Why does Holla Forums love Jordan Peterson so much?

Grand theft auto?

Because he engages in sophistry which is what entry level reactionaries are all about.

...

so when he says "sort yourself out", he's really saying "give me money". He's not telling you how you can sort yourself out, he's telling you to see a fucking psychologist? Never once have I heard him say "I'll tell you how to sort yourself out…", it's just a vacuous remark.

I don't care about his publications; so long as he continues offering unsolicited unhelpful advice of "sort yourself out" without any suggestion of method, he's spouting bullshite. He's worse than people who just tell you to read a book without actually telling you why, or what points you should pick up from it, or where in particular in the book the point is being made.

yep, those citations really sorted me out! thanks to those citations, I'm a changed man.

Name 99 examples of this

...

and even if you were right, there's a difference between having an abusive father and daddy issues. you're literally just going "no u"

Why does Holla Forums associate peoples and groups to Holla Forums that Holla Forums actively attacks or ignores, such as Peterson and kekistan (Sargon, who Holla Forums hates)? Why are the people here so absurdly stupid? Who goes to such lengths to produce false truths to support their own baseless opinions?

Holla Forums technically hates everything and everyone. Also Holla Forums is shorthand for "internet reactionaries."

Holla Forums are virtue signalling faggots who pretend to be nazis but you just know they watch nothing but cuckservative zionists on youtube

You seem to think "intellectual" amounts to being hired by a far-Left co-opted institution. Wrong. Let's go look at your so-called Leftist "intellectual" professors on youtube, screaming their heads off like retards at antifa rallies. There's hardly an intellectual left in those failed institutions, where people are hired not based on competence, but rather ideology and loyalty. Most intellectuals are found outside of the campus, and most of them are centrist, while only a tiny few are Left-leaning. There's probably more true intellectual Right-wingers than Left. Note I said true intellectual. Being an intellectual is not based on hired position.

It's ironic that a board whose primary complaint is idiot conservatives decrying basic bitch liberalism as "socialism" thinks that anything and everything tangentially related to Holla Forums and the "alt-right" is representative of Holla Forums and the "alt-right"

Plus this board is inordinately obsessed with Holla Forums, to a really unhealthy extent

Hi reddit, maybe try lurking more. We get literally dozens of Holla Forums raiders every single fucking day.

There is nothing wrong with that. We are the only board that knows how to actually bully Holla Forums properly.

It seems like, at this point, Holla Forums exists solely to whine about Holla Forums, because no one here actually produces an original idea. It's a dead board with hardly a new user coming in. 90% of the threads here are twitter tier idiocy.

I think I found the problem.

Yea it's real dead lol ignore that like 6 months ago we had 1/5th the users as we do now

You'd think people would wise up after Ben Carson and realize that being smart in one field doesn't qualify you to speak intelligently on anything else

Says the redditor

Opinions you don't like =/= "Holla Forums raiders"

wew

The threads move at a tenth the pace of Holla Forums, they last for weeks unless shit-posting ensues, and there's rarely actual political discussion. Also when threads run long, it's usually due entirely to two to four people. There's no activity here. It's dead.

Reddit spacing spotted

If you say so dude. I don't know of many dead things that grow.

...

tbh I only post here because Holla Forums is an even greater circlejerk and all the news boards are cannibalising each other

It's the front page of the internet. You'd have to be a cyberhermit to not have seen it's slums.

To be fair, he actually does mention specific methods like his whole "Self authoring" exercise
selfauthoring.com/about.html

Holla Forums is only popular because of Reddit. That's not a fair comparison.

...

I don't know where you're from, but you have to go back.

nice reddit spacing
oh shit, guess those people posting under the nazi flag aren't from Holla Forums, damn, got me good

No. I do get where you're coming from, but this board does get qutie a generous ammount of shitposting from Holla Forums, some times in large bursts. Generally, it has several "hahahahaha liberals cultural marxiasma btfo jews how will you recover" threads at all times. This has no doubt made Holla Forums's fixation on them larger.

A fixation that, if you stop to think about it, makes perfect sense.

At least most of the threads on Holla Forums have to do with some form of politics. I go to the front page here and a third of the threads have to do with other boards, or "what does Holla Forums think of" shit.

You're either new, or a faggot.

For the same reason they (once) loved Ben Shapiro, he's an intellectual who BTFOs snowflakes with a basic amount of knowledge on biology, sociology and a facts > feelings approach. The bar's set pretty damn low these days cuz everybody's afraid of them purple haired, bespectacled faggots/dykes, but yeah…that's why he's so popular with them.

He don't like them much himself though cuz he's a bit of a "cuckservative" in the sense that he ain't down with gassing the kikes and shit so he'll prolly lose a lotta his supporters once he gets into the far-right's idpol retardation.

...

...

How can you be this ignorant about Holla Forums to claim they loved a Jew? What universe did this Holla Forums exist in?

okay name your 5 favorite right wing intellectuals

There you are. Resort to whatever pre-cooked internet quip you can think of and call it a day.

oh, fair enough, I'll look into it. I think I'm just angry at how much of a reactionary he is.

...

He seems pretty cozy with them.
There's even been times where he's said he "liked" Holla Forums.
Either way, Carl is a useful idiot for right-wingers of all stripes.

The same one that defends this guy to the death

it means he has witnessed first hand broken people becoming fixed, and should have more insight than most on this process>>1856737

Greater Toronto Area

no, he's basically saying you can't expect to help the world if you aren't a stable individual. That's also where the "clean your room" meme came from, you can't expect to help the world if you can't even clean your own room.

you're just reciting the memes people have made, not the actual message that Jordan sends.

his citations seem to sort many psychologists out, and help them with their research…

Except Jordan doesn't pretend to be an expert in anything he hasn't dealt with first-hand. The SJWs at UofT attempted to have him silenced and harassed him daily, lead by professors who follow ideologies that he can find faults with.

Sorry, you're just a cuck for Holla Forums
my mistake

also

lel
boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/132836961/jordan-peterson

...

are you living under a fucking rock, senpai?

We both know there's a substantial amount of crossposting.
don't lie

I'm going to add a lesser known Peter Suedfeld, inventor of the modern float tank, and survivor of the Nazi occupation of Hungary. Lived in a hole for 1.5 years, gleaning food scraps until twilight, until the communists rescued him, then treated him like dogshit until the Americans rescued him and gave him refugee status.

the crossposting doesn't ammeter in this context. cuckpol is frequented by redditors and normalfags who hear about it from CNN. Linking to a JP thread on there doesn't prove anything about Holla Forums collectively liking him.

