg (202KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x854px

>>9488354

>>9488374
CUTE

>>9488354
>when you see a donut

get this puffy-ass bitch outta my face

File: Qd80h3r.jpg (389KB, 1840x1088px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1840x1088px

>>9488374
>Tumblr hair

Posting in an epic thread holy shit archive this!

File: 1491077990127.png (162KB, 500x527px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 500x527px

>>9488204
>Communists promise a world

So how many times have they succeeded?

>>9488440
Irrelevant to the point, no need to be triggered

>>9488204
>no man may stand on another man
Actually that's the core of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means inevitably that there will be SOMEONE who decides how much you are allowed to take from me and how little you have to give me in return.
If 9 lazy people decide to take a vote on what to do with the skills of the 10th, that's "democratic" yeah, but it certainly isn't freedom for everyone.

You're just as wrong about Nazism by the way because you're blinded by ideology.

File: fuck you marxists.png (460KB, 514x600px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 514x600px

triggerred commies in lit since 2016

>>9488468
You should really learn the actual theory about communism instead of gum balling your own ad hoc interpretations of vague popular aphorisms

>>9488495
So.. you deny that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a principle of communism?

>all these triggered sjw drones itt

>>9488374

Wow, I want to fuck her. wtf im a pedo now

>>9488198
NatSoc is beautiful in theory.

File: pepner.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

https://youtu.be/USg3NR76XpQ?t=5501

1:31:42

>>9488642
>kekistan boys

>>9488336
>d-dad, can we read The Hungry Catipillar instead? ;-;
>"SORRY BUCKO, BUT YOU GOTTA LEARN ABOUT THE DANGERS OF NEO-MARXIST DOGMA"

>>9488502
No of course not, what are you retarded?
Its a hypothetical socio-economic system predicated on how people relate to the factors of production. There's no mantra tier "principals" involved you ignoramus, again you're just hearing a single quote that floats around pop culture and you're extrapolating your own imagination from it.

>>9488642
>joe rogan saying death to all normies

never thought i'd see this

>>9488336
it worked, she's now pregnant by a ripped tall blond chad traditionalist

File: 1486566134653.jpg (7KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 249x249px

>>9488666
>tall

Might want to double check on that

>>9488657
>floats around pop culture
Wiki: ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx"
Why are /lit/ communists always and without exception idiots?

>>9486672
So is Peterson on happy pills?

>>9486672
"I feel fantastic. I've never felt like this before." she claimed in a monotonous, deadpan voice.

>>9488678
Good job failing to understand a simple sentence.
Just because Marx wrote something doesn't make it a fucking dogmatic principal thats open to interpretation like a Bible verse.
Understand the actual hard theory then go back and interpret that statement.

>>9488312
I checked his daughters instagram and by the looks of that, it seems she is anything but fucked.
Dating a literal 10/10 male specimen too.

I don't mean that some social media portrayal of yourself has any actual value but just pointing that out.

>>9488694
Wait wait - and this will blow your mind - what if I actually understand the theory behind it and it's YOU who is wrong? Crazy, right?

Nice moving of the goal post though:
>communists don't say this, it's just a pop culture thing
>okay yes he said that but he didn't mean it
>a-and even if he did, it's not wrong

Tell me how that principle can work without there being someone who judges someone's ability and who judges someone's needs, huh?

>>9488694
>principal
really made me think

>>9488693
These people are clearly part of some cult and I'm pretty convinced Jordan fucks his daughter.

>>9488706
Because no one is forcing you to work in Communism anymore than Capitalism. Your original statement before you dragged out this tirade was based on an otherwise legitimate reading of that phrase that is unfortunately for you completely outside the domains of the actual theory behind it.

>>9488152
They targeted anyone who wasn't Jewish or Muslim, shlomo

>>9488715
So in your opinion, "I don't feel like working and never will, others will work for my needs" is compatible with "From each according to his ability?", yes?

Jordan Peterson is merely the philosopher of the Alt-Lite. Who would care about him other than to see the degenerates who protest him?

>>9488736
It is perfectly compatible as far as the person does not have to be forced as a consequence, even if it is not desirable.

File: PEPE.png (2MB, 1114x624px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1114x624px

Why does /lit/ hate him so much? I don't see anything wrong in his lectures, speeches, and interviews; the opposite in fact.

>>9488746
But if I am skilled but don't work out of laziness, I am not "giving according to my ability". You can either force me or make an exception to your rule.

>>9488758
Because LGBT, contrarians and Marxists are overrepresented on /lit/. Pretty simple.

File: 535405660_d2956b1827_b.jpg (388KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1024x765px

>>9487945
All the pol autists don't like that he's a communist because everyone on their imageboard said that its bad.
Teenagers come to this website to be edgy and then try to out edgy each other leading to a shit ideology.

>>9488763
Again the proposition is what describing is desired in society, not an unquestionable order to everyone ordained from God.
You wouldn't be an exception you'd just be a lazy dipshit same as now.

>>9488767
Or maybe they don't like communists because of all the people who died and die today because of communists but hey, why be introspective if you can just insult everyone else and keep the bubble intact.

File: 1493998634720.png (111KB, 1392x936px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1392x936px

>>9488758
He's the definition of a pseud.
His theory is based around flimsy philosophy masked as science and flimsy science masked as philosophy. He dismisses influencial philosophers whose conclusions he doesn't like without even attempting to understand them. Then he goes on to lable everyone that finds disagreement with him or proposes things he doesn't like as "Neo-Marxists", reducing the complexity of modern discourse to his own adolescent fantasy of good vs evil.

>>9488775
>introspective
>Muh 60 gorillion kosacks!

>>9488769
So you're now saying
>well yeah it doesn't really work but that's our utopia anyway
Conveniently ignoring that this very problem came up in every socialist country ever (including Venezuela right now) where the slogan is being applied and enforced brutally, with the "needy" being those who are most loyal to the party.

>>9488781
Which again is completely irrelevant as this whole discussion has been about how such things are not intrinsic IDEAL of Communism even if your view they are inevitable consequences of an attempt towards it.

>>9488778
I know people here get very triggered by his attacks on postmodernists and Marxists, so let me ask another way:
Disregarding HOW he comes to his practical conclusions, do you diagree with his observations on SJWs, deconstructionists influencing policy like bill C-16, the state of the humanities, political radicals being motivated by resentment, etc.?

>>9488780
>Venezuela is doing amazing, 10/10 society

File: P8THZLBd.jpg (42KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x400px

>>9488775
he has rejected much of what communism has done while still supporting the communist ideal. Personally, I don't think zizek is much of a communist, at least from what I've heard and read.
But he says he is, and he might just be trying to be edgy too.
the point is that edgelord teenagers on websites like this are making it look like communism is the enemy (unpopular opinion here guys: Hitler did wrong!), spouting unfunny 'kek' memes, and ultimately being embarrassing to anyone with any sense.

