Does he actually believe the shit he says? Is it just the result

>>9895089
This is a right-wing board retard

File: 1478844488225.png (110KB, 721x372px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 721x372px

>>9895103
this is a nazbol board, fuck off

>>9895089
>Does he actually believe the shit he says?
He's definitely engaging in hyperbole but he believes the gist of what he's saying.
>Is it just the result of him trying to come up with justification for his ideology or does he already conceive it as brainwashing?
He had some problems in his life so he had to come up with a way to cope with them. He then engaged in a fuckload of time trying to prove why his way of coping is the best way.
>Why do people think he's not right-wing and why is he still allowed to teach?
Because he says he's not right-wing, even though he obviously is. He's still allowed to teach because he garners attention for the university and, of course, tenure.

>>9895089
Topkek, crypto-commie admits academia should belong to his clique.

>>9895089
He believes he should say it. Being paid a lot of money and attention does that to some people.
Go watch Quiz Show (1994) instead.

>>9895089
>Why do people think he's not right-wing and why is he still allowed to teach?
Good example of the leftist censorious mindset. Right wing = evil and unacceptable. Right wingers must be stopped from having any sort of position where they're able to influence anyone ever. Right wing thought must be expunged from polite society.

And you wonder why the kids today are heading Right?

>>9895103
No it isn't, this is a Marxist board fuckface.

>>9895089
are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to teach because you think he is right wing? what the fuck

>>9895129
I think he shouldn't be allowed to teach because he messes with people's heads, not because he's right wing.

>>9895134
i thought we were pretending it was the Meiji era this and next month?

>>9895138
>messes with people's heads
Meaning what? That he teaches ideas that you don't like?

>>9895138
don't take his class if you don't like what he says?
>clean your room
>omg he is brainwashing them
is this actually what you believe?

>>9895089
Friendly reminder that this sort of leftist rage is precisely why Professor Peterson is so necessary. He burns more dead wood than any popular academic around.

He thinks women are valuable and have at least as many burdens and responsibilities as men do, which triggers MGTOW. He's a Christian, which triggers reddit atheists. He talks about men and women having inherently different personality traits on average, which triggers feminists. He talks about the blank slate epistemological framework of the modern left as being complete nonsense, which triggers progressives. He talks about the evils of National Socialism, which triggers the alt-right. He shits on postmodernists, which triggers /lit/.

>>9895138
Holy fuck you are more of a retard than I realized. Fucking end yourself

I don't agree with Peterson, but one thing I've learned from the whole debacle is just how fake the left-leaning members of /lit/ are with their knowledge of continental philosophy. People are confused about his pedigree and conceptual framework, yet can't see the historical antecedents he is indebted to from certain post-Kantian German philosophers and early to mid psychoanalysts?

It thought it was just the analytics here that were pseuds.

Shit's hilarious.

>>9895134
>Marxist board
lit is a christian board, just wait till summer is over

>>9895138
Then why would you bring up the fact that he's right wing? We know what you were saying.

>>9895146
this
why the fuck is the board seemingly entirely composed of ideologue children

>>9895149
>>9895151
>Americans triggered by Europe being able to describe postmodernism as an artisitic and philosophical movement
>laughing European girls throwing dictionaries at the illiterate.oil painting

>>9895103
>>9895118
>>9895134
>>9895139
>>9895152
political flags when?

>>9895154
Backlash against /pol/ and the alt-right after Trump got elected. So now we have to deal with retarded Nazi LARPers and Marxist bottom-feeders.

Hopefully this blows over and lit can go back to being the mildly conservative Christian board it once was.

>>9895149
he attacks all those groups then cries when people call him far-right. lol

>>9895164
wasn't leftpol created when a bunch of /lit/ got fed up with /pol/?

>>9895146
>brings up unrelated shit, talks bullshit until you don't remember what he brought up, makes it sound coherent enough retards will fall for it
>false-flags
>accuses leftists of what they will accuse him and bring up bullshit they can't disprove
>abuses terminology of great thinkers

>>9895166
>attacking neoreactionaries and the alt-right while espousing basic biological anthropology makes you far right in 2017
We've passed the progressive Rubicon. Being a normal human being now makes you a radical right-wing ideologue.

>>9895163
when they approve the meiji flag and exclusion policy

>>9895174
fucking this

>>9895176
I did say he was far right, I said he cried when he got called far right. when will /lit/ actually read again?

I don't like Peterson, at all. But why shouldn't he be allowed to teach? What kind of nonsense is that?

>>9895174
provide an example or im just going to assume you're a brainlet, literally nothing in any of his lectures that i've seen have been like that, it's been pretty typical jungian style analysis desu

>>9895184
Context matters. Someone was literally murdered by a scumbag with far-right beliefs the day before. And some fucking journalist wrote a piece lumping him in with that crowd, even though he's been using Nazi German as an example in his classes when discussing the psychological bases of ideologically-motivated violence. In other words, they're accusing him of being what he spend half of his life fighting.

>>9895190
it's only when he transitions into 'and the crazy postmodernists want to take that away!' that i've noticed any flaws

>>9895190
ending of pepe metaphysics is the most obvious because the guy is not a good speaker as him but it's actually in every one of his videos

grrr zhe really ruffles xir's self and xhe-she is not a happy bunny because of it!!!

>>9895195
your point? people smear people all the time and they don't cry about it. he also had to scramble to make his alt right view clear. he knows, you know. cry about it.

>>9895200
thats not a lecture, though. give me an example from something he teaches rather than some youtube video where he's having a discussion

>>9895199
Chomsky's anti-postmodernist rants don't get him anywhere near the ire that Peterson's do. It's just an excuse to hammer an academic who's right-of-center.

I've never listened to or read anything from him before, but if he gets so many people assblasted he must be doing something right.

>>9895214
yes they do wtf. have you ever been to grad-school? hooooly fuck, chomsky is a punching bag.

>>9895211
>you're at least slightly complicit in the murder of an innocent girl
>and i'm saying this in a mainstream publication with hundreds of thousands of readers
I wouldn't cry, but i'd be fucking pissed.

>>9895212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE

>>9895220
I'm not studying philosophy. I only know of Chomsky's reputation through the leftists I interact with, and none of them seem to bring up his views on post-structuralism. I'll take your word for it, I guess.

>>9895233
ask anyone familiar with austin or serle about chomsky.

>>9895230
>Hitler's resentment was self-destructive
Is this a controversial view?

>>9895230
Kek, there are tons of better examples that have everything you brought up you retard

>>9895233
Chomsky leftists are something like right wing fedoras who believe they're ronin and own at least three swords and maybe a grenade "just in case".

You're probably interacting with someone who has blue hair before their 60th birthday and for that you deserve all the ignorance you get back. If you were relying on your tobacco chewing local WWII vet's opinion of the relevance of the Japanese to national security, I'd think the same thing of your right wind views. Most leftists would be further left of Chomsky and rip on him for treading outside his discipline. If right wingers didn't do the same for their sideshow freaks, it would make them worse at being right wing.

>>9895230
>The Holocaust was so illogical and self-destructive that it contributed to Germany losing the war therefore Hitler was superevil and just wanted to kill as many people as he could

I feel like there's a simpler conclusion to draw from this.

>>9895261
proofs

>>9895230
what was wrong with that, in your view? all he's saying is hitler was either retarded for devoting so many resources to systematically murdering jews and dissidents or his goal was mayhem under the guise of the 1000 year reich. then he talks about how people don't neccessarily fight for resources solely, sometimes they fight for terrible reasons which is true- take WW1 for an example, purely ideological war. In both points i'm not seeing a flaw that could be considered brainwashing, he's only using the hitler example to introduce his 'old psychoanalytical idea' of looking at the result and inferring the motive from that

>>9895089
>Why do people think he's not right-wing
Define right-wing.

>>9895280
Define 'define'

>>9895251
>If right wingers didn't do the same for their sideshow freaks, it would make them worse at being right wing.
And you think that this sort of ideological tribalism is good for the intellectual discourse? It's part of the reason for the complete ideological uniformity you see in so many humanities departments today. Sideshow freaks deserve at least a modicum of attention, even if it's just as a form of dialectical target practice for the real academics.

>>9895251
>most leftists would be further left of chomsky
are most leftists comrade lenin in your mind?

>>9895273
God, get a look at this one.

>>9895283
Explain what you mean when you use the term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU
He's obviously conservative.

>>9895287
no, they're just not american 20 year olds.

>>9895289
should i have added an inb4 holohoax disclaimer? when he mentions the 6 gorillion he's doing it for hyperbole anyway, not like he's going to come out and say to his class that the deaths from the holocaust are massively overstated

>>9895283

Define "Define 'define'"

he's not right wing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxfFxhERMYY

>>9895297
because he believes that women have fucked themselves over with feminism?

>>9895297
>spouts red pill talking points while wearing a fedora
God, this is almost too much to defend. But little of what he said is actually untrue.

>>9895284
>And you think that this sort of ideological tribalism is good for the intellectual discourse
I think it's necessary for the right wing, who by definition are defenders of the traditional, rule based, oligarchial centralized command to have a small group of leaders who define the mode.

You've probably reduced its meaning to an ideological epithet used by people who display those tendencies and claim "leftism" in your brain, but the right wing doesn't really concern itself with right wing drones defending the hive individually, so if you are a "right wing" person in that context, according to any basic right wing doctrine, you deserve those blue haired menaces' attention because it stops them from taking up important people's time.

>>9895134
right-wing readings of Marx are the most patrician

>150 iq
>thinks procreation is not immoral
Wew lad.
https://youtu.be/T1P-VKwrhkI

File: FB_IMG_1501593606108.jpg (79KB, 931x790px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 931x790px

he doesn't believe a single thing he says, he's just cashing in on the anti-SJW gravy train
he uses postmodernism and neo-marxism in the same way neo-nazis use "cultural marxism", but it's obvious peepeeson is just some lukewarm neoliberal and not an actual anti-semite

>>9895230
Can we go beyond good and evil perhaps? It is too simplistic.