Having some chicks with funny hair yell at you for a few hours doesn't imbue you with unparalleled wisdom in politics, philosophy, and sociology. All fields that he has suddenly become an "expert in".

Who said anything about hiveminding him?
Point is, people on Holla Forums like him.
I rest my case.
Quit moving the goal post.

People linked here from Holla Forums, admitting to being from Holla Forums, and arguing entirely with memes sources from Holla Forums are likely from Holla Forums

Sorry if this sounds like a huge leap in logic for you.

You guys are normalfags, tho.

random people who post on cuckpol sometimes link him, big whoop.
you know there are far more Lenin threads than their are JP threads on cuckpol at any given moment, right

this isn't a game, honey

...

...

you're just ignoring those who aren't from pol with dissenting opinions

sure, you get raided all the time (you are on jim's board for christ's sake), doesn't mean some of the posts critical of your hivemind aren't unique and deserve merit

If anything the posts critical of our "hivemind" get responded to too much, as the posters here are notorious for taking the bait. There isn't even a strong enough consensus here on enough topics to have a real "hivemind" and it's even a meme of the left that it's terminally sectarian.

So basically, you're just spouting the most generic anti-leftist talking points while knowing nothing about this board and then whining that you aren't being engaged with seriously enough despite the fact that multiple people engage you with real answers.

nothing was implied, you are just quipping back with substance-lacking, standard leftypol memes.

wtf? every post is implying something

at what point did I spout anything anti-leftist? are you even reading my posts or just focusing on words that catch your eye.

The only point I'm trying to make is that Jordan has some substance, and is worth listening too. Also, he's not a conservative nor anti-leftist. He's anti-communist. There is a fucking difference.

And everyone that posts controversial opinions on Holla Forums is a JIDF shill

no, some posts are SAYING something, not everything has subtle implications…

they don't just link him, they like him

I hope so.

I know, bb.
That's why you shouldn't play games with me ;)

Because he makes it seem as if Christianity were all about capitalism and how to rise up in the social dominance hierarchy.

You might be basementfags at the start,
but you're normalfags at heart.

Holla Forums isn't focused enough to say that them liking someone means anything at all. pol likes Lenin, pol likes Stalin, pol likes hitler.

Yeah, but why do they like him?
It's real simple.
1. it fits some nationalist narrative
or 2. they can make memes out them to fit a nationalist narrative

Do you just read CBC coverage of him or actually watch a lecture?

He points out how perfect the archetypes of Christianity are for how early it was written, and how the bible contains great references for the world. He may have lost part 1 (depending on which hivemind you ask), but he proved this point in part 2 of the Sam Harris podcast.

woah, when did nationalism become an enemy of the left and a cuckpol thing? was I sleeping when platformism was re-defined? do we really want to help the neocons globalize?

or general right wing narrative, to be more exact.
Most of the time if they praise Stalin, it's because he was ""[email protected]/* */

The entire post implying we're anything close to a hivemind, that we don't accept dissenting opinions, etc. Basically the same things you can hear listening to any run of the mill conservative talking head, on tv or on youtube
I beg to fucking differ
youtube.com/watch?v=TiC8kUQLXkE
Being "anti-communist" is super convenient when you consider Trudeau a "neo-marxism" lmao

So is Jordan the Wise bearded man now? The striking parallels between Holla Forums and kek with Holla Forums and chanology is staggering.

I watch his lectures.
I think he basically projects his own angloamerican liberal value system on Christianity.

if they praise Stalin, maybe it's a bunch of Communists that just think this board isn't worth joining? Last time I checked cuckpol doesn't limit membership.

der gud bois, they just want tendies n shiet

How many people come to Holla Forums broadcasting
etc?

we have anti-imperialism and national liberation for that.
We don't need nationalism.
Nationalism is the perfect tactic of the right because it fosters class collaborationism.
In this context, and the way pol uses it, it is almost always right wing

Trudeau is a neo-marxist in the identity politics realm, no doubt.

And in that lecture he refers to Conservatives externally, so he's not endorsing them.

He gave a lecture in Vancouver titles "the left-wing case for free speech" and spoke at length about how leftists secured free speech laws, and that they should recognize the power they will be giving the right if they keep this up and the pendulum swings back (which it always does)

You think Holla Forumsyps are confined to 4Chan? You don't think they're lowkey part of the alt-lite/skeptic community on YouTube that they love to call normies?

Not everything you don't like is marxism, fam

Having lurked there long enough, that's not usually the case.
The few times it is, they are usually being raided.

nationalism also improves the sense of self and status, according to many psychology studies.

if you can elaborate on anti-imperialism and national liberation, and explain how it can also fulfil a sense of self, you're onto something.

left-right is pretty much a false dichotomy though, that's the irony of all of this.

E.g. if I want UBI for my country, and don't want to bankrupt it, I need to limit immigration.

He is basically opposed to any collective effort to change the status quo and says that only people who rise up in the social dominance hierarchy, like Bill Gates, should 'change the world'.
Neglecting that broken individuals have a self interest to change the conditions that made them broken. He doesn't admit that anyone could ever be wronged by anything, but should just suck it up, like Christ did.

I just didn't want to use the word cultural marxism to avoid being called a stormcuck. But yeah, it's that. Toronto in particular gives a soapbox to any freak with a muh identity option, and then creates laws to enforce their narrative. that's cultural marxism and what Truedat seems to jack off to.

Do you m is anything about his beliefs. The guy rejects objective truth of any kind. On the Joe Rogan show, he denied that there was an objective truth as to how many hairs were on a person's body. Something you can literally count.

Neo marxism and cultural marxism aren't a thing. The fact that you're desperate for a synonym doesn't make you stormcuck, it just makes you kind of a retard

that's incredibly untrue. in one of his latest talks he highlights how important it is to have social protections so that no-one is poor enough to become violent, and advocates for a better standard of living across the board.

I just feel like you are all literally buying the CBC/Canadian Liberal Party's line on this guy. He really isn't against most of what you stand for, he's just a moderate.

Right, he only advocates for exclusively conservative platforms, endorses conservative politicians, speaks at conservative events, and leads speeches telling conservatives in the third person (so you know he can't possibly be including himself lol) to stand up and fight for "what's right".

I'm not desperate for anything, I'm just trying to find a way to communicate my ideas and thoughts to you without reading your whole fucking library and being 100% leftypol literate.

Thanks for the ad-hominem btw, tasty.

lol no it doesn't
t. psychology major
Any group working together to fulfill a common goal can do the same.
Just form a union of egoist. >8^)

No it's not, you political illiterate lol
Read the sticky.