>>9488789
If your ideal is JUST "No one has to work and resources will still be there in abundance so there is zero conflict as to allocating them", yeah, your ideal is flawless.
But calling that a system or philosophy is stupid. You don't go beyond a child saying "I wish everyone had everything they wanted so there'd be no conflict".

But as soon as you add some substance to how it will actually work short of food randomly dropping from the sky, it becomes flawed because you have to determine who owns things, who works for things, who allocates things. And communism does that - in a flawed and unfair way.

File: 1493900572015.jpg (77KB, 491x491px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 491x491px

>>9488799

>>9488797
No I do agree with his observations as far as these problems clearly "exist" in one form or another. My problem though is that in the face of a breakdown of a breakdown of any rigorous principals or justification in the humanities that has led to the radical contradictions in conceptions of reality and language he butts head with all he offers is an equally flimsy and laughably unsubstanciated reading of society and culture.

Cancer fighting cancer as far as I'm concerned.

>>9488799
Which is exactly what Peterson speaks out against "oh yeah THOSE communists did a bad job but if I was in charge.."

>are making it look like communism is the enemy
But you see how people on this board defend communism to their death, what's edgy about being horrified by that and arguing against it?
I agree about unfunny and edgy memes but in all honesty, I don't see much of that from the right-wingers on /lit/. The leftists seem much more childish to me, but I'm biased of course.

>>9488820
>what's edgy about being horrified by that and arguing against it?

Because its exactly like Atheists crying about how the Cross isn't seen with the same revulsion as the Swastika despite how many died from people acting in its name

>>9488814
>Croat assmad Slovenes have relevant thinkers

>>9488816
>principals
Are you the same communist from earlier or is this word (ironically) really so hard for leftists?

And he's obviously simplifying Marxism, Neomarxism and postmodernism and throwing it all in one pot, but I feel like that's mostly for the sake of brevity because he isn't lecturing about these movements, he's lecturing about today's consequences.

I don't find his reading of society laughable at all, I guess that's a matter of opinion. But if you agree with his conclusions, it might be worth it to think again whether his reasoning doesn't make some sense, too?

>>9488826
I don't understand.
Do you deny that the horrors of communism are talked about much less than the horrors of nazism?
That you can openly be a Maoist in academia and face less trouble than if you use the wrong pronouns?

>>9488837
Except I only agree with his conclusions as far as they are common sense observations of reality that any 12 year old on /v/ could tell you like SJWs are retarded and many people are passing themselves off as academics while spewing little more than their homespun ideology. Its not in any way a contribution to me and the logic he forwards as a consequence of it is just poisoning the well further.

>>9488198
>Because communism is at least good in theory.
You (and people like you) make me sick. What's even more infuriating is the fact that most of you apostles of communism were fed with a silver spoon, when compared to children in the former URSS. You take for granted all the advantages of your privileges. You have no idea how easy your life is compared to those of a second world country. My country (and its surrounding neighbors) is forever doomed thanks to Bolsheviks' legacy. I wish all of your kind would go to an uninhabited island and form your nu-communism there.

File: 5152719+_5b7a31230ba901cda2229559b845df88.jpg (59KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 380x380px

>>9488871
>listening to third worlders

>>9488852
Well, do you agree that the left is stifling free speech and how important it is to have a dialogue instead?
Do you agree that political activism now comes mostly from resentment and how important it is to look at your own pathologies before trying to change the world?

I don't see how that is poisoning the well in any way.

>>9488871
I agree but it's a waste of time.. it's just a repetition of the game with all the French academics and champagne socialists who straight up deny any of the atrocities as they are reported live to them

>>9488881
>Well, do you agree that the left is stifling free speech and how important it is to have a dialogue instead?

No I think certain people who are little more than Left of center are stifling free speech. The same people that rejected and slandered Bernie Sanders on ridiculous claims of his campaign being sexist. The Left is no monolith.
Nor do I think pathologies or any ideology can be reduced to such a simple moralistic notion as resentment. They're all historically constituted and they're all operated in logical structures that preceded any single individual.
Self awareness if of course always good but its foolish to ever presume you have a monopoly over it and Peterson certainly does not in my view.

>>9488810
I'm not who you're responding to but the interesting thing is right wing libertarians are demand side Malthusians while "leftists" into ecology are essiently supply side Malthusians.
You can't talk about "scarcity" as a constraint when capitalism itself is premised on the notion of resource scarcity not being really a long run problem e.g. conservatives use Julian Simon to attack ecology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon#Theory
Long run prices of materials should always form a sort of bell curve. They start off useless, we find a use for them, we demand them more making them more expensive, research into alternatives become profitable, a break through comes and drives down costs, demand for old material goes down radically.
If demand were socialized it should just speed up this process. We don't demand everything today so we don't get it but if we did why couldn't we? Communism must be premised on a different technological infrastructure than what exists today e.g. fusion technology overcoming energy constraints, high degree of automation in core industries driving necessary labour down to a minimum, etc but this is all within our reach

File: image.jpg (92KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x536px

>>9488810
>If your ideal is JUST "No one has to work and resources will still be there in abundance so there is zero conflict as to allocating them", yeah, your ideal is flawless.

>it's another "anon does not know the first thing about communism, and has approached it only through the arguments of anti-communists"

>>9488778
Peterson is a Jung scholar. He clearly doesn't divide the world into the good side and the bad side.
You can make the case that he divides the world between people who try consciously to get away with manipulation, political agenda and lying and the people who are not. And there is nothing wrong with that because deception, betrayal and lying make dialog impossible.

File: like ugh.jpg (3KB, 94x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 94x125px

>all the college boy commies ITT

wew

>>9488898
I'd argue that Clinton was not very far-left and even she took part in the silencing of people through social shaming etc.
Regardless - I don't care to argue about labels, I'll say "a big number of people who identify as left".

>Nor do I think..
Well, we disagree then. I think the motives driving us are relatively simple and not historically constituted; the psychological and evolutionary approach makes more sense to me.
At the very least it seems obvious to me that a hashtag like "Kill all white men" is not born from the need for compassion and giving minorities a voice and whatever else.

>>9488904
>Communism must be premised on a different technological infrastructure than what exists today e.g. fusion technology overcoming energy constraints, high degree of automation in core industries driving necessary labour down to a minimum, etc but this is all within our reach
tl;dr "utopia works if we live in utopia"
I mean, yeah, if everyone can have everything they want and don't even need to work for it either, then we can talk about a lot of big changes. I mean, Venezuela came pretty close to it (endless oil fields that you don't even need to work on because you can "rent them out" to foreigners) and it still shows all the same problems as the Soviet Union.
But I'd be very careful of anyone demanding to just be put into power and they'll deliver utopia.

