How do we stop right wing scientists, psychologists...

Jordan Peterson is just an idiot, though.
It has nothng to do with psychology.

Someone should sick A.W. on him

It's such a weird jump from "axioms exist" , to "therefore we need god". I don't get how you can say this and not laugh at yourself out loud. I'm also a psychology major, so people like this infuriate me. I would hope if I ever got a cult following like this guy, that I'd at least have the decency to only speak with authority about things I have a grasp of, and approach with humility topics I don't have complete confidence in.

wow you sure are secure in what you believe in

hmmm

Looks like he's upset with retards spouting wordy nonsense to trick people into following their line of thinking.

IDK fam I think considering how weak the intellectual traditions in most Universities are atm its probably ok that people like Jordan Peterson are stepping in and giving people something to discuss and think about. If the Left wants in on this they should produce a character to contrast with JP.

I don't like the guy or his shtick and I don't watch his shit or read his garbage but I like that he pisses off atheists and sjw's and lefists despite not really believing in anything that's that bad. He's not a fascist or a theocrat so I don't see what the harm is in him talking to losers on twitter.

Pretty much this.

What comes to my mind at these moments is some parts of the #ACCELERATE MANIFESTO for an Accelerationist Politics:

Handing out theory to proles. Buy copies of Das Kapital on mass and hand them out to people. Anything with a hammer and sickle will get people’s curiosity going.

it has nothing to do with whatever cult you follow. If you spout nonsense regardless, get fucked.

Holla Forums tier logic.

by who? by based atheist post-modern philosophers? by zizek? who is going to fuck who for saying what? People say all kinds of things and I'm not certain anyone really BTFO's anyone, more that some people are given keys to keep going higher up in institutions and others are left to peddle their trash to those who will hear it. So if JP is gaining attention and influence, he's winning, that's all that matters. So counter him by taking away his influence. Its very hard to do that without either obsessively attacking him, which is something institutes rather than people tend to do (its what was done to Lamarck and Leibniz for instance) OR providing a viable alternative as was the case with quantum field theory and with neo-Keynesianism. So provide an alternative since the Left has not institutes to attack JP with. Individuals aren't powerful enough to really defeat other individuals.

The only reason I like you guys is because your very existence endlessly incenses and enrages Holla Forums. The only reason I like commies is because Christfags and Fascists hate them. That's it. There is no other attraction outside being against porky. Liking people because they piss off people you hate is natural.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

You mean pseudo-scientists.

I don't think there's a way, at least not a dignified way. We simply can't debunk them, because debunking idiocy takes much more time and effort than making idiocy up. It's a perfectly Sisyphean task. Oh, and their useful idiots won't listen to a second of your rebutal, unless you're talking one-on-one.

I'm afraid the only way to stop them from spreading disinfo is character assassination. Milo is a recent example of such a task done professionaly.

You gona pay for my cancer treatments? Cause that video gave me every kind of cancer known to man and even some not discovered yet.

...

The best way to do this, even though I rarely see this from leftists, is to denounce anything that is silly (including SJWshit). If not for those people, I really think that the retarded right wingers wouldn't be so absurd. Whenever one side believes that the other side is acting irrationally, they will in turn act EVEN MORE irrationally. The easiest way to stop it is not to try to reason with one of these morons, but is rather to not defend/ignore the absurdity of the SJWs, who even though they may not be as bad as right wingers, are still incredibly stupid.

You watched it out of your own free choice. Sorry, no refunds.

If communism came from the bible, why is he so mad about it?

That's exactly what we do, and yet there are just so many SJWs doing the dumbest, cringiest shit possible that people keep joining the alt-right. They must be COINTELPRO.

What do you think his line of thinking is? What does Peterson mean when he speaks about God the father and the son the hero?

You can't prove me wrong, so I'm right.

Because he probably hasn't even read the fucking thing.

I am nor trying to prove you wrong user. It just seems to me that the people on this board take everything that Peterson says at face value without any nuanced understanding of where he is coming from or what he means when he talks about God the father for instance.

Pro tip: He isn't talking about an imaginary sky father sitting on cloud passing out judgement on his believers.

"is natural". No its not. There is no natural biological assholery going on in your body.

By using logic.
You'd be surprised, but most believe that shit only because nobody cares to contradict them.

That argument bothers me in so many ways:
- "Proving" means deriving truths from previously known truths. Of course, without axiomatic truths, there's nothing you can start with. This has nothing to do with Godel.
- What Godel proved was that there is no logically complete axiomatic system that can model arithmetic. In other words, no matter what system you sue to do/study math, there will be always be propositions which cannot be proven neither true nor false. If you really want to (it might be useful) you can just decide those to be true or false, and incorporate it to the system as new axioms, but you'll always be left with infinitely many propositions that are still undecided. How does this curiosity of arithmetic relates to god is beyond me.
- Even stretching the analogy like hell, that's the wrong takeaway: You should add axioms to an incomplete system when they serve you, not because they sound good, and even still you can make them true or false at leisure. He's basically saying "there's a lot of stuff I cannot prove without taking god as an axiom, so I need it". No, you fucking retard, you could have just as well taken "there are no gods" as an axiom and prove that other shit false instead of true. You are explicetly saying that you WANT to believe in god, and just use the fact that it can't be proven to exist nor not exist as a bullshit excuse to believe in that crap and stay "logically consistent".
- Again, why the fuck mention Godel. His groundshaking discoveries can only be appreciated in a mathematical framework. Uncertainty is not a new thing in the world. From philosophy and perception, to relativity and quatum mechanics, every area of knowledge has "uncertainty rules" (in everything the observer affects the observation, be it psycology or physics). The only reason Godel stood out is because he found that even ethereal logical systems were subject to some level of undecidedness (as long as they were complex enough to contain arithmetic). But in now way do his discoveries say anything about the real world, life or god. It goes to show that existence is fucked up and uncertainty is a common theme all throughout, but that's that.