Or…you know…just get rid of capitalism.

He's a capitalist cuck. He's absolutely against everything we stand for.

Every person from every political position across the board "advocates a better standard of living". The whole point is arguing that your brand of politics leads to better outcomes. This does not make you inherently a leftist

he does the same thing for leftists, he spoke at UBC at a talk for leftists, with most of UBC's humanities ppl attending and ultimately agreeing with him on most things.

Again, you are just seeing the spin on this, not the birds-eye view.

Is this your first time on an imageboard. Grow a thicker skin. Feel free to call me a cuck or a faggot if it helps.

In any case, the ideas that Trudeau advocates are firmly within the realm of liberalism and thus necessarily anti-marxist. You simply cannot have marxism within a liberal framework

He's really not, and that's not true at all. Are you really gonna hear Anne Counter advocate for UBI? Well, guess what, Jordan has. Again, please watch his lectures, read a book that disagrees with your opinion once in a while.

if you think Trudeau is a Neo Marxist or a cultural Marxist you deserve to be mocked.

I just heard this was a place where people discussed things with a reasonable tone, and you're appearing worse than pol on that front

His speeches to "leftists" (just milquetoast centrist libs) are absolutely not equivalent. He says "what you need to do is remember how you used to be" while reminiscing of the soft liberalism of the past, and then turns around to conservatives and tell them to push forcefully for their beliefs.

calling me a political illiterate for saying that left-right is a false dichotomy is kind of being illiterate, isn't it.

there are all sorts of ways in which this is true. Right-wing politics often advocate for tolitarianism, which you seem to endorse as well.

then call him a centrist then. he's not a conservative, that's the point I'm making here.

No, but you will here people like Mark Zuckerberg advocate it.
The point of UBI is to prolong capitalism, not to kill it.

UBI is not an inherently leftist idea, and in fact was heavily championed by right libertarians initially

God fuck I hate his voice

Actually he resembles more L.Ron Hubbard. Trying to peddle his psychological self-help stuff "self-authoring" to the alt right. He could simply make it free. It's just a bunch of instructions to write stuff.
Another similarity to LRH is that he scapegoats a specific group, postmodernists and neomarxists, and suffers from paranoia that they are out to get him and destroy his business.

If he goes to right-wingers and he tells them to be proud of their beliefs, and then goes to "left-wingers" and tell them they need to move right, calling him right wing is absolutely warranted.

I feel like you think us calling someone right wing means we think they're a nazi or something. He's just a center right person who found he can make a bigger splash by pandering to the alt-light. He's better than Milo and Ann Coulter, certainly, but that's not much of a high bar.

pls
Read
the
sticky
please

Have fun ushering in your utopia as a devout and moral disciple of marx, sunshine.

Milton Friedman is left wing now I guess

Cultural Marxism does exist but not in the definition of what Holla Forums and other reactionaries define. Cultural Marxism is nothing more than analysis of entertainment through the lens of Marxist ideology. The biggest irony is that conservatives do happen to harshly analyze
entertainment too using similar methods only this time under a moral religious belief. A good example of "culutral marxism" today is Zizek's analysis of hollywood movies.

Only Holla Forums would think this is a knock out blow to communism

So by this definition modern cultural marxism is basically just Zizek and a few other borderline unknowns.

You haven't been on Holla Forums in quite some time if you think my discourse is the same or worse than them, and in that I envy you

nvm
looks like the BO took down the original.
Anyway, leftism would be closely associated with anti-capitalist organization, according to political science. This is because the original left-right seating in the French parliament had to do with changing the economic order of things. The liberals sat on the left, while the royalist sat on the right.

this is cultural marxism
that is cultural marxism
he's cultural marxism
I'M cultural marxism
are there any other cultural marxisms i should know about?

it's not, because left-wingers have the stage right now when compared to conservatives, even if you don't think they're extreme enough.

he's pushing the centre things based on where he sees the centre as being. you may call that conservative, but it's really not.

If you listen to a whole lecture, you'll find that it is free. he often gives away coupon codes hidden in his videos.

LRon was a cult leader. Jordan is a free thinker.

or perhaps what I find polite is your version of rude, and vice reversa.

Where? Where is this the case? We're shifted so far to the right that "the left" that you're complaining about are just conservatives who like gay marriage and rainbow flags

Things that are not inherently left wing position:

Hitchens and Peterson are shit, dont know the others.

Well, instead of given away coupon codes he could simply make it free. Then there would be no need for the whole coupon code marketing trick. It is a marketing trick, because it makes it seem more valuable if you don't just make it freely available to anyone.

LRon was also a free thinker. Also Jordan has actually taken some concepts from LRon , like the 8 dynamics thing. He merely doesn't call it that way, but it's the same idea.
The idea that you first have to sort yourself out, before you can change the world is a Scientology concept. First improve yourself (1st dynamic), then your family (2nd dynamic), then your group (3rd dynamic), then your nation etc. and so on. It's straight out of Dianetics.

Liberals aren't leftist. Seriously you have be delusional if you think the left has the stage. Neolib capitalism with extra gays and minorities isn't leftism

because reddit loves him

...

...

wow that's some sick bantz

rofl, Mr. I'm to dumb to understand Deleuze so I'll call it gibberish.

I think with regards to psychology and the unique psychological issues brought about by modern society he has a lot of good things to say, but goddamn I cringe whenever he talks about politics and philosophy. You can find undergraduates in philosophy and political science more well informed than him.

Peterson is an unwitting cult leader, or possibly a witting one. After all he's making bank off of rightist pseuds.

jesus christ i haven't laughed this hard at anything in forever

KEK. where is the webm from?

jordan peterson isn't a huge fan of the idea of facts

Evola
Guenon
Land
Hobbes
Machiavelli
Spengler

However, Jordan Peterson is not one of them.

Poor man's Steven Pinker.

this is so better without context lmao

Because he's full of common sense advice that's easily accessible and organized well by his adoring cult-following and the man is good at using hand gestures and off-putting but also comforting eye contact to invoke authority. I mean he's just a good showman, why else would they like him? Same reason Icke drew/draws huge crowds. They say some smart things and then a bunch of shit they don't grasp or don't mean and then they reap the rewards for a short time. Since he has a limited appeal he will be a nothing in the next 5 years

this is also true

Unironically Lovecraft belongs on that list since you included Land

What the fuck is wrong with this person
Does he not have even a basic grasp of metaethics?

/thread

...