>>9895297
see this guys accurate definition of right wing aside for oligarchical >>9895329
how can an individualist with other classical liberal values be right wing? believing in biological differences is not an inherently right wing belief, for example here's a quote from zizek;
>What if sexual difference is not simply a biological fact, but the Real of an antagonism that defines humanity, so that once sexual difference is abolished, a human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machine?

Still waiting for some actual brainwashing.

>>9895353
Frozen is propaganda though.

>>9895359
>oligarchial
that was the entire point of the right wing/left wing system.

>>9895200
link?

>>9895348
Morality is a spook.

>>9895369
oligarchical is an arbitrary distinction, was bush jr's government not right wing? it was a large government compared to clintons

>>9895333
voegelin's was pretty good but generally, nah.

>>9895329
An adherence to any sort of traditional belief or value couldn't just exist in the mind of an individual person, it has to shared by the wide collective culture if it's worth anything. And the ideological value of low-status right wing people is in their ability to propagate those beliefs through low-level discourse. So even if I were to accept your premise that right wing ideology would necessitate excluding people like me from affecting the people who matter, it still wouldn't suggest that we play no role in the propagation of the ideology.

>>9895356
But anon, they were an enemy that America fought in a war, so that means they were a pure force of evil, and that totally isn't propaganda.

>>9895390
No, it wasn't right wing. There hasn't been a right wing in America for decades, just a second left on 20 year delay.

Hey...at least Peterson threads are better than Nick Land threads.

>>9895390
it was about as right wing as nixon's and consisted of about as many key players. the clintons would also be oligarchical. america isn't terribly good at english, so they tend to think their democrats are "leftist".
>daily reminder hillary thought jfk committed voter fraud against nixon as a teenager
it is not a smart country.

>>9895378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew

>>9895403
Land threads are post-Kurzweil-fantasy jew threads; Peterson threads are almost-redpilled white guys vs 16 year old whiny beta white guy threads.

>>9895402
>>9895409
so which is it? as i said, the distinction of a 'few' is arbitrary. the right wing left wing contrast is primarily based on a moral and economic basis rather than how many people are in control, you can have a collectivist left and a collectivist right just as you can have an authoritarian left with few people in power and an authoritarian right with few people in power

>>9895320
His point is not so much he is rightwing but whatever he is far right, which he obviously is not. I think his ideological flirting with 'the kekboys' as he called them (or something like it) brought this upon himself. But he is being co-opted by far right currents which is out of his control.

The kekboys mix themselves with genuine far right people and anything in between. There is no coherency; the people who flock to Peterson can be anything from the classical liberal he sees himself to, to the more far-right.

The media thinks in black and white terms too, almost anything that goes against the progressive current becomes far-right. It really is a mess.

Since this retarded hack unironically recommends Stephen Hicks to anyone interested in postmodernism, I couldn't care less how unjustly is he associated with far right, he should have been buried much earlier for the inane shit he spouts outside his area of expertise.

>>9895439
>But he is being co-opted by far right currents which is out of his control.
Peterson is attacking prime jewish targets/ideologies without, apparently, realizing what he's doing. But since high-IQ white men of the internet age are well-versed on those targets and view them rightly as the societal threats they are, they are elevating his status, as they rightly should.

>>9895458
The alt-right is the ultimate show of dunning-krugerism. They see their hand in absolutely everything.

>>9895452
What's wrong with Stephen Hicks?

>>9895466
I find it more likely that you are simply not one of the latter I mentioned. It's not super complicated to connect the dots, but you have to be wee smarter than you appear to be.

>>9895452
i actually think there's some truth in the way that hicks describes the switch from marxism to post-modernism. not in the sense that it is some neo-marxist scheme that the marxist intellectuals switched from class to indentity but rather that those who are looking to blame some other for some sort of oppression (which would be drawn to marxist schools of thought traditionally), are drawn instead to a kind of post-modern 'fight on the side of the traditionally disenfranchised' foucalt-esque identity politics that has kind of transformed into what we see today as the 'oppression olympics', so to speak. the book is still shit though

>>9895438
oligarchy is always necessarily right wing. even if they're a card carrying democrat, if they believe in the rule by the few, they are right wing.

interestingly, in america, both sides ignore this. a campaign to get the ten commandments in school/keep the pledge of allegiance is seen as right wing, while a campaign to get mandatory consent classes/therapy sessions is not. both are authoritarian oligarchical nannyism, and therefore right wing policies.

it's not like the SJWs/less extreme American "left" want less death camps, either, but Peterson's world is probably exactly as oligarchical and authoritarian as their utopia. both of them think a group of the masses are doing something wrong and those few who can see it ought to move the rest to do something about it.

>>9895089
He/s not right wing he's a classic british liberal

File: Screenshot_2017-06-22-21-46-05-2.png (203KB, 1080x630px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1080x630px

>>9895492
Yeah, the only part that's missing, though, is jewish piece of the puzzle. It was very intentional because they realized it wasn't about class but race. Pic related was what Foucault had to say about the connection between Marxism and postmodernism btw.

>>9895466
this. rather than accept that consumerism, mass immigration, globalism, conscripting women into the workforce and so on is an innate facet of capitalism, they have this kind of cognitive dissonance where in order to believe capitalism is the perfect system they need to blame everything on the jews in order to avoid critique of their ideological beliefs

>>9895496
>oligarchy is always necessarily right wing. even if they're a card carrying democrat, if they believe in the rule by the few, they are right wing.

We have an early frontrunner for stupidest comment of the day.

>>9895498
>classical british liberal
>not right wing
>highly_skeptical_edmund_burke.what
You know Pitt declared war on revolutionary France right?

>>9895514
>"i'm a vegetarian"
>shovels meat in mouth
yeah, those pesky definitions of words that don't let you call yourself whatever you want regardless of your actions.

>>9895496

>contingent events and things are necessary

This indeed is the dumbest comment today. Anon above is right.

>>9895512
No, you just don't have a very good grasp of the history and inner-workings of how those things came about and who promoted them. As convenient as it is for you to blame the evil abstract entity of capitalism, capitalism is of course determined by human inputs.

>>9895526
>i really wanted to use the word contingent
>pity we were talking about history
gonna tell me time is a circle?

>>9895524
America is being run by a rabidly left wing, and mostly jewish, oligarchical class. You couldn't be more off the mark, guy.

>>9895431
he has a good point though. why isn't hitler pepe seen as mocking hitler?

>>9895492

Except the Marxists were supporting this sort of thing in the 1920s and 1930s. Go read about the American communist party and their connections to early Black liberation groups and gay men like Harry Hay. This is decades before so-called "cultural marxism". Both /pol/ and anti-SJW /leftypol/ types are wrong on this account. It doesn't make any sense about a switch or cultural change, because they were always using these groups for their own machinations (machinations which commies always shrug their shoulders about. They simultaneously complain they have nothing to do with socjust and idpol, yet were key to its initial forming).

>>9895539
>left wing
They're doing a terrible job at it then, nobody seems to have taken up the torch. I expected better of a jewish oligarchy, and assumed the right wing traits of America were a result of their plans and not the failure of them. They must be the reject jews, without the extradition privileges of a full israelite. Filthy washpots

>>9895536
>"I don't understand modality and metaphysics"
put the keyboard away, you are out of your depth

>>9895527
yeah it definitely isn't in the interests of businessmen to introduce an obsession with material value, cheap labor from overseas, capitalising on sexuality, doubling the workforce, etc... it's just the jews. funny that i managed to find a prime example of said cognitive dissonance in this thread. i don't believe in some strict communism or whatever but that doesn't stop me from critiquing capitalism

>>9895552
I would be amazed if you had an IQ over 90. You seem quite lost wrt the workings of the world.

>>9895103
>>9895134
>>9895152
This is a Marxist/Christian/Egoist/Reactionary/Xenofeminist board. Let's keep it that way.

>>9895466
Here

>>9895512
>>9895527
I was talking more to the fact that the alt-right sees themselves as a dominant force in culture.

It also bothers me that the alt-right focus so much on ethnicity, which only serves to alienate the public. It's clear that commentators that focus on culture and ethics are proving to be much more popular than racists. And the alt-right serves to create a bogeyman which the mainstream media can use to strawman all other millennial conservative movements.

>>9895566
egoism is a spook
so is everything else listed

File: images.png (5KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 208x243px

>>9895552
>pic related

>>9895562
I'm just telling you that you don't understand the role jews played in promoting those things. Capitalism didn't promote those policies and cultural movements, people did. Predominantly jews, which is why they're the main ones cashing in on them today. But there's nothing stopping you from learning about this yourself, is there?

>>9895556
>maybe I can scare him off with more terms I don't know the definition of
>"history a lie written by victors anywayz it doesn't matter i used a term which indicates i believe the alternate history is going to usurp the prescriptive one in itself prescriptivism potential"
why would i want to have as impoverished a moral sense of truth and physical sense of truth as you? you're basically the same as someone crying GRRM isn't considered political science.

>>9895565
>responding to the jew
he called you a moabite brah, look out.

>>9895089
Gr8 post about literature m8 I r8 it 8/8

>>9895574
>It also bothers me that the alt-right focus so much on ethnicity, which only serves to alienate the public.

They didn't draw first blood on the ethnic issue though did they? White nationalism was an irrelevant backwoods movement that no one took seriously. They kind of still are in a sense, they have no serious backing apart from rank and file.

Can you think of anything that may have stirred them up? If the alt-right were suddenly eliminated tomorrow, would those same stirrers still be stirring the same pot?

>>9895580
Could you explain to us why you think it is worth noting the contributions of Jews to progressivism?

>>9895580
There's always this one guy in these threads talking about how 'whites need to learn x about Jews'

>>9895574
>I was talking more to the fact that the alt-right sees themselves as a dominant force in culture.