>>9488923
>I don't have any argument against what you said but here's a picture of some laughing girls so I win

tfw marxism was finally slain on /lit/

Finally we can have a good board again, lefties get OUT

>>9488970
>are relatively simple and not historically constituted

What you think people came up with gender fluidity out of thin air?
Get the fuck out of here, you're mumbling pure ideology now

>>9488970
>tl;dr "utopia works if we live in utopia"
but how is that "utopian", near infinite energy and the general abolition of most work aren't abstract postulates but the actual product of forces underway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
if wind mills gave you feudalism, steam engines capitalism, then fully harnessing things at the atomic level will give you communism
venezuelan/soviet citizens were always poor, the state bureaucracies never gave them anything they were just expected to work for pennies

File: 1492812433865.jpg (51KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x640px

>>9486035

why do I love this man so much /lit/?
Do i actualy have a father problem?

>>9489128
You're under read and his ill-founded sense of certainty based on sentimental nonsense is comforting for the weak minded. In other words yeah

>>9489128
As an alternative explanation to >>9489139:
It has become so rare for anyone to openly speak their mind and stand up for what they believe in, to ask for dialogue instead of radicalism, to take certain concerns seriously, to be articulate and charismatic, that you're drawn to it when everyone else you see on your screen is just a puppet or there because of a pc quota.

But you're free to keep internalising the social shaming and seek the fault with yourself.

File: tw7r69L0.jpg (104KB, 898x893px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 898x893px

>>9489188
>It has become so rare for anyone to openly speak their mind and stand up for what they believe in, to ask for dialogue instead of radicalism, to take certain concerns seriously, to be articulate and charismatic, that you're drawn to it when everyone else you see on your screen is just a puppet or there because of a pc quota.

Looks like you're forgetting someone

>>9489194
>Things are bad because they're bad
Wow, I now believe in objective morality.

>>9486421
joe rogan is so fucking cute

>>9489108
If you believe "gender fluidity" is the underlying motivation that drives the public discourse, it's not me who is mumbling pure ideology..

>>9489121
There will always be resources that are not abundant. Even if there was infinite energy (and we are really, really far away from that), the new thing will be "clean air" or "enough room".
Which leads to my second point: Our current society is already a utopia in the eyes of our ancestors: No one is forced to work, no one starves, no one is freezing. But we always come up with new needs and with new ways to compare ourselves to our neighbours and to make up hierarchies, partially because for millions of years every social animal has internalised a need for hierarchies.
So again, I am very careful of people pretending they can know what the future will be like just based on one small technological change.
I'm also very careful of people acting like THIS TIME something will work that has completely failed a dozen times before.

Venezuela has abundant energy at their disposal, and they could live like Saudi Arabia. They could implement the utopian communism. And they did, on paper. Marxists around the world were celebrating Chavez and Maduro. Now we see the results. But yeah yeah, not "real socialism" once more.

>>9489194
I don't know much about Harris but I said "rare" not "nonexistent" and I suppose people mostly like him for the same reason.

Just like modern atheism is mostly a reaction to being told something dumb and being expected to go along with it. If creationism, the Catholic church, hypocritical Republicans and so on disappeared and every theist or bible-fan was like Peterson, I doubt we'd see any radical atheism. Even people like Dawkins are regretting their edgy anti-Christian pursuits.

>>9488970
>>I don't have any argument against what you said but here's a picture of some laughing girls so I win

Dude, you're idea of communism is

>No one has to work and resources will still be there in abundance so there is zero conflict as to allocating them

And you still want to be taken seriously? Dig a hole in the ground and hide yourself in it

>>9489225
>If you believe "gender fluidity" is the underlying motivation that drives the public discourse, it's not me who is mumbling pure ideology..

Yes of course the concept is driving public discourse, the fact we're talking about it right now as an example makes that self evident.
Its driving discourse in tandem with a billion other motivating factors that all came about through the historic developement of our society none of which can not be simply reduced to our innate psychology.
Everything is very simple to understand once you put blinders on yourself to exclude consideration of everything that falls outside your structured perspective.

>>9489256
1) I'm not much of a grammar Nazi since this isn't my native language either but your/you're makes me really skeptical that I should value someone else's thoughts higher than my own. I'm really trying to be open-minded but that adds some bias.

2) No, that was my satirical summary of what someone else tried to pass off as communism in order to dodge my arguments about the allocation of resources.

Go ahead and give your idea of communism.
It will either be "well in utopia.." or it will have to face the problem that SOMEONE has to allocate resources and deal with the fact that we're not all equal.
In socialism, it's very clear who that is. Communism always dodges that problem because of said "well in a utopia there are no problems like that.."

>>9489278
>I'm not much of a grammar Nazi since this isn't my native language either but your/you're makes me really skeptical that I should value someone else's thoughts higher than my own. I'm really trying to be open-minded but that adds some bias.

What a fucking a twat

What do you guys think of his reading list?
http://jordanbpeterson.com/2017/03/great-books/
>>9488298
In Prozac Nation the author claiming she had depressive episodes around that age. Not that I am recommending the book it's pretty dry.

>>9489261
Like I said, I simply disagree and believe certain psychological explanations instead of considering them ideology.

I do not believe that when thousands of people get into a heated debate over Peterson, the reason is "gender fluidity". I do not believe people try to get him fired because they care that much about gender fluidity. I do not think people who write "Kill all white men" on Twitter are acting on behalf of a complex theory that they're summing up - I believe we're ruled by much more simple motivations like resentment, a need for attention, a need to place ourselves in a hierarchy via signalling of virtue or status, and so on.

I'm not ideological about it either, I think people on the right do just the same thing.

>>9489300
You're not wrong but it's really hard to take someone seriously when they're pretending to know more about complex belief systems than you but would fail high school with their writing. This also goes to the Marxist earlier who kept calling everyone retarded because they didn't understand "basic principals".

>>9489316
Does auto-correct not exist in your third world shithole?

>>9489306
>I do not believe that when thousands of people get into a heated debate over Peterson, the reason is "gender fluidity"

Well it clearly fucking is if thats what the debate is surrounding, it may not be the sole reducible reason but nothing is and thats the point. Its the culmination of history

>>9489306
what's the point of such reductionism? you just end up walking around missing the forrest.

>>9489334
If you cannot even see how the debate is, if anything, over compelled speech and not over "gender fluidity", then you disqualify yourself.

>durr it's the culmination of history but fuck that Peterson guy all he says is so vague

>>9489342
Because he wants to say stupid shit like "they're driven by resentment", and he does this by constructing a notion of psychology which suggests that people in the situation in which he frames they could be acting this way only through the motivator of resentment

Pseud101

File: harold-bloom1.jpg (240KB, 1014x986px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1014x986px

>>9489350
If its about gender fluidity its about fucking gender fluidity. How daft are you. It might be about more than gender fluidity but that doesn't stop it being about gender fluidity

>>9489240
Nah modern atheists are just angry because mommy obligated them to go to the church. Then they use dumb theists as a scapegoat against theism as a whole.
You're drowning in ideology if you think that charlatans like Harris are a mere healthy reaction against le dumb christian fundamentalists. Writing books against certain ideas for international audiences surprisingly gives you money.
If dumb atheists didn't exist I doubt we would see radical theists.

>>9489278
>I'm not much of a grammar Nazi since this isn't my native language either but your/you're makes me really skeptical that I should value someone else's thoughts higher than my own. I'm really trying to be open-minded but that adds some bias.