Sowell was a think tank toady that worked for the Hoover Institute, not some rebel intellectual lel

Literally

Aside from Land I don't see any contemporary ones that are relevant, and it's really a shame that not a single Holla Forumstard has ever heard of him anyway

He basically vomits out ideas of actual thinkers like Joseph Campbell and Aristotle and many others, and rightwingers, being rightwingers, never heard these ideas before and become suitably entranced. Sadly, Peterson doesn't add any of his own, but it's not like he needs to. In fact, that could be detrimental. Pic related. Then he finishes by conflating various en-vogue buzzwords like "cultural Marxism", "postmodernism" and "Frankfurt school", and presto, his idiotic viewers think they just received a divine revelation from the archangel Gabriel himself and come back for more. Absolutely nothing keeps people coming back more than making them feel smart.

you have to go back

Hello my Dear Lefty pollers
How Are you guys doing on this nice evening/midnight?
i was reading some manifesto

uhhh, away with the higher class!

Well imagine my shock!

Christ alive, what a faggot. He should stick to telling college campus trannies wearing a dress and high heels don't make you a woman so long as you were born with a dick.

...

Who are Plato, Nietzche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Ezra Pound, CS Lewis, TE Lawrence, Evola, etc.? The Western Canon of literature was basically written by right-wing, racist, sexist White men, as any one of your Jewish lit professors will tell you.

Jesus Christ that tweet. And then he has the gall to call others postmodernist.

One of these,
is not like the other
One of these,
doesn't belong!

...

You mean Lewis? I remember him being a meme for a while on a couple of boards.

The right would have called Nietzche a degenerate and would have poisoned Plato along with Socrates for the sake of empire.
Also, C.S. Lewis hated Nazis

Nietzche's emancipatory nihilism is the exact opposite of right-wing adherence to tradition and norms. His 'Übermensch' is one who builds their own instead.

But daddy issues stem from an overly permissive father.

Need relief:donate0.blogspot.com/…

Need relief:donate0.blogspot.com/….

...

What the fuck are you smoking lad?

take a careful look at his speeches
he doesnt deny reality and often even agrees with marxists, feminists etc
what he seems to discuss often is how the solutions arent that good

even dangerous

But Plato is one of the first communists.

They are used to youtube "le rational skeptics" so when they see someone come along with a shock horror, degree they MUST be correct. Listen having a degree dosen't make you immediately right it's a confirmation bias taken to incredible levels.Interestingly any leftist with a university degree is instead brainwashed by cultural marxism or something like that.

maybe we should all just spend our time cleaning rooms around the world and that'd fix everything

Oh my fucking god

he was a republican, which was a radical position for his time.

fucking how? What I got from the memepublic was that he was an overtly butt hurt technocrat who wanted everyone to realize how smart he was, and to let him wield absolute power.

That is the result of a really superficial reading, he never actually demands power for himself. You probably read him already assuming what he was going to say.

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2882020A778FD24392B22F368756680C

As pointed out, you are retarded.
Except his actually valuable philosophical input is apolitical and was developed before he started catering to the Nazis.

But I'll give you that, the economic right does have decent thinkers. It's just that most ones that could be identified as "Holla Forums" are vapid mystics pretending they are the warriors of their daydreams.

I reckon that having the opinions, intelligence and knowledge typical of past centuries or even millenia is a fundamental trait of a rightwinger.

Ezra Pound really stands out, he really was insignificant.

lol found teh butthurt Holla Forums tard !!!! whats up faggot how is trump you like getting buttfucked by capitalist shills? ?!!?? ~ : D

Christ guys, if you're going to make a Jordan Peterson thread put some effort into it. He is actually worth spending some time on not just doing hot-takes on his twitter comments.

The reason Holla Forums likes this guy is he is drawing on a deep education in psychology and humanities to argue for the value of traditional social structures and beliefs. This is a guy whose main intellectual influences are Nietzsche and Jung. His series on Christianity argues that the biblical stories are distilled cultural wisdom constructing a context in which we can perceive the world and act. He argues that we are not born with this capacity. We are lost in a void of confusion and must LEARN TO PERCEIVE. I want you stupid fucking kneejerking cunts to take a minute and ponder this. Ponder the fact that someone with such a deeply existentialist philosophy has an enthusiastic audience of people who claim to be right wing. He does not say the bible is true, he does not say that god is real, he does not say that marriage is always good. The only thing you will hear him say repeatedly is that these things existed for a reason and should be taken seriously. If you don't understand why that matters deeply to Holla Forums then you haven't been paying attention.

...

Yes I mean that seriously. I have probably spent over 20 hours watching his video series.

...

He is. He was a Harvard professor, phd from a good university all the formal qualifications. If you spent any time listening to him it would also be clear that while he speaks critically of people like Marx, Freud or more recent thinkers Focault etc. he has read and spent real time on them. He also spent many years working as a clinical psychologist, that shows you a side of humanity that a lot of people never get to see.

you might as well've said we should listen to him because he uses big words

You don't have to do anything. When I say Peterson is worth spending time on I do not mean that everything he says is correct or that he passes whatever ideological purity test. I mean that he is taking on a problem that has meat in it and any time you spend listening to his attempt to figure out that problem you will gain something from even if you don't agree with him.

That isn't particularly Nietzschean considering he regarded the Bible as the Jewish people's mythology turned to slave morality by the priestly caste. Through its stories one would merely "learn to perceive" in terms of a more refined ressentiment toward your betters.

Holla Forums doesn't love Jordan Peterson. He just happens to present the controversial topics in psychology pretty well.

I'll have to paraphrase Peterson's statement on that but it was something along the lines of, "yes the religious institution was used to subjugate but the stories and mythology came before the church. And isn't it interesting that these stories are the ones with enough power that they can be used for that task. What is it about them that makes them suitable?"

My take was that Peterson thinks there is something valuable in the cultural knowledge of the old stories and that was exactly why the priestly caste was able to manipulate people by controlling the mythology, canonizing their stories.

...

I've seen his youtube videos, he is incredibly ignorant on Marx. His main sources on """Marxism""" Seems to be Solzhenitsyn and Orwell. I would be surprised if he has actually even read Capital vol. 1. The guy may be a good psychologist, I'm not a psychologist so I don't know. But he is an absolute ignoramous by even the low standards of leftypol, its funny that he tells 19 year olds to clean their rooms when a muke-tier semi illiterate could BTFO him on Marxism. He only became so popular because hes a professor that rejected IDPIK. Big woop, so has everyone else in current year. Honestly Cenk fucking Uygur has a better understanding of socialism than petersons right wing maymay kekistan tier understanding of """"Marxism"""". I will literally eat a pile of shit if peterson could explain, from memory, Marx's expanded reproduction schema from vol 3. pssh
He is no different from any other blowhard who thinks they are an expert on marxism without even reading anything about it. He is the canadian sargon of a cuck

TE Lawrence fought alongside arabs and liked getting whipped by men… soo he's one of you

Hitler fought alongside arabs and liked getting whipped by men

I'd hazard Hobbes would be considered cannon for any self-respecting person on the right-wing.

gee , sounds like you need to sort yourself out!