Perhaps you have a point. But what I was saying was that they're way ahead of Peterson when it comes to the topics of Marxism and postmodernism, and their roots as jewish movements. But race is the foundation of everything, and they're right to play the game being played against them.

>>9895595
I can view the alt-right as a knee-jerk reaction to progressivism. But we can do better than a knee-jerk reaction.

>>9895603
Yeah, because what you've been told is "progressivism" is little more than the inversion of their host society's norms, which is a group tactic they've been employing for thousands of years.

>>9895610
>>9895595
take the kantpill and realize that a restoration of a common value-structure articulated through great art is the solution to the alt-right and the ctrl-left

https://medium.com/@kantbot2000/on-representational-and-discriminative-theories-of-culture-736e9c817a6

>>9895580
buddy, you're saying this like i don't know that jews are at the top of media companies, gold companies and so on. the fact is that you're blaming the player instead of the game, these things were destined to happen with or without jews. the jews just managed to take advantage of the system in order to make money, it's just smart business.
>organise yourselves into a highly competitive system where capital is deemed to be the highest value
>people with capital organise themselves to introduce women to the labor force in order to double it and increase their profit margins
>wtf, how dare you play the system like this!?!?!? fuckin joos!!!!1

File: 1498607693734.png (81KB, 378x357px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 378x357px

>>9895625
Tfw you realize jeff gets all his talking points from Steve Sailer.

>>9895211
>slave morality

>>9895626
Well, I'm glad that get that jews are a problem, now the next step is to realize that they are *the* problem, and that it's not actually the game but the player. None of these things were destined to happen and only happened because jews are outside agitators who gain from disrupting and inverting the social norms of their host societies. This is why they got kicked out of Egypt, normative inversion ... it's just what they do.

>>9895223
Jeff, You spend a lot of time arguing with people here.

>>9895581

Not even sure what the hell you are blathering on about, but I get the sense you are still out of your depth.

You stated, "oligarchy is always necessarily right wing," where there is a nested modal claim ("necessarily") about some contingent entities (a kind of political governance system, and a kind of political ideological system) being true in all possible situations, which is the definition of what necessary is. Given these are political configurations are capable of being otherwise, they are contingent phenomenon. It doesn't make much sense to attribute necessity to something contingent, it's a contradiction (unless you make some sort of claim saying it's necessarily contingent, which I'm pretty sure you didn't).

Now, you may say this interpretation is a modal scope fallacy, because of the nested modality (i.e. your real claim is, "necessarily, oligarchy is always right wing"). But, that would be up to you to back up what you are saying, not me in critiquing, since modal scope fallacies arise from the ambiguity of the person making the claim. Use a word like "necessary" where it's tied to some sort of identity claim, and that's on you to prove, not me. Also, even without the term "necessary," the term "always" is still an indicator of some modally necessary claim. So you aren't getting away with it, even if you strip it from the sentence in some pragmatic sense.

>>9895649
This isn't an apt explanation. What is it about Jews that makes them engage in "normative inversion"? I'm blue-pilled on the JQ and I need you to patronize me on your worldview for us to begin to have a conversation.

>>9895633
I used to read taki mag, but Steve Sailer is too fashy for me. And I don't obsess over race and IQ (being a quarter Native American).

>>9895653
I've had nothing to do these past couple weeks. I took a month off when I switched jobs and I've been bored out of my mind

>>9895671
I understand, I have spent a lot of time browsing lit.

>>9895649
this is exactly the cognitive dissonance i'm talking about. it's like you're blaming a group of hackers for exposing a backdoor in a security system. any system thats this easy to manipulate is a fundamentally flawed system. you've heard of murphy's law, yes? these things were absolutely destined to happen one way or the other, just like the creation of the nuclear bomb or something, oppenheimer perfected it but if he hadn't then someone else would have. i don't see jews as some sort of problem because i don't look at the winner of a game of monopoly and accuse them of playing an unfair game

>>9895662
You're trying to defend your definition of oligarchy as not right wing. It is, and more closely models the origins of the term than what you are trying to apply it to.

Consider you raised no objection to right wing being a necessarily centralized authority, which is an oligarchy, and how facile you seem to want to affirm that while refuse its equivalent as right wing.

You've already tried to shift the definition of "rule by the few" to "rule by the few so long as they're not claiming publicly to be ruling for and by the many in which case we should totally believe them that rule by the few is not rule by the few".

Even if I lied to you to tell you that your understand of vocabulary was adequate, it would not make it adequate in any outside or real sense. Your most advantageous course would be to learn from your errors not give me more opportunities to demonstrate you believe "leftist" self identifiers are infallible.

>>9895539
If they want to censor the opposition, then they aren't left wing. America is dominated by multiple right wing parties fighting each other.

>>9895666
I'm not trying to patronize you, but the answer is biological. I don't know why, I just know that they do and have done it for thousands of years. "Normative inversion" is Egyptologist Jan Assman's term for why the jews were expelled from Egypt. They create anti-cultures. Women don't just don't start doing the opposite of what they're biologically supposed to do. Homosexuality doesn't miraculously become normalized. These were cultural things that were promoted heavily by jews. And they didn't spring up as a result of capitalism. They are inversions of western norms that were created to atomize society, demote white men who are the historic protectors of that society, and elevate jews.

>>9895689

you arrest hackers anyway.

The monopoly game analogy doesn't make sense, since the game is being played along legal, cultural, and political rules that they can influence. If you can force the rules and behavior to your advantage then it's not a game that everyone can exploit systemically is it? the high courts and american foreign policy for the last 16 years are good examples of this.

>>9895689
>these things were absolutely destined to happen one way or the other
Do you know how looney this sounds, that a human system has a mind of its own and creates outcomes that are predetermined and impossible to control? You sound like an idiot because you aren't thinking, you're blaming something because it's convenient. Capitalism is going to look vastly different depending on who is creating the policies and for what purpose. Please, try to think.

>>9895703
For your own sake, I hope you're joking.

>>9895704
>I'm not trying to patronize you
I asked you to try to patronize me because you were being unclear

>I don't know why, I just know that they do
Sigh

>>9895138
Did he invent 70+ genders? What's the worst thing he has told you guys? To clean up your room?

>>9895724
Why do white people create amazing civilizations and beautiful architecture? They just do. Just as jews tear them down. That's just how they are. Read the Culture of Critique if you ever actually become interested in understanding the nuances of that, instead of patronizing others to patronize you.

File: 1502677167359.jpg (182KB, 956x720px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 956x720px

>I: 5

>>9895329
>tradition
>oligarchy
Jews have been free only after Napoleon. Not at all traditional.

>>9895696

I wasn't trying to defend anything about definitions. You do realize there are more than one person arguing with you right? My initial counter-claim was about you and your piss-poor knowledge of philosophy. I was critiquing your metaphysical claims about necessity of the identity claim and its components, which it is clear you have no idea about and again are out of your depth, because you are still throwing the term around while not backing it up and haven't even bother to address your philosophical problems. You've also made a bunch of mere assertions with no supporting reasoning. Examples:

> It is, and more closely models the origins of the term than what you are trying to apply it to.

No supporting claims.

>which is an oligarchy

No supporting claims.

>You've already tried to shift the definition

Made no such claim, since I'm not the anon you think I am.

Jesus Christ, you are a bad arguer.

>>9895751
>CAESAR WAS NOT A TYRANT
go to bed cicero you're dead and so is greek

>>9895742
The glory of God(s). Not
>just because, lulz

>>9895626
>don't blame the player blame the game
Sounds a bit like some commie rhetoric to rally the People around tightening up the rules until a point that nobody can do anything until the Dungeon Master gives you express approval. No, I do blame the player. We want a free and open system that allows for the blossom of human creativity, and this leaves room for obvious exploitations as we have seen, but it's not that which we should want alone. We should want a free and open system, but also a strong emphasis on ethical behavior to be a guidepost in our interactions with each other and advancement in society. The conscientiousness to deliberate that, yes, while I could invent methamphetamine and make a lot of money off of it because addicts are the most loyal customers, I should probably not do that because it is damaging to health and healthcare systems, welfare systems, community, social cohesion, familial relations, economic output (but for the cook and the dealer). And for the most part I believe a lot of people do more or less want to be free, and also act in a way that is, if nothing else, at least ambivalent to their fellow men, rather than outwardly malicious, or else I'd expect more people to be operating in a nefarious mean as long as it was for substantial economic gain; and if one of the strongest reasons for not being a criminal is that people are afraid of the punishment, we can at least point to a group of people (criminals) abd say that they at least share the trait of not caring about the threat of, or punishment. So, criminals and Jews. The Jewish Question exists because we have an easily identifiable group of people who undermine the flexibility of free-market systems to operate in ways that undermine the well-being of the people who actually want to enjoy its benefits by proffering onto them all of its negatives in the name of profiteering. This is by no means "foul play" insofar as they were operating within the rules of that system; but if your only solution is to cripple the system rather than get rid of the problem child; to stifle the potentiality of positive creativity of all for the negative subversivity of few; I beg that you consider if you would also be willing to restrain that same system if it was under the guise of trying to protect oneself and one's community from "criminals", (although for all the precedents we have, progressives would love to outlaw all firearms for the acts of the extreme minority exercising them unlawfully) rather than merely punishing the subversives, and one degree higher than that: has such an approach actually been determined to work, or does it merely restrict the lawabiding who already demonstrate themselves to act ethically in the first place. Which is more rational to you?

>>9895134
>>9895118
wtf? I thought we were non-binary triple-partisan reactionaries with alt-north tendencies?

>>9895722
For your sake, I hope you aren't some deluded ideologue playing coy. Very few people truly embody a liberal or libertarian attitude, and those that do, you don't hear from them in these debates. The people in these debates and "wars" are chiefly concerned with establishing the authority of their own tribe, and their choice of strategy to do this makes no difference towards which "side" they are on.