I'm Italian and I've started learning English only recently (4 months ago), mainly to shitpost here on /lit/.

>It will either be "well in utopia.." or it will have to face the problem that SOMEONE has to allocate resources
Not once the line of production and distribution will be fully automatized. This is why, according to Marx, the existence of capitalism was not only necessary, but also propedeutic to the formation of this ideal society.

>and deal with the fact that we're not all equal.
There can be some levelling. Even under actual communism, orchestras will need a director, and labs will need organizers.
People may not be equal, but this does not imply that any of them deserve to starve, or be enslaved. We're not equal, but at the same time we're not THAT different.

You're making a classic mistake, which is to equate every leftist position to absolute egalitarianism, which is instead a very rare stance.

>In socialism, it's very clear who that is.
It is if you're completely pblivious to what are the actual material conditions that were inherent to evry single one of the most influential socialist experiments.
Should I be shocked by the fact that, in order to make socialism work in a failed (most of the time downright feudal) country, dictators have to accept extreme, almost inhuman compromises?
And more importantly, should I expect these compromises to be inherent to the system itself, rather than the country in which it took place?
Do you think that if tomorrow Germany beckmes a socialist a country, with the support of the West in its entirety, they will have to deal with horrors sich as the persecution of Kulaks, or mass relocations, gulags, economic planning and so on?
We won't have to build the infrastructures under socialism, for they are already here, meaning that most of the tragedies that the USSR and CCP have endured are completely outside of our context.

By the way I'm not a commie, I'm just a guy who thinks it's not that smart to reduce 200 years of global pondering into a one-line strawman.
If you want to debate it, at the very least learn the very first thing about it.

>>9488204
>These lying murderers tell me what I want to hear
>These Germans boast their empty rhetoric for domestic purposes

>>9489342
Aren't you rather missing the forest if you pretend it's really about every single tree/issue like "mansplaining" instead of seeing the motivation (e.g. resentment) behind it?

Unless of course you believe there are no ulterior motivations and people really yell, scream and issue death threats not because of their own pathologies but because it's the right way to care about an issue.

>>9489354
Okay, let's be very clear: Do you really think SJWs are not driven by resentment?
I mean, I doubt you'd deny that modern right-wing Hooligans round up foreigners just for ideological and scientific reasons but hey, maybe you really are this funny. Then we should stop bothering with a debate.

>>9489360
I don't think the term "gender fluidity" has been used once in all those interviews, debates and lectures..
Certainly not in any meaningful quantity. He also said that he'd use gender-neutral pronouns and is just against the way the particular law is written.
Are you content if I say "the debate is ALMOST not at all about it" instead of "not at all"?

>>9489372
You're the type of retarded cunt that constructs a strawman out of every argument he doesn't agree with and then goes on to ignore everytime the strawman is corrected rather than take the humility of admitting your mistake.

No one here has ever implied that they have other motives, on the contrary I would say there is absolutely no such thing as a pure motivation. Its you who insists that a complex debate like this can come down to such an emotional and simplistic framing.

>>9489410
>Are you content if I say "the debate is ALMOST not at all about it" instead of "not at all"?

Yes because thats a God damn world of different aint it

>>9489372
I have no idea what this even means. mansplaining, what?

>>9489410
not that guy but we're all driven by resentment you fucking low-test idiot. it's just not letting it decide what you do ala shooting up a mall, climbing the social ladder at any cost. this idea that we need to get rid of it is fucking retarded.

>>9489363
>Not once the line of production and distribution will be fully automatized
First off, that's just utopia again. We will never automate everything. Maybe people will stop standing behind a factory machine, but they will still have to plan things, repair things, adapt to changes, and so on.
So to avoid arguing in the vacuum of utopia where anything can work because you defeated scarcity, maybe it's easier to explain our differences on the example of socialism.
So I ask - would you defend socialism in the same way?

>There can be some levelling
We have seen again and again and again and again how that works and where it leads. I do not want to be leveled, retrained, or anything else.
We're not talking about letting anyone starve - no one is starving under capitalism either. We're talking about: Does everyone receive the same amount of luxury, regardless of their ability or productivity? Are some people more deserving because they are female, black, handicapped? Who decides these things?
And I will go one step further: I don't think people want to be equal. I don't think they want for everyone to be and have the same. I think people like hierarchies. But that's not even the issue.

>almost inhuman compromises
That's a funny description of mass murder but okay..

>And more importantly, should I expect these compromises to be inherent to the system itself, rather than the country in which it took place?
That's the beauty - no one can PROVE the flaws are inherent. All we have is one experiment after the other showing the same flaws, people giving good explanations as to why these flaws are inherent, and then you have to decide which side makes more sense.

>Do you think that if tomorrow Germany beckmes a socialist a country, with the support of the West in its entirety
You do realise how stupid that sounds considering Germany literally split up into a socialist and a capitalist side before, with the socialist side having the support of the East, and we could watch one develop into a free and wealthy society and the other into an oppressive, economically failing regime?
Jesus, you people..

>>9489415
>>9489424
I will rephrase then: I believe these people, especially SJW, are driven by relatively simple psychological motives such as a need for attention, identity, having a clear enemy, fitting in with a group etc., than they are by the scientific and historical concepts they use as their banner.
I won't deny there is SOME interest in those issues, just as there may be some valid root to xenophobia, but insist that the Hooligan thugs beating up a foreigner for his skin colour aren't acting out a scientific theory of racism but enjoy the sense of superiority, group identity, and whatever else.

Does that make sense? Because if you still disagree, I really have no idea what your problem is.

>>9489429
It's the kind of horrible issue that would prompt someone to say "kill all men" but totally not out of emotional reasons but just because it's really so terrible ;^)

>>9489434
>but we're all driven by resentment
Uhh you're confirming my point but thanks. I'd also argue it's better to work on our resentment than to let it guide our decision-making as evidenced by your anger issues but hey, whatever.

>>9489506
so. mansplaining prompts people to say "kill all men"? see what I mean about this kind of reductionism. you've got not choice to make massive leaps of logic due to the self-limited information.

>>9489474
>We're not talking about letting anyone starve - no one is starving under capitalism either.

This sentence makes your whole post is invalid. Jump off the propaganda train, senpai.

>I don't think they want for everyone to be and have the same.
And so did Marx. Personal and private property are very different things.