Literally all of psychiatry is subtly hinting to people in various ways that they should sort themselves out.

...

The fuck are you talking about? please read those authors before talking shit.

Alexis de Tocqueville
Joseph de Maistre
Edmund Burke
Martin Heidegger
Carl Schmitt
René Guénon
George Santayana
Paul E. Gottfried
Samuel T. Francis
G.W.F. Hegel (yes and no)
Thomas Carlyle
Roger Scruton
Oswald Spengler
Julius Evola
Alain de Benoist
Guillaume Faye
Juan Donoso Cortés
etc..

You're just as stupid/irritating as the right wing "hurr durr the left don't no basik economics" goons.

You missed an important word in that first excerpt you linked too. "doctrines", Peterson is not speaking about Marx himself he is speaking about the official ideologies of countries such as Russia and China which killed and displaced millions in the name of their own interpretations of communism. And comparing them to the ideologies of academics and middle class bootlickers in western countries. It should not surprise you that there are some interesting similarities there.

To an extent I agree with you here, the Marxism that Peterson is referring to has little to nothing to do with Marx's work or post-modernism. But a lot of these people who are calling themselves marxist, or postmodernist don't have much to do with the original meaning of these terms either. If Peterson was just trying to dismiss ideas he did not agree with by labeling them something bad "marxism" then I'd agree with you all the way. (and a loooot of people on the right do that I completely grok why you're wary about this kind of shit) At least from what I've seen he's not, he is using a sort of Jungian theory to try and give an explicit statement of the unspoken ideology of the sjw left not just calling it communist.

There comes a point in a society where a practice, we bury our dead to prevent disease and mourn their passing, becomes a ritual stripped of its original intent and context. Why do we hunt eggs for Easter? Why are there trees to celebrate Christmas. Maybe you can give a vague answer about how it came from an old pagan ritual but there's nobody left who can really give a compelling defense for why we should do it or what parts of the ritual matter and which don't. There's a real danger when too much of society becomes empty ritual that there will be no one left who will say 'here is why we must keep burying our dead' when the practice is questioned. Then we all die of plague.

Well that might be true for Psychology, Psychiatry is mostly about being a pez dispenser for anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds. Lets not give them more credit than they deserve.

Am i beong trolled right now?

Unless you mean he gets paid to teach at uni. Because Universities are filled to the brim with people who support Marxism and are paid to do so under the same conditions

no the point here isn't just that he makes money. the point is he uses what is probably intentional dishonesty to make money off dumb people who think he's edgy & subversive

I love you conveniently list Evola near the bottom of the list so no one would notice. And look at the topic of thread, the person you're replying to clearly meant ring-wing intellectuals that are still alive.

wew

So he's justifying his bullshit with bullshit. How postmodernist.

What the fuck are you on about, you long winded fuck?

Give into the memeceleration.

Death, blood, and imperialism.
That's literally all it is. He's a retard if he thinks otherwise.

Which is still stupid, because people were doing that thousands of years before Christianity.
"People die for spooks. How fascinating!"

communism =/= cleaning your room.
I'm sorry to inform you.
I know kermit may have informed you everything is a communism, but that's not the case.

I've said this before and looks like I'll have to say it again.

Yeah, sure, he's proficient in his field, I won't deny that. But he's not someone who's worth spending time on. Do you remember why he became famous? Was it because of his scholarly status? His years of research? His book that came out 18 years ago? No, it was because he argued with a liberal for 5 minutes on camera. A run-of-the-mill academic that happens to cater to Holla Forums's opinions, his ideas are nothing noteworthy and I bet that ever since he got into the spotlight he started pushing some of his less credible pet theories. Everything you listed could be said of any other professor in some major university.
The only two reasons that I would actually recommend Holla Forums to watch and listen to what this guy has to say, is to be in the know about what Holla Forums is peddling, and secondly, to be able to utilize his critique/observations in leftism. Like in here
Right here, great example that could be re-contextualized in the modern capitalist world. Using the right wording and approach, you could easily make a Peterson fan question capitalism and its application

Ahaha what a fag.

You nigger stop listing Heidegger, his philosophy was fundamentally apolitical. It's like listing Hume as a "Conservative philosopher" or a different analytic as "leftist".

The oldest stories in the bible are older than Rome, older than Babylon, we don't even know how old they are because they were oral traditions for who knows how long before they were written down. People pass down stories, discarding the parts that aren't memorable or don't fit. Some of these stories are just imperialist parables or reinterpretations from when the material was canonized. But some of it is very very old, product of a memetic process that spanned thousands of years. You can call these stories imperialist, or racist, etc. but this is the heart of the argument. Is the old purist marxist approach correct? Are these old legends just remnants of the material conditions of a prior age that must be overcome as part of the process of moving forwards to a new humane society? Or is there some part of our humanity we have not fully understood embedded in them? If we destroy the old legends and traditions to create our new society will we just build a monstrosity? You may have taken one side of this argument but you do need to successfully make an argument. The purges in communist countries are not a joke, millions of people were killed in the name of dispelling spooks and making way for the new society. Why should we be ok with this? Are the right wingers wrong to say your ideas are ultimately genocidal?

You're right, he got the attention of the anti-sjw crowd because they saw him as standing up for them not because of his ideas. But think about what happened after, he kept their attention. He had something to say and has been saying it. I dunno man, I wish I could convince you to spend the time on Peterson. I don't think I can. One of the things I'm really growing so disgusted with from the people on the left is this constant judgement on people's worthiness for their positions or fame. Like your whole argument isn't whether something Peterson said is right or wrong its whether his ideas entitle him to the fame and platform he has. I'm recommending Peterson to you the way I'd recommend you my favorite game. I spent a lot of time on it, I cried a couple times, no joke, I got a lot out of it and I think you maybe could to. Like as a person not to help forward left ideology. But I think you're arguing he's not worthwhile because you want to influence others towards what you see as the correct way of thinking about things? It's not that nothing he says is right, like you're not dumb I don't think you'd argue that seriously. But his position ought to be occupied by someone who would be educating these poor idiots not pandering to their biases. I think we're just talking past each other and I'm really not sure what to say. It just feels like there must be something wrong with us if we're spending more time arguing who is worthy to speak about ideas than speaking about ideas.

youtube.com/watch?v=K-wfY5VcBoo

The point isn't that they are imperialist parables in and of themselves, it's how that shit spread. It wasn't because they were so unique and amazing that everyone latched onto them. Quit writing walls of text with no context.