>>9895742
Jews create beautiful shit all the time. The problem with the antisemite shit is that you rightfully hate people who financially exploit and culturally degrade you for their own profit, but you don't know how to address that so you just say "jews."

The problem is really runaway capitalism. Some capitalism is OK, but it has created a huge class of rich speculators who don't give a fuck about any individual country.

>>9895710
dude people hire hackers to look for exploits in their security systems, it's key to making sure you're security system works
>agree to organise yourselves in a system where capital is the highest value
>people accumulate capital and use it to increase profit
>this isn't being played along legal, cultural and political rules to you
i think you don't understand the point of monopoly. of course it's not a game everyone can exploit systematically, literally whoever has a good first run around the board basically wins, it's just like real life.
>christians don't create banks that charge interest because their religion denounces usury
>jews dont give a fuck about usury so they create the concept of interest
>accumulate vast sums of capital
>fast forward a few millennia
>suddenly system is introduced wherein whoever has the most capital basically controls everything
>jews use their pre-existing capital, logically, to increase their current capital
>woah so subversive
i love how you actually realise how it works to, but you just can't fathom that whoever has the most capital are the people who get to play the system to their advantage
>If you can force the rules and behavior to your advantage then it's not a game that everyone can exploit systemically is it?
anyway i'm sure this could go on for hours and hours but i'm pretty sure that you're so stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance that you'll never accept that murphy's law is the reason all these problems you blame the jews on happened in the first place so i'm going to sleep but i'll check the thread tomorrow to see your response

File: IMG_20170701_011712.jpg (18KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x322px

Mods I'm sorry I ever complained about cornposting but please, just for like a month can we ban all the pseuderson posters

>>9895753
My claims have been about the definition of oligarchy as a right wing ruling system, and have been consistent while anon is retarded enough to propose contingency as necessity rather than necessity as necessity.

It wouldn't matter how many of you there were, there's plenty of demonstrably wrong in trying to arguing against that to spread around.
The divisions of the estates under the Ancien Regime was a right wing ruled oligarchy, and the only counterargument for that happening is anon's ludicrous appeal to contingency rather than necessity. Unfortunately, since we can't edit history that easily, nor the use of technical terms within philosophy or political sciences or history, the right wing's defense of oligarchical organization is seminal to the right wing. If only those pesky peasants had sat in different seats, you wouldn't have to suffer being wrong, but that is a contingent history rather than the one that turned out to have been realized.

>>9895780

You are conflating white hats with black hats. Your original comment seems to imply black hats. As to the rest of your comment, Jews were also involved in economic systems that weren't capital (see early Soviet Russia), and they dominated there as well. So that kind of invalidates your whole, "it's da capital system man" when there are non-systemic agents running around who are clearly wrecking shit in their own interests.

>>9895778
Jew are semites, like arabs; these are not people who create, these are people who destroy. That's how semites are wired. And the problem is not runaway capitalism and the entire notion of that is completely absurd. You are merely picking an easy target because you don't want to delve the rest of the way into the jewish question. Capitalism is a human system that responds to incentives, and to advance the notion that it is some zombie machine that's run by zombie humans that have no control over it and that they are incapable of influencing is retarded. I know you kind of realize how stupid what you're saying is, but you need to give it some more thought. Capitalism is whatever the people in charge of it want it to be, it responds to human inputs.

>>9895799
You're crazy, man. America and the west as a whole is by any objective measure controlled by a staunchly left wing oligarchy. The argument you're trying to make, that this left wing oligarchy is really a right wing oligarchy, makes zero sense and goes against all reason any sane man could muster. Did you recently experience a head injury of some kind?

>>9895835
Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Doesn't make my point less valid though.

>>9895703

Is this post the so called pomo evil that Peterson talks about?

>>9895841
Am I good, or am I good?

>>9895566
Fuck off gay memeboi, you're worth a shit

>>9895799
>and have been consistent while anon is retarded enough to propose contingency as necessity rather than necessity as necessity.

Man, you are the dumbest motherfucker I've ever met on here. You do realize that you are the one making the claims originally about that, and I'm asking you to back it up? You literally asserted it was necessary. An assertion is not an argument. I'm not proposing anything, I'm asking you to back up your necessity claims about phenomenon that are capable of being other wise. And if that is not the case, I'm asking you to clarify about the modal scope of your claim, which again you didn't.

>and the only counterargument for that happening is anon's ludicrous appeal to contingency rather than necessity.

Because it is the key modal operator in your overall main claim, you dumb cunt.

You also suck at arguing, since many of your claims don't have justifications for them (as shown above), so I really don't expect this conversation to go anywhere. I'm done here.

>>9895850
It would be if I had stated that there is something wrong about that, which I didn't. I'm just trying to be honest about it. It's ideology and tyranny across the board.

>>9895835
If they were left wing they wouldn't be relying on the opinions of the few. Replacing the clergy and aristocrats with Robespierre did not make France more representative of the left wing, it just made it more representative of Robespierre. You might as well call the places in the Middle East who vote out democracy in favour of a supreme clerical leadership not right wing and not oligarchies.

Though it is hilarious when Americans insist otherwise and label the screaming college students in favour of censorship and chaperones "liberal". Americans who don't know how English works are almost always funny.

>>9895719
it's murphys law, in the totality of capitalism these are flaws that people will inevitably take advantage of
>>9895771
this is a problem of the deterioration of religion when you talk about having a strong emphasis on ethical behaviour and absolutely you should fix the system, i don't go sailing in a boat with holes in it then blame the water for sinking it. also, it is well known that in the world of business that if you don't take advantage of something then your competitor will, it's a ruthless system. how can you say that what they're doing is not foul play but that we should punish them? it makes no sense at all, there is no problem child in this situation, it's problem parenting. you're putting a candy bar of the child and expecting them not to eat it. if we don't fix the innate problems in the system then we're fucked, more problem children will just arise and we'll end up playing whack a mole until an ecological crisis destroys us. we tried a free and open system and it was shit, so we regulated it and it worked well for a while. now we're at the point where people are just paying off the lawmakers to get away with avoiding the regulations so we need to crack down on the lawmakers, it's the only viable solution

>>9895855
Well, it's only necessary if you want to be right, understood by those versed in basic history, and don't need to talk to Americans. If you want to talk to Americans you'll need to pretend that left right (and rights) liberal democratic republican freedom and superpower all mean different things than everywhere that thinks 200 years isn't a long time.

>>9895230
If you look at his last Q+A he basically says he has a positive opinion on jews because all his friends are jewish and he thinks the reason they are overrepresented is because jews are naturally smarter. So it's no wonder he'd do logical backflips to convince himself the Holocaust actually happened.

>>9895863
I'm sorry, but your definition of "left wing" is yours and yours alone. Hope you get over the head injury soon, though.

>>9895877
You can enjoy that belief and humanity will continue to teach school children about the French Revolution perpetuating common use and understanding as I described regardless.

>>9895815
i'm not saying we should embrace communism or whatever, i'm saying we should fix. the. system. jews dominate the system out of a natural accord, rather than fucking genocide them and letting people take their place maybe we should enforce laws to stop people from being able to fuck with the system in the first place. what the fuck do you think people are going to do, act not in their interests?

The "left":
>ressentiment towards the father

The "right":
>ressentiment towards Jews

Bunch of fucking pussies all around, only losers complain about shit and form groups about blaming others.

>devoting an entire fucking thread to a mediocre uni professor who became famous for irrelevant questions through the fucking YouTube

>>9895886
Jesus, this isn't Your Family therapy thread. Search the catalog for "Catholic" and it should get You there. Sorry for the confusion, Peterson's just acting like he got You in session.

>>9895867
>it's murphys law, in the totality of capitalism these are flaws that people will inevitably take advantage of

What I hope you'll realize one day is that abstract ideas don't determine how the world functions. It's not capitalism, it's not Murphy's law, it's people. And if you think the world and the human-derived systems within it are going to produce the same results regardless of who is in control, you've either read too much jewish communist propaganda or you just don't understand human difference as well as you should. It's an absurd proclamation. Humans created these systems, and humans determine how they function.

>>9895881
They teach them that dick girls are boys these days, too. And I was never arguing about public school education not being a problem.

>>9895895
humans adapt to their situation like every other animal, you have to expect that they're going to produce a logical result within given parameters that will be in their interests

>>9895904
>being American
spotted your problem m8.

>>9895908
That could generally be perceived as true, but humans are different and have different interests.

>>9895895
>>9895908
here's an example; if i'm playing a game of snakes and ladders where everyone agrees to the rules and one person is selected at random to be able to send everyone else down the closest snake every four turns, you have to expect that the person is going to use that ability to win the game. you can't seriously blame the person for using everything in their available kit to win instead of saying that maybe we shouldn't have given them that power in the first place

File: JohnGray.jpg (83KB, 365x362px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 365x362px

>>9895922
>but humans are different
*blocks your path*

>>9895922
specifically yes but pretty much everyone wants to win and if the available means of getting what you want are the same for everyone then everyone will use those means of attaining their desires

Stormfront was a mistake

>>9895929
>Food analogy

>>9895929
You're assuming that you're playing with Europeans who will respect the rules of the game and play fairly, when you're playing against tribal jews who conspire behind your back, rig the game, then invite a bunch of brown people to take your place.

>>9895947
I think I'm sensing a little bit of bias from this post

>>9895893
What the fuck are you babbling?

>>9895938
As I just told someone else, you're assuming everyone else, and jews in particular, think like you when they don't. And what it ultimately comes down to is you using an individualist strategy against people who are using a group strategy. This creates different results than if everyone, as you're under the incorrect assumption they would be, is using an individualist strategy.

>>9895960
No, I'm explaining the bias to you.

this thread is full of gay retards

>>9895969
>Us white bois dindu nouffin

sure thing, lad

>>9895976
I'm explaining the major flaw in white people as well: our childlike naivete.