>>9489225
>There will always be resources that are not abundant.
So what? People don't want abstract "resources" they want finished consumable goods. Scarcity of the products people actually want are intentional today e.g. crops are burnt so they remain profitable, intellectual "property" is used to inflate costs or keep supply down to a bare minimum and prices at a maximum

>Our current society is already a utopia in the eyes of our ancestors: No one is forced to work, no one starves, no one is freezing
1. that's far from true globally, most of the world lives in abject poverty still
2. you can't just impute what you view as good into the minds of people in the palaeolithic, bronze age, feudal times, etc... our ancestors could view contemporary society as being characterized by pathological insanity and not desirable at all
>we always come up with new needs and with new ways to compare ourselves to our neighbours and to make up hierarchies, partially because for millions of years every social animal has internalised a need for hierarchies.
Development raises what's perceived as "needs" to new levels, that's progressive, retrograding would be bad.
Natural hierarchies biologically exist (gender, physical strength, etc) but all social hierarchies are just justified by hucksters to maintain their power. We don't have "internal needs for hierarchies" we have developed social hierarchies as a mater of policy for reasons of control/"efficiency". There's no "internalised" need for priests, kings, etc. Knowledge is mythologized/monopolized to an elite to create hierarchies.

>Venezuela has abundant energy at their disposal, and they could live like Saudi Arabia. They could implement the utopian communism. And they did, on paper. Marxists around the world were celebrating Chavez and Maduro. Now we see the results. But yeah yeah, not "real socialism" once more.
Chavez was modest and tried to recreate a type of western european social democracy in latin america, living standards for most Venezuelans rose under him but ya in the end it failed for a number of reasons [primarily never trying to move the economy beyond being centred heavily on oil which triggered the whole mess today along with the mismanagement under Maduro]. Saudi Arabias favourable position is a result of pure geopolitics not their resources (US support for radical Sunni Islam and Saudi Arabia being the heart of spreading that ideology globally).

>>9489506
>implying anger is a bad thing
>"working" on resentment
You're just low-test don't worry about it.

How am I agreeing with you when you're implying that we should "work on resentment"? Unsurprisingly you try to agree where there is no agreement.
There's a difference between being driven by resentment and consumed by it, something submissives like you will never understand.

>>9489514
I thought the smiley at the end made it clear but that was sarcasm..

But anyway - yes, I am being reductionist for the sake of brevity.
I hope you will agree that there is no good reason for a 25 year old Western woman to unironically write "Kill all men" or "Kill all white men" on Twitter, right?
So a huge part of the motivation behind that must be more than "rational", right?
And do you not think that a big part of what makes someone say "kill all xy" is resentment?

Genuinely curious how your mind works.

>>9489543
I will be more clear because wow, you guys like to take things literally: Capitalism does not inevitably lead to anyone starving. It is possible to have a capitalist society in which no one starves. I have not heard of a single adult human starving involuntarily in Germany for the past decades.

>>9489566
Most of the products available in Germany comes from countries in which starvation and slavery are accepted. The Made in Germany seal is way less common than you might think. Also virtually every electronic device in your house is made through child labour and slavery.
These are main aspects of the capitalist system, you're willing to discard them only because they conflict with your peaceful capitalist narrative.

>>9489555
you're missing the point. it may be resentment but it's not just resentment. there are a whole range of possible factors. isolating one is not a convincing argument for human motivation. what if it is projection or transference instead? to know that you would have to look at the person as a whole and not just sweeping abstract physiological reductionism.

>>9489550
>People don't want abstract "resources" they want finished consumable goods
I don't think you understand what "resources" means. I am not talking about crop as opposed to a finished bread. What the hell kind of arbitrary distinction is that. Consumable goods are also resources. You've never read a single economics book, have you?

>intellectual "property" is used to inflate costs or keep supply down to a bare minimum and prices at a maximum
Oh you're that kind of socialist.. let me tell you, as someone who actually studied intellectual property law it's very tempting to disregard everything coming from you now.

> that's far from true globally
OUR society, I said OUR society.

>you can't just impute what you view as good into the minds of people in the palaeolithic, bronze age, feudal times
If you think people in these times did not see having better working conditions, not starving and not freezing as good.. I don't know what to tell you, you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing now. Don't act like a teenager.

>Saudi Arabias favourable position is a result of pure geopolitics
Geopolitics made sure they don't get annihilated by Iran e.g., but oil is oil and it basically sells by itself. Even Isis does a better job at selling their oil than Venezuela.

Aaand you're ignoring all my other points. Seriously, not everything you write is wrong but consider opening your mind about some viewpoints.

>>9489552
You agreed with me because my entire point was that those people are driven by resentment and not by scientific enlightenment.
The rest of your post just makes me laugh, keep being an angsty teenager and think Notes from the Underground is a hero's story haha.

>>9489587
No, you're missing the point but we're getting closer to understanding each other.

I am absolutely granting that there is more than one factor. Even the ones they write on their banner will play SOME role. And beyond resentment, I gave a couple of others, such as signalling virtue or status, having a group identity, our inherent need for attention, and so on.
I think our main difference is that I believe these are more important than those people (and you) are willing to admit, and that I find the case that is made for this hypothesis quite convincing.

You can have the opinion they only have a minimal influence, of course, but I gave the examples of the Nazi attacking a foreigner or the Twitter activist wanting to kill all men and you never answered about those. Do you not believe these people are driven mostly by relatively simple psychological motives rather than a true belief in their ideology?

>>9489597
And peterson is driven by scientific enlightenment? Haha.
He's just preaching nu-christianity and "resentment is bad" is basically "forgive and forget". Keep on being submissive and stupid though.

>>9489506
>are driven by relatively simple psychological motives such as a need for attention, identity, having a clear enemy, fitting in with a group etc.

Not one of those motives are simple whatsoever. They're only simple if you're a pseud and you simply leave these trite observations as platitudes

>>9489610
you're tarring everything as resentment when that's not the case but because you sideline a whole range of things, you'll always make that mistake.

I don't believe there is anyway you can seperate psychological, ideological, and experiential factors. doing so is reductionist beyond any understanding, hence my first question which you never answered.

>>9489633
He's a clinical psychologist so I feel like it makes sense for him to say "resentment is bad"?
I mean, you're unironically telling me that anger issues are a healthy sign of being an alpha male.. Note I'm saying "anger issues", not "being angry for a legitimate reason". How am I supposed to feel anything but pity for you?

File: 1463827736143.png (504KB, 454x600px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 454x600px

>>9489610
> Do you not believe these people are driven mostly by relatively simple psychological motives rather than a true belief in their ideology?

*sniff* *sniff*

>>9489649
>Note I'm saying "anger issues", not "being angry for a legitimate reason".

So basically you're saying absolutely nothing

>>9489649
You sound like such a faggot

>>9489636
Nothing is simple all things considered. But if a man got rejected as a child and develops a superiority complex afterwards, I would call that context relatively simple - even if there is a lot to it.
Whereas if that man had a great childhood, it would be more obscure where his problems come from.

Yes, that is somewhat reductionist but that doesn't mean you can't draw valid connections or conclusions without always accounting for everything. If you deny that, we can stop talking here.

>>9489647
I didn't mean to ignore anything, what do you refer to?
And I feel you are sidelining a lot more than me - the only thing I am (mostly, not completely) sidelining is the thing people write on their official banner when they do something.

If someone protests against the 1% in the US while carrying an iPhone, then my "reductionist" view is that he is mainly motivated by things like wanting a group identity, wanting an easy enemy, jealousy, and so on. That's all. You however act like it's a complete mystery and just too complex what motivates this person and the best way to start looking is not psychology but the sign he's carrying on a stick.