What are you on about? I don't think even you know.

Key word is "legends". Legends are fun, but there is no reason to treat them like any other mythology when they've reached that point.

So? A lot of bad ideas get spread for eons before they are finally put to rest. Are you really going to appeal to the age of an idea?

No one is going to destroy anything. If it falls apart, it will do so on its own because the material conditions have changed, and I don't see any reason to build a nature preserve for it.

And this is also the underlying problem with Peterson. He's spooked to hell and back by humanism. Human nature is whatever a human does. If humans want communism, then that's humanity speaking for itself.

lol no they weren't. Unless you're claiming all these groups were Stirnerist. I mean, babbling about things you don't understand shouldn't come as a surprise, considering you're a fan of Peterson, but come the fuck on.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Nietzschean influence. For Nietzsche, the reason the biblical stories were considered "valuable" is because they were "valuable" specifically to those weak and filled with ressentiment, who needed the power of slave morality embedded in Jewish (and later Christian) morality in order to criticize and subdue the strong by way of such moralized war stories, falsified history, and fairy tales.

I'm not saying he's bad or that he's "not worthy", just that he isn't an exceptional thinker and I can't see why should I prioritize my time listening to what he has to say rather than some other scholar. Again, run of the mill academic. And I think the reason he captivated people so much after he got his spotlight is because of how passionate he is plus the bit of mystery/mysticism he throws in for people to interpret, curiosity helps to keep am audience.

You are very much the sort of liberal that Peterson talks about. You don't believe in human nature, you don't see the value in legends and you aren't willing to engage with people who do. You're going to lose because you don't understand your opposition but they are starting to understand you.

Peterson is responding directly to the criticism Nietzsche leveled at Christianity. He does not agree with all of it but he is responding to it, that's a sort of influence. I haven't read enough Nietzsche to know if he would actually say that Christianity is slave morality and nothing more. These are very old stories, some of them are from before the Romans, probably before the Jewish kings. If slave morality arose out of the material conditions of the cultures subjugation then these stories will still have remnants of a morality that predated those conditions.

That's just like, your opinion man. Do what you like but I've read people you'd probably consider better thinkers than Peterson and I don't regret the time I spent listening to him. A lot of other people don't either. And if you listened to the clean your room thing you'd know it was about the power of taking an approach to life that emphasizes your own personal responsibility and agency. The world is vast and its easy to feel powerless and hopeless. So what can you do? What do you have some power over in your immediate environment and what can you do to make it better? Even if its just cleaning your room, you start there and then see what else can be done. You get up every day and you put something right, even if its small and you build up your power to do more. It's not about cleaning your room its about taking a constructive approach to life. It isn't a joke, we all have to start small, we all feel powerless and lost sometimes. Are you going to despair or are you going to get started and clean your room?

Are we living in a world where "logical" means "reactionary" now?

You did not counter any of his points. You are on the same intellectual level as your daddy, and I really hope you are not glad of it, but you probably are.

Lol, I rarely laugh at chan posts, but Jesus…

Bc he spoon feeds information to them so they don't have to read.

The only things the alt right reads are excerpts from mein kampf and the Julius Evola Wikipedia page

Peterson himself, like all illiterate rightists, frequently conflates or confuses Marxism proper, 'Post-Modernism', Liberal IDPOL, and ML reapolitik. In that quote posted he literally says:

Oh Jesus, this meme argument again, read a fucking anthropology textbook
??? You're right, I don't understand anyone who thinks the fucking Illiad has any bearing on modern scientific reality.

Not an argument

How can he compare idpol found among sexually/mentally struggling petit bourgeoisie millenials to Socialist economic policies in the mid 1900s?

this is how

...

user, I appreciate that you're taking the time and effort to argue calmly here. Tho I really disagree with this notion of Peterson's that you're defending. Namely, where is the value in that old "wisdom"? Peterson uses a rather clever rhetoric in order to try to answer that.

I don't think I'm surprising anyone when i say he's another person that wants to rationalize the faith of his society as the correct one. His trick is using this faux-anthropological concept of looking way before Christianism for some legitimacy for the holy texts which he himself knows are ultimately storybooks. He invokes some primeval truth(s) hidden beneath all the fiction, from before Christianism, Judaism, civilization, cities and perhaps language itself, depending on what you think of archetypes. Regardless, this truth, conveniently, has not survived in any direct way, in stone slabs or temple walls, making it unfalsifiable. But, he says, it just so happens that the truth survived, buried not in sand, but mythology. Specifically, the mythology of the Judeo-Christian branch of Abrahanism, which serendipitously happens to be the religion he was born under. So when asked about this ancient wisdom, he can just spout Christian doctrine, and that's that.

I'm not saying he's cynically spreading a gospel he doesn't believe, which is absurd. I'm sure he does believe, which is why he, probably unconsciously, went through all the trouble of this trick I mentioned.

Here's another angle. The Bible being a tribal code of conduct, it indeed is a form of ancient wisdom. But the problem is, is it actually worth anything? Because unless I consider just the Gospels alone, all I can see is a self-contradictory, dubious moral code. Which makes sense, simply because the ancients weren't particularly advanced at anything. Generally, I don't trust their wisdom any more than I trust their medicine or their cosmogony. Sure, the culture is nice and all, but ultimately, they're probably not saying anything actually new, as they have been studied for ages already. What knowledge could be extracted probably already has been long ago.

As for his "staying power", it's explained by two simple factors. He says things his audience wants to hear, and he says other things that give a thin veneer of intellectual credence to the previous things. I doubt they latched onto him because of his great ideas, considering they latched onto Milo, Cernovich et al. I'm afraid you won't convince us to study him because, from what we have read of him, we don't see any reason he should be studied. Or at least nothing that can't be found elsewhere, in the philosophers he quotes. I can't talk about the other posters here, but I'm not doing it out of pragmatic political concerns, but simply because I see no merit in him.

Besides, I think we all have a lot in our reading piles, and I honestly can't make space for him based on my knowledge of him. I mean, consider just the absurd amount of literature avaiable on leftism alone. It's utterly impossible to read everything. Even among the main writers, we have to pick and choose.