>>9895979
lol speak for yourself

some real intellectual arrogance in this thread

>>9895983
... and our individualist nature as well lol.

>>9895971
4chan is 18+

>>9895962
sounds like the failure of those who didn't use their means to co-operate or to ensure people were unable to do so in the first place which in a free market is well known that companies will form a cabal to hike prices and increase profit margins. also jews do think like everyone else, at least on an unconscious level everyone is actually quite uniform, however on a conscious level most people repress their tribal tendencies for some reason but jews don't. what's wrong with that?

>>9895186

>But why shouldn't he be allowed to teach?

His ideas are hateful, exclusionary, and dangerous. He should be immediately banned from addressing the public in any way. When his youtube got banned I thought for once we were seeing these big businesses take sensible action, but nope of course not, why do the right thing when there's money to be made.

>>9895995
>silence everyone i disagree with and deem whatever i want
That is not the correct response.
When you force things under rocks in the dark they fester.

>>9895120
what is your way of coping with the world?

>>9895989
I wouldn't say it's a failure because it's a result of European people's past evolutionary environment when the earth was frozen for half the year and we had trust each other to survive. That produced very beneficial qualities ... that only became a hindrance when we allowed tribal semites who evolved in the desert to settle in our lands and corrupt our entire society from within. People are very different and most others do not share your, I assume, European sense of morality and fairness, and in fact use it to exploit you.

>>9896012

>we should tolerate intolerance
>we should love hate

Nice meme.

>>9896020
how is it not our own failure?
>kick people out over a hundred times
>let them back in for some reason
>they proceed to make money in a logical fashion

>>9895995
If thou ain't no troll, then tell me, what of his ideas are >hateful >exclusionary >dangerous?

>>9895089
>Why do people think he's not right-wing
He's a milquetoast centrist who despises radicalism. He couldn't be more inoffensive and the fact that leftists such as OP are attacking him is testament to how insane they are.

>>9896063
I wouldn't be suprised OP is actually a Peterson fan though

>>9896048
I mean, yeah, to the extent that we should have learned our lesson. But things were different and information didn't have the legs it does today. Do not agree about the "making money in a logical fashion" part though, whatever that means. If "logical" implies that it's logical to fuck over and try to manipulate the people who let you into their country. If so, that likely means you're a sociopath, though that's precisely what myself and others are trying to convey to other whites on here: that jews are exactly that.

>>9896063
this is a joke right?

Peterson is both anti-feminist and anti-nationalist, I don't know how people can think otherwise about him.

File: kuck.jpg (182KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 900x1200px

Nowadays he does fit vaguely into the category of right wing, though certainly not alt-right. While he likes to think of himself as a British liberal- no doubt in the same vein as Thomas Paine and Orwell -he's essentially right wing in America.

If you look at his twitter feed, it's impossible to claim otherwise.

He should still be allowed to teach.

While i think he's a pseud on a lot of issues (one of those being politics), he seems to be qualified to teach about mythology, psychology and whatever else he actually teaches about.

He's not just anti-left. He seems to want the appearance of centrism, but like most people who want that, he falls pretty strongly to one side.

File: JBP views.png (99KB, 485x98px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 485x98px

>>9895089
This is what he told a journalist who (falsely) accused him of being far-right. Judge it how you like.

>>9895747
Bugs... easy on the traps.

>>9896123
that's not a trap you complete retard

File: SubMarcosHorseFromAfar.jpg (155KB, 1013x1280px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1013x1280px

>>9895103
lol begone

File: DGiy8ZqV0AEvONF.jpg (45KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x645px

>>9895353

>>9895867
I appreciate your contentions and I will continue work on a more refined, comprehensive articulation in the future, but to the extent I don't want to leave you emptyhanded I may consider the following: I don't believe its necessary that a specific group needs to be prosecuted for their deeds. I thing it also reverts back to the topic of ethics (without digressing into the topic of a proposed universality in ethics or the deterioration of such in the aftermath of the decline of the church) in that people must exercise the conscientiousness to identify, and have the freedom to identify without being socially mobbed by high capacity assault "bigotry" suppressors of speech and losing your job, livelihood, and reputation, threats to our common social contract, and simply avoid them. Just as a throw back to the "vote with your dollar" campaigns: people need to reinvigorate and bolster their local economies rather than forfeiting to the multinationals just because it's more affordable or more convenient: our shackles are sold to us on the sleeve of convenience already. Of course this in itself is a predicament with many hurdles to surpass on its own; however I just bother to entertain to such an idea to say that the control can be usurped through peaceable means. As the strangehold of information has deferred from the mainstream media into alternative media, so we can as consumers in the free market exercise our will and agency to see less undermining and repugnancy by freeing ourselves from the current institutional status quo; from the Amazons killing Walmart as Walmart killed Mom & Pop, from the cable network drivel spoonfeeding ideas back to the organic dialogue and exchange of ideas by word of mouth and stimulating discussion. We give them the power of capitalism by capitalism, and so similarly it can be taken away. But it does start on the personal level, and it especially starts with establishing an ethical code. It's just that fundamental starting point that nobody can seem to agree on perhaps as a result of "everything is subjective" and while I don't myself have THE answer, I also don't see any other place to start. I just...

>you're putting a candy bar of the child and expecting them not to eat it
...refuse to bend over and accept that people can't take personal reaponsibility if it's something that we bother to take the time to drill into their heads as hard as "gender is a social construct" and "Trump is Hitler" is entrenched in the social, political dialectics of now (which is apparently working, a least on half of the people: so if one, then why not the other?). There must be a methodology whereby we can teach the child, this candy bar is not good for you, and this is why, and if you choose to eat it anyway then you might as well forfeit the good fortune and compassion of your fellow man for falling for exactly the poison we gave you ample warning about.

File: 1502628787693.jpg (20KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x400px

>>9896198
nigger if i had time to read that i would not be waste it on /lit/ right now

>>9896282
>on /lit/
>doesn't read

hm, checks out.

>>9896282
I don't blame you, I don't read 4chan either unless I'm out of the house.

>tfw waiting gf to get her nails done
There's a book shop a couple storefronts down but it's a "Cole's," not very big either. Don't expect to find anything worthwhile.

>>9896327
why not?

>>9896420
Well, Cole's is like a subsidiary of Indigo or something. Indigo's non-fiction is already pretty scarce, and their philosophy section takes uo literally 1/4 of a side of a shelf. With this taken into consideration, I don't think it's much a stretch to believe a store 1/3 the size would have 1/3 the selection, and 1/3 of "poor" must be "very, very poor" or something akin to that. These shops are gold mines for YA shit and kids books but that's about it.

>>9895138
He messes with people heads because he's right wing. Peterson is more dangerous to the youth than the alt-right. He makes conservatism look rasonable and compatible with intellectualism instead of the intrinsically perverse and anti-intellectual ideology it actually is.

>>9895089
i'm still just a kid (not legally) and i like him. he helps to find some sense and meaning in the world, especially in the biblical stories lectures.

>>9896527
elaborate

>>9896527
All ideologies are 2 sides of the same coin, if anything he's the balance that was needed from all the PC shit we had before.

Trump won because society pushed a bit too hard the other way. So we get a sort of bombshell to counterbalance.

>>9896527
You do realize that the "perverse" ideology you speak of is just the natural state of nature that has been present for millennia, don't you? And that what you think is "normal" is a very recent phenomenon?

>>9896541
you realize the 20th and 21st century have brought up some issues not previously had?

>>9896553
Like?

>>9896527
>anti-climate zealots REEEEEEEE stupid anti-science right-wingers
>TWO GENDERS IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! CHILDREN CAN DECIDE IF THEY'RE TRANS*&^ RRRREEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Can someone explain to me why every retarded person on /lit/ always posts without capitalization and punctuation? What do Marxists have against it?

>>9896541
Him grounding a majority of his assertions about psychology in 70s evolutionary psychology is one of his shittier points. Nobody in their right mind would use evolutionary psychology musings as evidence for anything. You use it after you have established a truth to explain the "perhaps why". He uses it as base axiom. Why? Because it suits his shitty Jungian archetype argumentation, which has been discredited every time just a bit of scientific scrutiny was applied to them. It's fun to use them as metaphors to explain stuff. But that's about as far as their utility goes.

And deep down he knows it, too. His very weird version of Darwinian pragmatism ("truth is defined as what it useful for the survival of the species") is (apart from being asinine) just one step away from Social Darwinism. With no good intellectual way to stop that from happening. He has acknowledged this problem himself. But it doesn't seem to deter him in any way from being loudmouthed about it.

I agree with him on many points. But his philosophies are wonky at best.

>>9896599
Punctuation is an imperislist tool of the bourgeoisie that marginalizes the minority demographics by preventing them from communicating to coordinate revolutionary assemblies, and this is done in order to preserve the patriarchal establishment structure rather than allowing it to be overturned as reparations for the colonialist sins of the past thousand million centuries.

It's an act of selfishness, white pride, and bigotry.

>>9896620
Peterson seems to say in Maps of Meaning that the archetypes are forms of behavior that people observe, imitate, and represent in art/religion. It's not clear he sees them as biologically ingrained.

>>9896620
>Because it suits his shitty Jungian archetype argumentation, which has been discredited every time just a bit of scientific scrutiny was applied to them.
You are right, but I have to point out, for Jung's sake, that he never intended it as a scientific notion, in fact he defined it as nothing more than an impression of his. On the matter he had to say "Every individual is an exception". It's not his fault if retards like Peterson and his cult followers exist.

>>9896620
one of his base axioms is literally abortion is bad. then goes literally on to say not everything bad should be illegal. that guy is a fucking idiot

>>9896620
Well, although you were responding to me, and though I know very little about Peterson, it seems your analysis might be even wonkier. Discounting evolutionary psychology and upholding stereotypes about social Darwinsim says to me that you're a brainwashed leftist who doesn't understand racial differences in humans, and I just don't see any justification for pretending to be an intellectually minded person if that is indeed the case. But thanks for the response, I guess.