>>9489654
If you can't tell the difference between those two you're kind of stupid, what can I say?

>>9489671
>you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded man
They made a whole movie about people like you.

File: not pleased.jpg (49KB, 481x469px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 481x469px

>>9489684
>I would call that context relatively simple - even if there is a lot to it.

Take a breather and read what you just wrote please.
No the example you gave is not fucking simple, why did he react to rejection with a superiority complex over the numerous other possible responses that he could have had to that situation? Is it even appropriate to ever simplify a large possible range of similar attitudes to a single category of "superiority complex"?

Again you're mistaking simplicity for the point in time where you arbitrarily decide to stop fucking thinking about something

>>9489691
>If you can't tell the difference between those two you're kind of stupid, what can I say?

No you're the retarded one because you don't even notice how contentless your speech is. You literally just asked a person
"Is X healthy? Keep in mind I'm talking about the unhealthy type of X not when X is healthy"
Totally tautological

>>9489684
as I said, could be transference, could be projection, could be rhetorical etc. you'll never know because you refuse, for example, to take qualitative evidence seriously.

I'm not sidelining anything, that's the point of a multitude of information.

>>9489597
I am claiming there isn't even any substantial issue with resources for what is needed by the bulk of the population today beyond artificial barriers created and reinforced by governments to allow private interests to capture and redistribute value upwards to themselves. If you broke it down an enormous bulk of the costs of production is going towards rentier overhead in one form or another i.e. being expropriated in the inflated cost of consumer goods or taxation on workers income to pay the interest on government issued bonds and other expenditure which in the final analysis is just benefiting private capital.

Also "people", generally, WERE NOT worrying about starving or freezing in the palaeolithic! These worries EMERGED with agriculture and class society and a fixed division of labour when we were domesticated see 'Stone Age Economics' by Marshall Sahlins

It is difficult coming from within to see but OUR contemporary society is completely pathological, largly in the West/Middle East as a result of Abrahamic religions, because of somatosensory deprivation, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3aKkOesG00

>>9488799
Adolescent belief in communism/Marxism is quickly replaced when you read Hegel and realize he's far better.

>>9489649
>He's a clinical psychologist so I feel like it makes sense for him to say "resentment is bad"?
Haha.
>alpha male
LMAO that's your own insecurity talking. Any healthy male has anger, it's about getting it under control and using it productively.
>Note I'm saying "anger issues", not "being angry for a legitimate reason"
You're that special kind of loser so obsessed with approval that in your quest to never get angry you don't realize what makes you angry. Like I said, people like you will never get it.

>>9488698
>>9488312
She got better due to a diet that also helps her with her condition (forgot what it was, something p serious)
And his kids aren't fucked up, his son is doing well and Peterson is obviously a success as well.
Stop diagnosing people over the internet.
t. person who watched his latest Q&A

File: 1444737759053.jpg (47KB, 650x427px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 650x427px

>>9489716
>She got better after growing up and relying on a different male figure than her father

Interesting

>>9489696
>relatively
>relatively
>relatively
You're trying so hard to argue you don't stop for a second to think. Yes, complex things can be relatively easy to things that are far more complex - as outlined in my example..

And your problem is that you don't understand the concept of predictability. If a piece of information is enough to warrant predictability, then yes, it works to be "reductionist" about it because it is sufficient.

If you have 8/10 of the common symptoms of an illness and the doctor diagnoses you accordingly, he's also being "reductionist" because it might be something else entirely and because he's not taking into account all the more far-fetched symptoms.
This might be wrong on occasion, but it's not a bad concept in itself and it leads to better results than yelling "well we can't know anything" or "let's listen to the patient's self-diagnosis".

But you won't get that or even engage with it and keep being angry.

>>9489719
What makes you say she is relying on another male?

>>9489726
Because she's married now and moved out obviously

>>9489702
I agree it is tautological - because "anger issues" is by definition something negative so someone acting like it's a good thing to have them is nonsensical.

So if someone comes to you saying "I'm a better human than you because I have AIDS and in some way that makes my life better because I've become more introspective", there isn't much to do except laugh.

>>9489706
>Also "people", generally, WERE NOT worrying about starving or freezing in the palaeolithic!
W-what?

>>9489737
Obviously but you never once justified that the anger you are referring to was irrational rather than legitimate.

>>9489709
>Any healthy male has anger, it's about getting it under control
And "anger issues" is defined by anger you do not have under control.

How can you be so stupid lmao?

File: 3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>9489746
>And "anger issues" is defined by anger you do not have under control.

>>9489744
???
I would argue that "anger issues" rules out legitimate anger. If someone rapes your child and you go on a rampage, people would call that a bunch of things but not "anger issues" I believe.

>>9489732
Isn't that the majority of women?
Why point out the normality?

>>9489752
Christ you are slow. The person you responded to said who are you to speak of the anger driving the Liberals as inherently wrong, if there is legitimate anger then you have to justify why the Liberals anger is not legitimate.

But of course psychology is so simple so why would you consider this far.

>>9489746
And? You're not really making any point there.
Either way, it's pretty common for males in their late teens to early 20s to have anger issues. You either fix this by manning up and getting shit done or you "work on your resentment" :^)

>>9489742
Hunter gathers had a different relationship with nature, they had essiently total abundance when it came to meeting their demands since they had few. Beyond being on guard to not be killed by a predator you didn't have whatever sort of existential fears that emerged after the first crop failures and famines were faced later down the road. When you depend on farming you develop a different relationship and type of dependency on nature that didn't exist before.

>>9489783
Different guy but then this becomes a question about a return to scarcity in a hypothetical post fusion era. It will necessarily return if the human population boomed to Coruscant tier levels.
Hard to imagine but then so was the population rise in the last century

>>9489756
Its more once she slipped out from under the thumb of an unstable quack she got better seems more of a compelling concidence than her "diet" magically fixing her depression

>>9489769
The argument was about whether resentment plays a big role, not whether it was legitimate or not. It also wasn't about whether the anger is directed at the right enemy, which would be my main point.

But if a fat tumblr activist spews hate about skinny bitches who are unhealthy and should go eat a burger, I feel like it's not rocket science to go out on a limb that a big part of that is redirecting the anger they feel towards themselves.
Please tell me if you disagree with that assumption.

>>9489771
>It's okay if I have anger issues (i.e. anger I cannot control) because I can control my anger
And exactly, you go fix it. You don't pretend it makes you better.
A child who gets abused and keeps lashing out at strangers afterwards isn't more masculine or dominant, it just has issues it can hopefully fix.

>>9489802
Diets often fix mental blocks in people, in fact she recommended he follow that same diet and lo and behold, Peterson looks much, much better.
He used to look like the OP image and was speaking of health issues, compare him to now.
A diet that fits you and regular exercise is sufficient for a lot of people who think they're depressed.
Again, stop diagnosing entire families over the internet.