Again, I appreciate your effort here, but I'm afraid you're the only one in your side of the argument. I just ask you to please don't mind this seeming disregard for this or that name. It's just that, like I said, we have to filter them somehow, and this being the internet, we're rather crude when going about it – in any thread you go there will be people saying "shit sux u feg", it doesn't mean they actually think that. Okay, so we do have some stubborn, close-minded people as well. But these are all ocupational hazards of arguing on the internet. Don't take it personally, read what you want and consider our arguments, but don't let others' harsh judgments bother you. Please do stick around.

Living: Deirdre McCloskey is basically it.

Dead: too many to name

This is kind of a tricky issue. Those people who you would call liberal idpol frequently call themselves radical leftists, postmodernists and will justify their positions by spouting whatever their favorite left/social theorist is. I agree, I think they're misnamed. But its difficult to convince anyone that they aren't real Marxists/postmodernists when the vast majority of even the educated population has never heard or read anything from "real marxists" tm. I don't think its unreasonable for us to be a little flexible on terms here and understand that when Peterson or right wing folks talk about Marxism they mean a sort of bourgeoisie idpol.

Read a psych textbook or a neuroscience textbook or a biology textbook. Humans are not a blank slate written only by culture and situation, we have reflexes, capacities, a 'nature' that is not wholly malleable. Look up David Reimer, look up moral reasoning in infants. The limits of what can be changed by culture and what cannot aren't well known but this is a settled debate. We are not blank slates, there is such a thing as human nature. You're a damn fool if you think we have nothing in common with the humans who passed down stories like the Illiad for generations.

There's a value in old wisdom, you should listen to Peterson, his argument is not that this is unique to Christianity. He did a series on Christianity because it was the stories he was most familiar with but he mentions repeatedly that similar themes and stories were developed by all the other major religions, Buddhism and etc. around the same time period. The wisdom is also pretty godamn direct. Peterson would probably claim that its embedded in the structure of the stories. God speaks the world into being, he says let there be light and dark, land and sea and the world is generated by the power of naming these primal distinctions. Naming create distinctions, which create the world. Pretty advanced phenomenology told through an old myth. We all have a lot on our plates and its fun to flesh out our own existing ideas and frames. But as a person one become, closed, dogmatic and loses touch with their heart and the hearts of others if you don't journey to the underworld now and then.

As for whether I'm alone here, we're all alone in the end fellow shit poster. The question is which one of us is ruled by that fear?

Has anyone tried watching his lectures on YouTube? They're a bit boring unless you think that the hero myth is the most important and impactful story that humans have ever come up with, oh and you enjoy overanalyzing disney movies.

Ugh, he's one of those professors that makes students buy HIS book (maps of meaning), which reads like overly-technical neo Freudian bs with some anecdotes about how he helped a kid interpretate his dreams.

Actually, some of the online review pages for his book have gained some comedic value since Peterson's surge in popularity. Anyone who is vaguley critical of the tome are screeched at by fanboys who have never even attempted to read it

Yeah!
Mmmm nah. I find his presentation and style very off-putting. Its just a smarmy mix of "up-by-the bootstraps" motivational talk and vaguely intellectual "evidence". I hate it whenever anyone uses happiness as a sword of Damocles. You won't be "happy" unless you do what I say.

You might want to actually read the story of the sword of damocles before you use that phrase. King Dionysus did not use the sword to threaten Damocles to do what he said. I understand what you mean but when we're talking about the value of old wisdom its gonna bug the hell out of me if you get the stories that wrong.

Don't forget the journey to the underworld, bucko!

Nigga, did I stutter? I said it's a spook and that legends, albeit fun, have no more use than older parables or mythology. Secondly, I said human nature exists, but exists as whatever a human does. Humans want communism, then it's human nature. You say I'm not engaging, but you're the one ignoring what I said. These are arguments people here have heard a million times before and it's nothing original.

Nigga, I have. I'm a fucking Major in Psychology, and the tabula rasa meme has nothing to do with your "human nature" spook. I can have reflexes and biology I must adhere to, but that doesn't determine my individual "nature". I don't need to put biology on a pedestal.

also, all they did was look at infants "giving behaviors","empathy", and conditioned reward/punishments, then arbitrarily denoted them as ""moral"", They completely ignored a glaring "is-ought" problem here. Did the infant believe it "ought" to give or empathize? No, infants are undifferentiated balls of sensations. If anything, this flies in the face of anything moral. There's less of reason to make something compulsory if it's already inherent. In fact, a lot of times it's detrimental, according to motivational psychology.

His professor salary is peanuts. The guy saying he's making bank from rightist cucks is right.

jordan peterson is theoretically shit, philosophically shit, historically shit, and psychologically shit.

zizek has a wonderful statement that 'wisdom is disgusting,' and peterson embodies what zizek means by this. 'wisdom' is nothing more than the mystification of a discourse which, FUNDAMENTALLY, is nothing more than the reproduction of the existing social conditions. this is why peterson's tirades against the 'postmodernists' are so hilarious: the man himself eats, shits, and breathes the current 'end-of-history' postmodern ideology. "committing fully to a theoretical doctrine such as marxism will always lead to totalitarian violence, just look at the soviet union! (also clean your room because pretending to be a father figure is why i have a fanbase)" what complete and utter cack! peterson seems to be so enveloped in the modern day ideology that he honestly doesn't realize the so-called 'wisdom' that he spouts is nothing more than the standard political position of our current historical epoch. peterson has, just as much if not more than any marxist i'm aware of, VIGOROUSLY embraced a particular political ideology: that of late stage postmodern capitalism. don't be surprised when peterson recieves a public endorsement from such filth as macron; the man has been acting as an unwitting neoliberal propagandist for years now.

and i haven't yet even approached his hilariously outdated (and i dont mean this in some ridiculous empiricist sense) psychological 'work.' the man is a goddamn jungian. i shouldn't even really need to continue, but i will. we should not be surprised by this; ahistorical jungian unconscious archetypes fall directly in line with reactionary ideology, something further evidenced by the fact that jung and peterson have both flirted with politically reactionary groups for their entire career! he presents himself as someone that (rightfully) rejects the standard biopolitical psychology we usually see today, however he chooses to stop at fucking jung?! peterson is almost certainly the type of idiot to read a page of ecrits and write lacan off as a 'postmodernist' (i.e. peterson's catch-all term for theory which he doesn't either understand or agree with).

i'm actually stunned that leftypol is regressive enough to even for a second consider a thing this degenrate says as legitimate. the implications of his thought are wholly reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

...

this entire post is OBSCENE

no, it is completely reasonable for us to reject this nonsense, because this labeling of identity politics as marxism is FUNDAMENTALLY incorrect. all of a sudden, we are to be "flexible" with someone conflating what you yourself have identified as petty bourgeois ideology with marxism!? what? we as marxists reject individualist notions such as identity politics outright, and should not permit right-wing ideologues intentionally creating a connection between us and our intellectual enemies. this is not a "tricky issue," it's pretty fucking simple.

stop with your disgusting appeal to the irreducibly IDEOLOGICAL university discourse of our time. "durr just read a legitimate and state-verified textbook to tell you what humans are" how fucking lazy can you be? a settled debate? please direct me to this all encompassing Conference of Science wherein the debate was 'settled.' what we have in common with those from different historical eras is our capacity for language and nothing more. to suggest anything else is irrevocably reactionary.

what you're doing is projecting what is a poorly worded conception of dialectical logic, which literally did not exist in a formal sense prior to hegel, onto thousand year old myths.

what the fuck are you even talking about? im not kidding, please explain to me what on earth you're saying here. the only dogmatist i can see in this conversation is YOU. in this post, you made no less than four utterly dogmatic assertions in one sitting!