>>9896639
Yeah, that's exactly what Jungian archetype theory is.
But he tries to establish them as biologically relevant with grand assertions of evolutionary psychology. "Dominance behavior has been a thing for over 400 million years, so hero archetype is true and womin totally helped that along because they are the selective breeders hurrdurr".
Which, by the by, is outdated. It's literally PUA grade psychology. Not that there is NOTHING to it, but he is overstating it in exactly the way professors would have overstated it in his time as a student. It seems the only psychological research he keeps up to date with is clinical psychology.

>>9896664
>he thinks evolutionary psychology is a valid field of science
>he thinks that, although it is still in its infancy, evolutionary psychology can gives us prescription on how to run our lives and our society

You're absolutely delusional, you're basically the contemporary version of XIX century social darwinists.

>>9896682
As opposed to 21st century enlightened liberals who ignore racial statistics and pretend everyone is equal and capable of the same achievements? There's your delusion.

>>9896651
True and I have little beef with Jung himself.
But Jungian analysts really go crazy with it. One of the ways the archetypes fail worst, is cross-cultural. Yet Peterson repeatedly compared other culture's myths and forces them into it. Like that one time with the Buddha Gautama's youth.

>>9896697
Racial statistics do not account for the individual, and the individual has the right to not be singled out on the account of his body features. Secondly, low IQ does not disqualify you from having rights. If that was the case, the majority of 4chan user would have to be culled. Bring your fascism back to your board.

>>9896697
There is no solid argument for the discrepancies being due to biological factors. Environmental factors of IQ are about 30-50%. That's huge.
Until racial discrimination is demonstrably not a factor anymore, there is no good way to scientifically prove biological racial differences.

And even if there were, the only useful application would be in terms of expected demographic achievement. Not in individual cases.
As also explained in the paper of the dude Google fired and you presumably already bitched about, without having read the actual memo.

>>9896717
This is you not understanding how statistics work. Every group has a mean, the individual doesn't matter. Please. If you happen to be a woman, ok, I get it. But if you're a man you have no excuse for not understanding something that basic.

>>9896682
>>he thinks that, although it is still in its infancy, evolutionary psychology can gives us prescription on how to run our lives and our society
I agree with this argument.
>>>he thinks evolutionary psychology is a valid field of science
Why do you think that the whole of evolutionary psychology should be dismissed? You are not unlike the STEMfags who declare psychology is not a science and that neuroscience should replace it.

I do think that biology has implications for us humans and that it can inform us.

>>9896665
Maybe he is overstating that particular idea. There's no doubt that he is a speculator; in fact he often mentioned how he reaches out into speculation, which is fine, but that's ironically what detracts from his ability to be a "thinker for the masses". Most people need to be listening to more conservative, "just the facts" type thinkers.

Anyways, he seems to keep up with things like IQ research and personality research besides clinical research. But what about evolutionary psychology would make one suspicious of his speculation?

File: WAIS-IV_FSIQ_Scores_by_Race_and_Ethnicity.png (87KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x600px

>>9896724
There absolutely is an argument, and an undeniable one, about these things being biological. This is what I meant, you literally have no clue what you are talking about. We have this data, why are you making excuses for why you're incapable of understanding it? That's a bell curve, learn how it works.

>>9896750
>Every group has a mean, the individual doesn't matter.
>the individual does not matter

Peterson fucking cried over it.

>>9896773
Stupid people are people too.

>b-but stupid immigrants outbreed the white race!
Wrong, statistically birthing rates drop the the average national ones after one generation.

>>9896776
Well, the individual doesn't ultimately matter. When you're dealing with different groups there is always a mean that determines how that group will behave and what they're capable of achieving, and it's very accurate. Outliers don't matter.

>>9896784
Way to prove my point. I show this guy an IQ chart and he mistakes it for one showing birthrates. This is leftist mind on science, folks.

>>9896756
>in fact he often mentioned how he reaches out into speculation, which is fine,
I don't think it is, really. Because he uses "speculation" to make a point without having to back it up, knowing that it has an effect either way. Look at his answer to a question about abortion. He knowingly starts with a point literally anyone would agree with, yet states it in the most provocative (and knowingly right-wing) way possible. And then he goes into a "tangent" of musings, which he doesn't commit to, but still follows a clear argumentative line. It's essentially "I'm not saying you should be conservative, But you should totally be conservative."
He does this, knowing that his audience will do more with it than just take notes and compare it to other notions.
>Most people need to be listening to more conservative, "just the facts" type thinkers.
I suppose. Or just some common sense people. I think you'll find that most studies do a good job in digesting their findings in a neutral way. But people ignore all that, and just take the numbers and interpret them shittily, which kinda forces the other half of the population to discredit or ignore the entire study. So you are left with i.e.: demonstrable evidence that the youth of a certain demographic is having a crime problem and nobody does anything about it, because acknowledging it would be to side with the nutjobs who jumped on this fact and spun it the most dumb racist way they could.
That's how I see it, anyway.

>Anyways, he seems to keep up with things like IQ research and personality research besides clinical research. But what about evolutionary psychology would make one suspicious of his speculation?
I'd expect him to know of IQ and Personality Tests, as that was the majority of his research as a psychologist. But frankly, right now most of that research boils down to which company can come up with the best adaptive IQ test (mostly designed like IST-R) or new newest cool things people did with the Big Five.
That takes, like, 30min a month. Less for him, presumably.

>>9896788
you're retarded

>>9896797
Read the first three words of my post.
Retard.

>>9896658
Is there any well-adjusted person that doesn't think that abortion is a bad thing unless the woman's life is in immediate danger or was raped?
The debate on abortion is mostly whether or not it is a permissible bad thing in cases other than rape or the woman life being in danger.

>>9896833
can you be any more delusional? what's a bad thing anyway? morality comes from god right?

>>9896820
Profound.

>>9896822
Yeah, I did. Was I talking about birthrates? It sounded like you misread the chart to me.

>>9896841
Where else should it come from?

>>9896773
And what argument is that, exactly?
How in gods name have you managed to exclude the environmental factors of entire subcultures without a single longitual study?

There is avid evidence that environmental factors are a thing. There is no evidence for how large the biological factor is in these groups. And no, smacking standard distributions over each other doesn't prove shit.

Trust me, dude. I'm the first one to tell people that for the individual, genetics is a big part in IQ. And that it isn't insane to hypothesize genetic racial differences for it. (We do it with everything else.) But there simply is no evidence for it and there never will be, until you can experimentally or at least statistically remove the environmental factor. Which, right now, is impossible.
If you somehow manage to pull that off, you are likely to get an international prize in mathematics.

>>9896845
The first three words are about the chart, are you stupis?
I've talked about birth rates because it is always the conclusion to this argument. If you import dumb people they will outbreed us. I just pointed out, preventively, that this is objectively wrong.

How does Peterson trigger /lit/ so much?

Peterson has said he'll accept any debate request that's offered. You guys, can probably even as a collective, make a video essay against one of his thesis/arguments or suggest your own and he will reply to it if it can be put on Youtube.

Why don't you guys do that if you want to BTFO of him?

>>9896658
That was my point. Nobody in their right mind would assume abortion is in any way a pleasant experience.
Especially not people who have done them or have helped people with it.
Even the most liberally minded people will find it psychologically and physically stressful. Nobody WANTS to do it, unless the consequences of having the baby are worse than the procedure.

>>9896814
>I don't think it is, really. Because he uses "speculation" to make a point without having to back it up, knowing that it has an effect either way. Look at his answer to a question about abortion. He knowingly starts with a point literally anyone would agree with, yet states it in the most provocative (and knowingly right-wing) way possible. And then he goes into a "tangent" of musings, which he doesn't commit to, but still follows a clear argumentative line. It's essentially "I'm not saying you should be conservative, But you should totally be conservative."
He does this, knowing that his audience will do more with it than just take notes and compare it to other notions.

It's not clear he actually understands his audience very well, and he constantly emphasizes that people not be ideologically possesed.

How was his answer provocative? Also, his position is hardly conservative, because he takes care to point out that the legality of abortion is a separate issue from its morality, leaving the legality in the air (which, I would even suggest, to anyone familiar with American/Canadian politics, that's code for "It should be legal").

>I suppose. Or just some common sense people. I think you'll find that most studies do a good job in digesting their findings in a neutral way. But people ignore all that, and just take the numbers and interpret them shittily, which kinda forces the other half of the population to discredit or ignore the entire study. So you are left with i.e.: demonstrable evidence that the youth of a certain demographic is having a crime problem and nobody does anything about it, because acknowledging it would be to side with the nutjobs who jumped on this fact and spun it the most dumb racist way they could.That's how I see it, anyway.

I agree.


>Anyways, he seems to keep up with things like IQ research and personality research besides clinical research. But what about evolutionary psychology would make one suspicious of his speculation?

Didn't answer my question at the end. I don't think there's any major theoretical reason for rejecting his archetype speculation.

He is entertaining and has high meme potential.

A+

File: iq_by_country.png (28KB, 1357x800px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1357x800px

>>9896852
>There is avid evidence
I'm sorry ... avid evidence?

I posted the evidence, the mean IQ of different racial groups. Why are you trying to use individuals as a means of determining racial differences between groups? That doesn't make any sense. And what environmental factors are you talking about? Do you think it's white people's fault that blacks have low IQs? What about Africa? You can't see these trends? They are very clearly situated along ethnic lines.

>>9896773
You provide no source on that dataset but it's besides the point. I can take some data and show you there's a correlation between drinking milk and going on to hardcore drug addiction since 95% or something of drug users consumed milk initially.

"Intelligence tests" essentially boil down to pattern recognition, you'll find most people who are dumb as fuck never properly developed those learnable skills early on, not that they biologically couldn't but because for one reason or other.