You are still choosing to believe in bullshit just because it bothers you that if you don't take it as an axiom it would be "logically undecided"

Fuck, I like that guy

I went to his twitter, and it's like he's the bastard child of Sam Harris and Dennis Prager.
Also this simpering video of his was pretty pathetic.
youtu.be/6-36KprOdFw

But Molymeme told me to hold on and then closed the call 15 minutes later and blocked me.

Nice response

That's not how Axioms work.

Academia is the center of leftie thought. We already have more than enough "inteligentsia".
We need some good old fashion rhetoricians.We need sophists and memesters.
Remember how Christopher Hitchens, the lest intelligent of all the "new atheists" popularized the idea and it took off like wildfire?
Fuck, even Sam Harris with his talk about secular spirituality is influencing at least a few hundred thousand people, directly or through people repeating his word.

Nobody reads Chomsky, nobody who matters. Only people who already know. Zizek is the closest thing the left has to a spokesperson to the new internet global community, and he is too much of a comedian, too much of a joke to take seriously for most.

Posting in a gay thread.

Source: Your feelz. You should have consulted stats.

Speakig of which, I'm told he he BTFO Peterson twice in one video, but I haven't looked for it yet.

We don't need more intelligentsia nor talk. We need action, and it's infinitely harder than the other two. And that's why we're fucked. American Porky has mastered the science of soft social control. Any political organization gets flooded with snitches and plants the second it gains any relevance.

To say nothing of the onslaught the LIBRUL MEDIUH would unleash. I can already see the Colberts and Valentis of the world decrying the Black Panthers as a menace to civilization if they had appeared now.

Christopher Hitchens was great and the best atheist I know.

maybe instead you should try to figure out why those "dumb proles" want nothing to do with you

lurk moar

DUUUUUDE LET'S INVADE IRAQ SADDAM IS THE WORST LEADER EVER.
Fuck him, just a professional contrarian

top kek

Of the four guys who released books at about the same time, and marketing called them "the four horsemen", he was the least intelligent and the least agreeable person.
Yet the most popular, because he said fuck a lot, and was full aggro.

Yeah no.

He is the least relevant person in the image, yet at the front, appearing to lead them?

New Atheism is what happens when a fringe movement gets invaded by first word white boys ages 14-30. They probably used a wikipedia list of famous atheists to figure out who else to draw in. Kind of glad that they left out all the leftists though

wtf, now I believe in god!

A clip of him talking about psychedelics popped up on my Youtube. My guess is that he's some sort of crypto mystic.

wait really?

HAHAHAHA THAT PIC WTF
how does anybody take the right seriously?

"I would say I don't think 'facts' are necessarily 'true.'" - Jordan Peterson

He actually did say this in his debate against Sam Harris. Harris completely BTFO'd him.

that's gotta be humiliating

Because in a practical way, they have been in power for all of human history, long before the French Revolution. Socialism would be a singularity shift in the human collective consciousness.

Aren't they two reactionary pseudo-intellectuals? What do they even have to discuss?

That's funny, because I think they are a lot alike.

God, I can unhear kermit everytime he talks now.

How does one become more left wing than Karl Marx?

But he's not talking about Karl Marx, user. He clearly wrote Karl Marx Marx, duh.

Seriously tho, anarchism is arguably more radical, by wanting to do away with the State at once.

Possadism is more leftist than Marx

Carl Schmitt
Mircea Eliade
Leo Strauss
Carl Jung
Bertrand de Jouvenel
Jacques Maritain
Eric Voegelin
Hillaire Belloc
Gilbert Chesterton
René Girard
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Oswald Spengler
Georges Dumézil
Martin Heidegger
Franz Hoppenheimer
Ludwig von Mises
Raymond Aron
Raymond Boudon
Pierre Boutang
Élie Halévy
Wilhelm Röpke
Murray Rothbard
Michael Oakeshott
Arnold Toynbee
Xavier Zubiri
Étienne Gilson
Henri de Lubac
Elizabeth Anscombe
Georg Henrik von Wright
Russel Kirk
Plinio Correa de Oliveira
Helmut Schoeck
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

OP did not say that all right-wing philosophers were larping
he's talking about people like Peterson with their non-sequitur Rationale™, not actual philosophers.

Mircea Eliade wrote in his diaries that he'd be fine with Socialism ruling Europe.

I like his comparative religion work a lot, and having read a lot of his diaries during and after the war, find him to hardly be a right winger. I know about his involvement with the Iron Guard, but attribute it more to his devotion to his professor than a coherent philosophical position.