>>9489804
>The argument was about whether resentment plays a big role, not whether it was legitimate or not.

>X people are bad because they're angry!
>So what whats wrong with being angry?
>Are you saying its ok to have unhealthy anger?
>But how do you know their anger is unhealthy?
>This has nothing to do with whether their anger is justified or not

So this is the power of Peterson...

>>9489814
> in fact she recommended he follow that same diet and lo and behold, Peterson looks much, much better.

lel I think that might have more to do with the tens of thousands of dollars a month he's started jewing out of his culties

>>9489783
>Hunter-gatherers were less dependent on nature
>Hunter-gatherers lived in total abundance
>Hunter-gatherers did not have to worry about freezing or starving
>Losing crops is a completely different existential beast than tracking an animal for three days, losing it and dying because of that

I don't know what we're even arguing about but either way, I cannot understand any of these premises.

>>9489821
Oh yeah, we all know money fixes your health, especially when you go from upper middle class to earning 30k a month extra.
Your trolling skills are weak.

>>9489821
>waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh this man is making money on the internet
>waaaaaaaaah people are giving him money voluntarily in exchange for extra content
>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah capitalism is evil because I can't come up with that same idea

>>9489817
>"Kill all white men"
>wow dude who are you to diagnose me with misplaced and irrational resentment

So this is the power of the SJW...

>>9489827
>Oh yeah, we all know money fixes your health

Yeah it literally does. Not having to stress over a shit tons of things or even go into work anymore is always going to help take the weight off. Statistics show income and mental health is heavily correlated

>>9489832
Not an argument, why not kill all white men?

>>9489837
The upper middle class does not have that stress.
And I can pull up stats of diets helping your mental health too, fucking idiot.
Thing is, one thing he admitted helped him, the other you're just speculating about for what reason I don't know, guess just to frame him as a money grubbing person.

>>9489837
Did you even read his entire post? After a certain point, having more money doesn't do shit to your health.

>>9489791
Economic development has tended to decrease the rate of reproduction wherever it has extensively occurred, if anything you might face the opposite problem to overpopulation.
We don't have to worry about a "post-fusion" economy since we've got all the hydrogen we need throughout the universe, extraterrestrial terraforming would be the biggest practical engineering obstacle to further expansion.

>>9489840
You'll understand why I can only laugh about you

>>9489847
Different guy, and I think I argued this in a different thread already, but "infinite energy" is not the same as "post-scarcity" Scarcity is as fluid as the 1%. We already have enough energy for our basic needs, we just need more for luxury, status and the likes.
So if there is infinite energy, we'll find new ways to define luxury, status and so on. Maybe it will be eating rare animals, maybe it will be having a big garden for yourself, maybe it will mean living in a cool city instead of a shitty urban area, and so on.
Some things will always be more desirable than others, and therefore be scarce.

That's why I don't think technological advance has any big effect on this. We're already "post-scarcity" compared to 1500, but we found new things we want.

File: 20060103_2.gif (7KB, 440x295px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 440x295px

>>9489846
>After a certain point, having more money doesn't do shit to your health.

[citation needed]
Figures suggest a significant rise going from middle class income to wealthy income. Though we don't have the data to suggest either what his previous income was or the statistics that would be associated with it its safe to assume a significant improvement is liable as opposed to diet which shows far less promise as a treatment and rarely promoted by mental health practitioners over other living factors.

>>9489872
How much did Peterson earn before his Patreon?
>as opposed to diet which shows far less promise as a treatment and rarely promoted by mental health practitioners over other living factors.
proofs?

>>9489804
Did you get this pseudo-inspirational trash out of petersons mouth?
You get angry for a reason, just because a special loser like yourself has no idea why doesn't mean other people don't.
You can't "fix anger" without forgetting why you were angry. Then you become the blind weak submissive dog of whatever fucked up thing happens to be acceptable at wherever you are, which I'm sure you enjoy being. Don't worry, Jesus is proud.

>>9489880
>You get angry for a reason, just because a special loser like yourself has no idea why doesn't mean other people don't.
>he thinks resentful people know they're being resentful
>laughing_women.png

>>9489872
Are you stupid?
Your data doesn't show anyone's mental health getting better after earning more money, it shows it's hard to be in the top 10% of earners if you can't even hold a job due to your schizophrenia or whatever.

>>9489832
Your ability to give retarded hyperbolic comparisons and convince yourself into believing anything via rhetoric game is amazing, pretty sure someone could talk you into letting them fuck your girlfriend.

>>9489880
Who hurt you so bad? Do you want to show me on the doll where they touched you?

>>9489887
>I don't know why I get angry so everyone else doesn't
LMAO you're a literal cuck in the making.

>>9489892
Thats the only data we can ever really have, its practically impossible to have a reliable sample of people who suddenly recieve tens of thousands more in income.

>>9489900
What's wrong, you ran out of arguments or something?

>>9489901
>I've never gotten angry in my life
Don't worry you're just low test.

>>9489906
>people are rational!
Hmmm okay sweety plum, that's why people spend billions on therapy and self help books, because they know why they're angry and resentful.

>>9489907
>its practically impossible to have a reliable sample of people who suddenly recieve tens of thousands more in income
We have decent studies about people who win the lottery and rarely get better, usually get worse.

>>9489915
Where's your argument cuck?

>>9489917
You mean angry during debates with strangers on an imageboard? Yeah I'm sure that's just all of your test and your mental health is top notch.

>>9489924
Yes that is an interesting conclusion based on a pool 100% composed of people who play the lottery and not being rewarded directly for being recognized for the passion they dedicated their life to

>>9489922
>Everyone is irrational because I'm irrational
>Everyone uses self-help/therapy because I do

Again you're just equating your own weakness with everyone else which is more sad than anything t b h.

>>9489925
You called my real-life example a hyperbolic "comparison" so you didn't have to address it, then continued with some more insults that make me question your mental health and the quality of your life.

File: 20070410_Lee-Hsien-Loong_0_2_0_0_2_0_0.jpg (26KB, 480x392px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x392px

>>9489922
>he actually buys self help books

>>9489935
You're overrating people, has something to do with how you overrate yourself.
Oh wow this way of arguing is easy, I think I'll call it the strawman argument!
Thanks sweetie pie!
>>9489945
strawman

>>9489931
How am i angry? I think you're just low test m8.

>>9489868
Firstly the bulk of resources that we depend on to power things today are not renewable (beyond hydro/solar/wind but that alone is not enough to power a modern economy and if we had to depend on that we would have to massively lower living standards), eventually at some point they're gone. Without engineering something to replace that crises is inevitable.
Also you have to understand there's billions of dollars invested in all the fixed capital in the oil industry, fusion would massively devaluated all that value destroying many fortunes. Fusion technology could destroy the petrodollar and cause massive inflation since no one would have to accumulate USD to purchase oil; the geopolitical implications would be humongous.
"Scarcity" is a political creation and a technological innovation that creates poverty when plenty should be possible could shifts the balance of power. You can't keep up the illusion that austerity is necessary forever.