>>9896833
>>9896871
People sadly are allowed to make their own decisions, good or bad. The utilitarian alternative is to socialize personal decisions to maximize public happiness and root out all sadomasochists.

>>9896855
Stupis? I still don't understand why you started talking about birthrates after I showed you an IQ chart. You're saying I should have anticipated the outcome of this exchange? That's odd.

>>9896841
>what's a bad thing anyway?
Are you retarded? Actions that lead to death of another human being would generally be considered bad unless you have been left brain damaged by some autistic ideology.

>>9896921
no it wouldn't. and even if it would generally considered doesn't make it intrinsically bad

>>9896913
>not that they biologically couldn't but because for one reason or other.
I'm having trouble following you, you don't seem to write well. Are you black? Is that why you're taking offense to objective measures of intelligence and why certain groups routinely do so poorly on them? Or you think the tests are biased in favor of white people?

File: 1418861046060.jpg (60KB, 498x668px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 498x668px

>>9896900
Why did civilization emerge in the lower IQ areas while Europe was filled with illiterate barbarian morons? Maybe after functional institutions were built up the barbarians began to be enculturated into different practices that rose their intelligence?

>>9896879
>It's not clear he actually understands his audience very well, and he constantly emphasizes that people not be ideologically possesed.
After which he introduces the notion that "the past" had healthier notions on how to live.
>How was his answer provocative?
He literally shouts "Abortion is wrong!"
I already said he just starts off from there. Then he takes a common sense position, but marries it with a bunch of notions about how this "used to be a non-issue".
He constantly implies that a typically conservative lifestyle is "healthier", notwithstanding if it is factually better or if he is actually right about that.
>Didn't answer my question at the end. I don't think there's any major theoretical reason for rejecting his archetype speculation.
And I already told you that there is an empirical one.
I think it is borderline negligent to base a vast portion on your assertions on an outdated theory that, in the best of circumstances, is inaccurate. He would disagree and cite his pragmatic reasoning to do so, but even by any normal pragmatic position, you wouldn't extrapolate so much on Jungian archetypes. Pragmatism still has to incorporate all the data. His position does not. It's akin to using horoscopes as basis for your analysis, knowing that it's an asinine theory, but arguing "hey, it works for me, so it's fine."
He could easily and more accurately do most of his assertions just with the Big Five. But few people would understand what he is talking about and it would force him to be conceptually accurate, so he doesn't.

>>9896953
And where would that be? Mesopotamia? Surely you realize that the people who are in those places today haven't been there forever, right? Indo-European tribes started those civilizations and lived throughout the region, which is why people as far as Iran and India to this day speak Indo-European languages. You think the people who live in the middle east now who can barely hold their presently dysfunctional polities together started ancient civilizations? Ha. Need to brush up on that ancient history, fella.

>>9896900
IQ correlated highly with the socio-economic demands a person is faced with. Babuntu from the Tukaluka Clan will have little demand for mathematical prowess.

Meanwhile, Core Knowledge studies with newly discovered tribes consistently show that while there are significant IQ differences, there are none in more basic cognitive faculties.

>They are very clearly situated along ethnic lines.
Because state lined are predominantly defined by ethnic groups and different states will have different environmental demands.
You will also find a strong correlation to the respective economic situation of these countries. And while you will probably just infer that this is due to IQ, you'll find that older maps of the same sort paint a much higher number of the countries with red and yellow. All of which are more economically developed by now.

And if you honestly don't know of the (twin) studies concerning environmental factors of IQ, you've just shown to have less understanding of the construct than someone who did 101 Psych.

>>9896944
What's the objective measure of intelligence? I said you didn't even cite your method or dataset.

Are you claiming whites and blacks biologically have different data storage capacities limiting information they can absorb? Most of what your testing for on those IQ tests have to do with pattern recognition skills which can be taught. You'll find that people who are bad at pattern recognition had failures in early childhood development which is predominantly a social issue.

Until you find the IQ gene your not going to increase public intelligence with eugenics.

>>9896995
>Indo-European tribes started those civilizations
Nordicist plz, real anthropological work doesn't back up your claims

>>9897016
Then why do black students in the highest income black district in the US still get lower test scores than whites in the lowest income white district in the US?

Do you know why? Because the environmental factors don't matter. Outliers don't matter.

There is:

1) mean, and
2) regression to the mean

That's all that matters. And that's nature. It's not white people's fault.

>>9896969
>After which he introduces the notion that "the past" had healthier notions on how to live.

It's pretty obvious at this point that you're ideologically possesed and can't help but interpret anything that is even vaguely outside your viewpoint as being an opinion of the damned. He's always talking about how much the world has improved in terms of things like health and economic prosperity. What he is against is the arrogant rationalism of our times where religious phenomenon are disregarded as superstition. Past people at last respected it.

>He literally shouts "Abortion is wrong!" I already said he just starts off from there. Then he takes a common sense position, but marries it with a bunch of notions about how this "used to be a non-issue". He constantly implies that a typically conservative lifestyle is "healthier", notwithstanding if it is factually better or if he is actually right about that.

Well, one, he usually shouts everything and two, you hardly refuted my point about the nuance of his position. When does he imply that a conservative lifestyle is healthier? How are we even defining "conservative lifestyle"?

>And I already told you that there is an empirical one.I think it is borderline negligent to base a vast portion on your assertions on an outdated theory that, in the best of circumstances, is inaccurate. He would disagree and cite his pragmatic reasoning to do so, but even by any normal pragmatic position, you wouldn't extrapolate so much on Jungian archetypes. Pragmatism still has to incorporate all the data. His position does not. It's akin to using horoscopes as basis for your analysis, knowing that it's an asinine theory, but arguing "hey, it works for me, so it's fine." He could easily and more accurately do most of his assertions just with the Big Five. But few people would understand what he is talking about and it would force him to be conceptually accurate, so he doesn't.

What's inaccurate about the theory? Are the vast majority of his claims really base on this theory?

>>9897032
>data storage capacities
Huh?

See below. This is a fact of reality. Do you know that some African tribes don't even have a word for "obligation"? These are dysfunctional people and it's not anyone else's fault they're that way. And Indo-European tribes were likely not Nordics, amigo. Read up.

>>9897051
>Then why do black students in the highest income black district in the US still get lower test scores than whites in the lowest income white district in the US?
If you are telling me privileged black kids in Beverly Hills are doing worse off intellectually than white kids in a trailer park in Texas than I would think you're probably working with seriously flawed datasets.
I'm not American but were things even standardized in America before recent years? I thougth that was the whole common core controversy

>>9897079
Are you claiming they can't learn the word obligation though? If so you're being disingenuous and no noting about cognitive capacity. If you're claiming Ancient Egypt was Indo-European you're just a bad troll.

>>9897107
WE

>>9897107
it's a pretty bad sign if they haven't learned obligation on their own, speaks for their instant gratification desires, lack of thinking ahead in the future which both correlate heavily with general intelligence.

Ancient Egyptians were middle easterns, current ones are actually sub-Saharan (genome).

File: 580cea5fd41eb0aa2689ff40f8609ad80e41b952f547245c0146f1f259649a3e.jpg (129KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1024x768px

>>9897107
You can look it up. I think they were, perhaps, PISA scores and that the black district was indeed in LA and the white district in West Virginia. Not about being "worse off" though, is it? It's about nature, which determines mean IQ that regresses back toward the mean with high achieving outliers. That's how this works, man. I'm not lying to you. The science is in on this one.

I said there literally is no word for "obligation." And that's true. Black people are violent and not smart. 100% nature here. And ancient Egypt was, in addition to Mesopotamia, also started by Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans lived throughout the middle east in the ancient world and semitic tribes only inhabited the southern part of the Arabian peninsula.

File: IMG_4725.png (629KB, 624x627px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 624x627px

>>9897117
WUZ

>>9897121
>Ancient Egyptians were middle easterns, current ones are actually sub-Saharan (genome).
Not true, actually. Egyptian civilization was started by Indo-Europeans and became gradually semiticized (as we're seeing happen now in the west) over centuries, though the leadership remained largely European. Present day Egyptians also only have about 10% Sub-Saharan admixture.

>>9897053
>It's pretty obvious at this point that you're ideologically possesed and can't help but interpret anything that is even vaguely outside your viewpoint as being an opinion of the damned. He's always talking about how much the world has improved in terms of things like health and economic prosperity. What he is against is the arrogant rationalism of our times where religious phenomenon are disregarded as superstition. Past people at last respected it.
But that's the position literally every statist has.
"We have developed so well and are now the peak of civilization. The only problems arise from people who want to distort the status quo in the name of progress."

I'm not saying it is his explicit position.
But it is certainly what he used as a bastion for and the way he chooses to argue lends itself to that. And I must imagine that he knows this.
>When does he imply that a conservative lifestyle is healthier? How are we even defining "conservative lifestyle"?
For instance is tangent about marriage and how stuff like "marrying young" is perhaps better.

Again, I'm not saying it is his explicit position. That's my point. He throws everything up in the air by defining "truth" thru it's immediate utility. And then he simply tends to fall a but more on the right side of things. Including being "ironically Christian", because being watched is a good way to get people to act more morally. (Yes, he literally argued this.)

I get his beef with mouthfoaming "liberals". I just find that many of his supposedly common sense counter-positions tend to be a bit more counter than perhaps intended.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it and it boils down to his insistence to use Jungian analytics and Piaget for the majority of his stances, both being conceptually heavily influenced by the culture of their time.
>What's inaccurate about the theory?
The theory itself is knowingly vague as hell (see horoscope comparison) and every attempt at empirical validation has failed. ESPECIALLY cross-cultural studies, in which the archetypes change drastically. (I believe he even admitted to this.) Including the Jungian Personality theories.
>Are the vast majority of his claims really base on this theory?
I have yet to see a single talk, conversation or debate about his ideas, where he doesn't use archetypes to establish the point. And I've seen a bunch by now.
Granted, sometimes he uses them just as description for the phenomenon he is trying to get across. But a lot of times he uses it as sort of pseudo-validation.