>>9489934
You're moving the goal post though, the original argument was about whether just having more money helps.

And if you admit that the "healthy" effect comes from things like enjoying your work being rewarded, then you admit that it's not about making more money.

>>9489942
>You called my real-life example a hyperbolic "comparison"

Cherry picking one of the most extreme statements from the most extreme people from an extreme group you don't like is still hyperbolic dude

>>9489942
Only a retarded person would believe that was true. You're operating on the same logic as all trump supporters are nazis.

>>9489954
Well then its a good thing my proposition was that he is happier as a result of developing a wealthy cult following not that the money itself was intrinsically the cause.

>>9486234
>he's never read campbell
>he's never read jung
>he thinks he knows what he's talking about

SORT

>>9489966
Then why didn't you argue that, instead of saying money makes you happier, even if you were upper middle class before?
Moving the goalposts, sad.

>>9489225
>No one is forced to work, no one starves, no one is freezing
Are you out of your fucking mind?

File: disdain_for_plebs.jpg (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>>9489974
>read campbell and jung

Why would anyone voluntarily do this to themselves

>>9489978
>Then why didn't you argue that
>>9489821 >that might have more to do with the tens of thousands of dollars a month he's started jewing out of his culties

File: 1493627868766.jpg (31KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 413x395px

>>9486348
>it's mostly just /lit/ being three things: gay, Marxist, and, and especially contrarian

>>9489950
Dude I like you because you stay calm and make your points, but you throw so much together that it's hard to follow or make sense of.

Scarcity is not a political creation - it's a matter of a resource being both finite and desirable. That's just basic economics. For example, houses with a nice view of the Alps will always be scarce. Precious metals will always be scarce. And it's not like we NEED to desire precious metals - we do so because we WANT scarcity, because we LIKE concepts like luxury, status and so on. You can say "I hate that" but you'd still have to change human nature.

I think I agree with most of the rest but I don't really see what's supposed to follow from that. We'll replace our struggles around oil with our struggles around something else. In fact, things like water and farming land are already bigger struggles.

>>9486434
>no examples
>just bitching
/persuasive/

>>9489989
Right, if you wanted to say that his mental health was fixed by his ''cult'' you could have argued that, instead you argued that it was the money he got that fixed him.
I also have to say that this is all 100% speculation by you, you're digging in your heals and moving goal posts to prove a point you literally can't prove.
Why are you doing this?

>>9489997
Thats basically all Peterson does

>>9489961
>>9489956
>Only a retarded person would believe that was true
>that was true
What do you mean? Are you saying it's made up?

It's an extreme example, that doesn't make it hyperbolic. I'm not exaggerating real life, I'm taking a real life example.

One both of you do not address.
If you admit "yes okay, in this super extreme example you are right", then we have some common ground and can move forward.

>>9490002
My argument has remained the same, the fact I decided to discuss a tangential topic someone responded to me with out of interest is irrelevant

>>9489947
I'm not overrating people, you're the one overrating how irrational/angry/depressed they are probably because you're that way.
Just accept that you're unable to even discuss things without reaching some happy agreeable end or shifting the focus of discussion because of your submissive character.

>>9487929
so now you admit it was an argument :^)

>>9489980
?
In most Western countries you can be a NEET without ever having to worry about your basic needs. Really not sure what you're talking about.

File: 1396726757482.png (119KB, 372x357px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 372x357px

>>9490009
>It's an extreme example
>I'm not exaggerating real life

>>9490014
Dodging questions.
Tap out of this argument or address my questions.
>>9490016
you're the one overrating how irrational/angry/depressed they are probably because you're that way.

>>9490019
Western world is less than a quarter of the world you dolt, and even then there are homeless people in the whole western world all the same dying for those very reasons.

>>9490022
How about you shove an egg up your ass. Your question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. My motivations whatever they may be are my business and you can carry out any speculation of them on your own clock.

>>9490022
>unironic I know you are but what am I?

>>9490020
Please take a step back, breathe, and then continue the discussion. You're not doing anyone a favour if you act like a rabid animal.
I trust that with a moment to think, you'll see your mistake.

Spoiler: Just because you're talking about the hottest day of the year, you're not exaggerating its temperature.

>>9490016
>you're the one overrating how irrational/angry/depressed they are probably because you're that way.
Based on nothing, there is a reason commercials work, and it's not because those commercials persuade people with arguments of how their product is the best.
If you believe that humans have their emotions in check and act rationally you're behind a few decades.
>Just accept that you're unable to even discuss things without reaching some happy agreeable end
Based on one discussion.
>because of your submissive character.
based on 3 posts.
You're bad at internet diagonsis.

>>9490034
You're happy to call Peterson a liar for saying a diet fixed his health (he had a patreon before he did the diet) but you get pissy because I believe you're arguing from a place of resentment, odd.
>>9490040
I accidentally pressed enter, here you go with drawing conclusions too fast again, learn from this.

>>9488446
>communists think communism is irrelevant to communism

now THIS is cognitive dissonance

>>9490004
>NoUposting
are you even trying
his whole spiel takes the history of marxism as its example

>>9490026
But we were only talking about OUR society and at least my society has free soup kitchens and hostels even AFTER you fail to sign up for the programs that enable your NEET life. In all my life I have not heard of a homeless man starving in my country and I guarantee it would make news.
>several news about Arab immigrants setting them on fire though

>>9489983
so you can know what the fuck you're talking about
so you can understand mythology and its significance in regards to psychology

also you should read the golden bough

>>9490041
> Spoiler: Just because you're talking about the hottest day of the year, you're not exaggerating its temperature

Except you're not you're talking about a whole class of people , I believe you were even refering to them as the entire fucking Left earlier and using the most extreme example possible to talk of them all as inherently irrational
You've been a disingenuous cunt this entire thread and continue to be so

>>9490061
>so you can know what the fuck you're talking about
>so you can understand mythology and its significance in regards to psychology

I don't see how either of the quacks you mention will help towards that

>>9490070
you're obviously not interested in having a discussion and are instead comitted to defending your own ignorance with stupid unjustified verbal barbs

by all means, continue to wallow in ignorance

>>9490066
You are so enraged you are just making stuff up.. I explicitly said to focus on specific people instead of a label like "the left".

Again, just tell me whether you agree with me on this extreme example and small sample of people or not. If we agree there, we can move on.

>>9490085
Ignorance in regards to what?
As far as I have witnessed I have rarely even inherently disagreed with your propositions simply pointed out how you were basing them on simplified and illegitimate trains of logic that were not sufficiently grounded. I don't deny that the Liberals he refers to could be described as resentful I simply don't see it as particularly constructive to end your analysis at that moment

>>9490009
Are all trump supporters nazis? You know it's a weak argument but you're grasping at it anyway.
>It's an extreme example,
>that doesn't make it hyperbolic.
LMAO
>I'm not exaggerating real life,
>I'm taking a real life example.
What?

Pretty sure you're a retarded person at this point.