>>9897143
>The science is in on this one.
Okay, post some meta-analyses then.

>>9895174
wtf? elaborate?

>>9895089

Do you have any solid criticisms of his views or ideas? Are you just shitposting to seem intellectually superior? Either way, fuck off.

>>9897257
Not your personal researcher, man. And I think my case was open and shut pretty authoritatively. The twin studies, I forgot to mention, are also the opposite of what you implied, i.e., separated twins have nearly identical IQs. If this is a subject you're interested in, though, I'd check out Steve Sailer, Razib Khan, and James Thompson, the work of whom will confirm what I've been telling you. Good day.

he's a fucking pseud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwL449AMHMo&t=

File: Fuck The President.jpg (93KB, 1170x780px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1170x780px

>>9896621
nigga speak english lol

witcho dusty pretentious ass

>>9897252
Conservatives and non-conservatives are hardly squabbling over when you should marry. Suggesting that maybe it's better to marry younger hardly warrants being associated with some damning ideological label.

>being watched is a good way to get people to act more morally. (Yes, he literally argued this.)

I've never heard this from him, although I know he says something like this in his upcoming book. Part of his notion of God is more like the moral character of the universe. If you err, the world bites back because it's just structured in a certain way.

>I get his beef with mouthfoaming "liberals".

I have watched a bazillion hours of him talking and he has not once condemned "liberals". The only time he's used that word is to identify as a classical liberal. You're still subtly trying to portray him as a conservative.

>The theory itself is knowingly vague as hell (see horoscope comparison) and every attempt at empirical validation has failed. ESPECIALLY cross-cultural studies, in which the archetypes change drastically. (I believe he even admitted to this.) Including the Jungian Personality theories.

The problem there is that Peterson uses his own archetypes, not Jung's.

>I have yet to see a single talk, conversation or debate about his ideas, where he doesn't use archetypes to establish the point. And I've seen a bunch by now. Granted, sometimes he uses them just as description for the phenomenon he is trying to get across. But a lot of times he uses it as sort of pseudo-validation.

Besides the hero/adversary archetype, his archetypes are basically story features (nature/culture) or phenomenological phenomenon (chaos/order). Most generally, they are metaphysical. These aren't behavioral archetypes.

>Including the Jungian Personality theories.

He's a Big Five personality theorist, not a Jungian personality theorist.

The only parts of Jungian theory he adheres to by the book are clinical methods. His adherence to Jung is greatly exaggerated.

>>9897327
>Not your personal researcher, man. And I think my case was open and shut pretty authoritatively.

>"Ethnic groups have different IQs and it's because of their ethnicity. Here are the mean IQs."
>Nobody denies the difference in mean IQ. That doesn't prove the biological factor being the operative one here and definitely not the sole one.
>"AHA, but what of THIS!" *posts more standard deviations*
You are literally saying correlation implies causation and have nothing else to say about it.
That's so dumb that you are either trolling or you are a candidate to remove yourself from the genepool, for the good of the mean-IQ.
>The twin studies, I forgot to mention, are also the opposite of what you implied, i.e., separated twins have nearly identical IQs.
False, studies consistently place the genetic factor anywhere between 0.5-0.8, with meta-analyses placing it at about 0.7.
i.e.:
http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/definitions-structure-and-measurement/Intelligence-Knowns-and-unknowns.pdf

>I'd check out Steve Sailer, Razib Khan,
>and James Thompson,
Okay, you must be fucking with me.
Good bait tho.

>>9897364
What was your point here?

File: dr phil.jpg (31KB, 736x522px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 736x522px

Can anyone explain to me the problem with Peterson? He seems to be speaking common sense wisdom to me.

>>9897381
>Conservatives and non-conservatives are hardly squabbling over when you should marry. Suggesting that maybe it's better to marry younger hardly warrants being associated with some damning ideological label.
It is, if your argument is phared around it used to be that way and it may have been better.
>although I know he says something like this in his upcoming book.
He also said so repeatedly in interviews. I don't see how you missed that, if you have seen "baziollions of hours" of him.
>he has not once condemned "liberals"
I never said he did. I'm saying that the "muh pronoun" crowd is a big reason for his current career as a speaker.
>You're still subtly trying to portray him as a conservative.
No, I am SAYING that he is a subtle conservative.
>The problem there is that Peterson uses his own archetypes, not Jung's.
As far as I can tell, he uses Jung's archetypes and sometimes equates them with other cultural examples. But I'm open to being disproven on this.
But my point still kinda stands. ESPECIALLY if he were to argue with "new" archetypes, which he has certainly not scientifically validated. (I checked his scientific record.)
>These aren't behavioral archetypes.
He uses them as psychological archetypes. He even once said that the cause of almost all mental disorders is literally just "too much chaos". And the type of symptoms are just "the weakest link". Come on, man. Surely you can see how crude that is.
>He's a Big Five personality theorist, not a Jungian personality theorist.
...I know. You asked about reasons why Jung is outdated. I gave some of them to you. I even said that he must know that Jung is outdated, yet he uses it more than just metaphorically.

I feel like we are going in circles here.
>His adherence to Jung is greatly exaggerated.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then.With which our conversation is probably over, since neither of us has an excel sheet on all of his talks or interviews.

I guess I'll pay attention to how he uses them, when I see more of him. Maybe I misinterpreted. But I strongly suggest you do the same.

>>9897456
Because the only thing of value he has to say is literally just common sense.

>>9897468
common sense is rare in times of political correctness, social justice warrriors.

I have to admit that while I'm in agreement with what I've heard others say about his stances on Marxism and postmodernism, I hadn't actually heard him speak until his interview with the Jewgle guy, and I started cracking up.

>>9897459
>It is, if your argument is phared around it used to be that way and it may have been better.

Maybe it's a conservative position, but having a conservative position does not warrant the label.

>repeatedly

doubt.jpg

>I never said he did. I'm saying that the "muh pronoun" crowd is a big reason for his current career as a speaker.

Well no one can deny that.

>No, I am SAYING that he is a subtle conservative.

Maybe he's a slight conservative. You seem to think he's trying to slip in conservatism through the back door like a trickster. It's kind of silly. He just has nuanced positions.

>As far as I can tell, he uses Jung's archetypes and sometimes equates them with other cultural examples. But I'm open to being disproven on this. But my point still kinda stands. ESPECIALLY if he were to argue with "new" archetypes, which he has certainly not scientifically validated. (I checked his scientific record.)

Just read Maps of Meaning. He explains everything about them there.

https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf

>He uses them as psychological archetypes. He even once said that the cause of almost all mental disorders is literally just "too much chaos". And the type of symptoms are just "the weakest link". Come on, man. Surely you can see how crude that is.

That's just obvious if you understand what he means by chaos.

And chaos isn't just in the head. It's a feature of the world. His archetypes are not precisely psychological, although you might make a case that they are, maybe somehow.

>...I know. You asked about reasons why Jung is outdated. I gave some of them to you. I even said that he must know that Jung is outdated, yet he uses it more than just metaphorically.

I was just asking about archetypes.

>I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then.With which our conversation is probably over, since neither of us has an excel sheet on all of his talks or interviews. I guess I'll pay attention to how he uses them, when I see more of him. Maybe I misinterpreted. But I strongly suggest you do the same.

Fair enough.

>>9895129
>And you wonder why the kids today are heading Right?
[citation needed]

>>9897636
>[citation needed]
What did he mean by this?

>>9895164
Why do people care what a board is in their heads ?

>>9895089
>conceive it as brainwashing?
lol, imagine being this upset by seeing someone who's not an actual commie given a platform
This had better be b8

>>9899633
He meant that the thing you just said as a fact isnt really a fact and just because a few bored children larp as right wingers doesnt mean shit. Most kids are actually smart and dont dabble with politics at all. 4chan has a very narrowminded outlook on everything.

>>9899660
>sides with white supremacists who outright lie to you to make you accept their ideology
>comment section flooded with literalyl braindead racists
>but what he says is not at least questionable, not even clear ideological presumptions
that's what you're saying?

File: ahh, sweet liquor eases the pain.jpg (34KB, 640x318px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x318px

Is jp an alco?

>>9899706
>fire a professor because there are racists comments on his youtube video
Hot take

>>9899706
Found the commie kike.
Reminder that, much like your boogeymen nazis, you lost.

>>9899968
that's not even what he said

>>9899999
>>9899999
nice get

Beware of them who tell you what to think

>>9900009
It's the only true thing he said

>>9900084
how are his other points not true?

>>9900093
>sides with white supremacists
>peterson
Lol

>>9897143
>A personal genomics company in Switzerland says they've reconstructed a DNA profile of King Tutankhamen by watching the Discovery Channel, claiming the results suggest more than half of Western European men are related to the boy king. But researchers who worked to decode Tut's genome in the first place say the claim is "unscientific."

How are you racists so delusional?

>>9896900
oh shit, I forgot history didn't happen. My mistake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZK9h_Mzmu8
watch this and tell me again he doesn't bring up unrelated shit to brainwash people. no one ever attacked someone for being white and privileged. white privilege is real.

File: 1474317899388.jpg (38KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x480px

>Marx
>17 hits
Okay, what's the beef between Peterson and (neo-)Marxism? A friend of mine has started watching Peterson's 'lectures', now he won't shut up about evolutionary psychology and neo-Marxism. I thought Peterson was a meme up until now and only popular because he was easily digestible, but I can't seem to avoid him.
Has he written a critique where his core points on all this supposed neo-Marxism? I'm not particularly interested in his psychology, though.

>>9900487
where his core points [...] can be found*

>>9896151
made me chukl, did u maek this ?