TRIGGERED

Are we living in a world where "reactionary" has an actual definition beyond "things I don't like" now?

Understand that what other people mean by the term is not what you mean by it. If you ever get the chance to talk to Peterson or other people who make the same mistake and call idpol Marxism please correct them. Being flexible in communication does not mean you accept their use of terms as the correct one. And its rather important to be flexible in communications if you want to talk to other people.

We all have 2 arms, 2 legs and brains with quite a bit of structural similarities. Not sure where to start with you on this one. Think about how complex language is and what it would take to build a machine for instance with a capacity to acquire language. If something that powerful is an innate capacity we all share do you really think its the only thing we come pre-wired with? You might like Gould too.

Yes exactly, now you're getting it. They only understood it in an informal sense, through myths and legends.

How do I actually clean my room, though?

Ask your mum, la.

...

Nice quads, you have an interesting idea of morality here. What really strikes me is you're saying that infants cannot be moral because they don't have a consideration for what they "ought" to do. They don't even have a thought for what's right or wrong, they're just doing which means they're "basically sociopaths TM". This is an interesting idea because it would imply that morality is something that comes from thought and self-consciousness and not our instincts or emotions. Imma tell you why I think that's wrong using my favorite anime this season. So in little witch academia there's a character named Akko whose a ball of emotion and reactions and never thinks anything through. About every other episode she causes some trouble for her friends by jumping recklessly into her latest passion without considering how it affects anyone around her. But every other episode we see Akko with that same reckless lack of consideration run after friends who've pulled away, join strikes, cry at seeing others in pain. And always her feet are moving before she even knows where she's going. The character in some ways is utterly amoral, thoughtless, self-involved, a real callous little monster but there's good in it too because she feels compassion for her friends, anger at unfairness, and a genuine desire that everyone have as much fun as she's having. She's still very much a kid, thoughtless and selfish, but if we called her character immoral we would be missing a lot of what the right thing is. Also this means you are Diana in this scenario.

Turns out some of us have actually bothered to read Jung.

Nah, fuck that. The only thing you can say of those stories is that they are efficient memes, being very able to reproduce themselves. That doesn't hold any meaning for us beyond maybe learning to manipulate cultural trends.
Your argument is basically "it's very old so there must be value to it", which is a fallacy so big you can drive a T34 through it. Any cultural artifact that has been with us for a very long time might simply be an efficient parasite, and beyond that might not be suitable to the present condition we have created for ourselves.
If Jordan's ideas were so valuable, I'm sure you could refer to someone who's not as big a tool as he is who talks about them. Why must you insist on defending this dude in stead of latching onto someone else? The answer is: because of daddy issues.

...

You still don't get it.
The fact you are denoting her actions as moral and immoral, despite Akko acting on whims, is par for the course. She does what she want's, then when her behavior crosses into territory you agree with, you declare that her self-interested impulses are "moral. It's just Pareidolia of another kind. You are still the one determining an "ought, from an is".
Having seen the show, and knowing Diana often appeals to "tradition", I'd say the shoe is on the other foot.

Pareidolia is an interesting choice of words here. But yes, perhaps we live in a world where there is no moral molecule and right or wrong are just perceptions our mind puts on the actions of others. I think its less like pardeidolia though and more like color perception. There is a thing out there that we are responding to when we see color or make moral judgements. People's actions exist, light has wavelengths its just that there's no apriori reason why we should perceive it with the categories we humans use. Maybe its a product of evolutionary process? I agree there's rather a lot of issues with discipline and punishment and the development of the sort of morality based on "oughts" instilled through fear and judgement. But that's why I think its important to make the point that like Akko our instincts and feelings are not all cruel and monstrous. Some are compassionate and kind. If we were to abolish all punishment tomorrow some people think there would be rape and murder in the streets because all our instincts are monstrous and its only the "oughts" that restrain us. I think it would be a lot more like a school entirely filled with Akkos. More disorderly maybe but perhaps a kinder more compassionate world than we have now.

And you should give Diana more credit, she may have grown up in a house that values tradition but she herself is a real rationalist. She and Akko are the younger mirrors of Croix and Chariot.

Their oldness is not proof but it is something we have to contend with. Before widespread writing the cost of remembering a story was quite high. People had to memorize the whole thing and pass it down. If these stories are just parasites or spandrels with no ideas of value in them we have to assume that the people who passed them down for generations found meaningless stories worth spending that much effort on. Think about how many stories you've heard in your life, how many of those could you retell to your kids right now? I don't think memetics are separate from value, our brains are built to find useful patterns if something is powerfully memetic its because it contains a useful pattern.

I'm defending him because I don't like the glib fucking dismissals you guys throw around. "He's a pseduo-intellectual, he just tells kids with daddy issues to clean their rooms, we don't have to bother arguing against his ideas because his ideas are trash and we don't have to prove it blah blah." I don't think you can prove shit. I don't think you have an argument against the sort of things Peterson says or the people he defends, you just don't like it and so you shit talk him and act like a bunch of smug little shits. Maybe I'm wrong and you actually have good reasons why Peterson is off and not worth listening to. But if not I'll just get my sadistic pleasure for the day by making his points and watching you squirm trying to actually argue what's wrong with them.

I'm not really following the discussion, so forgive me if I misinterpreted something of what you or Peterson claims. (I have never heard of the man before, and don't know anything about what he claims, only what you've written here).

My main gripe with your argument is that you seem to not be separating the biological trait(s) that allow the dissemination of stories (memes) with memetics.

Yes, it's safe to assume that this biological trait is very costly to maintain, and thus would likely have been removed from populations if it did not positively contribute to fitness. However, this does not follow that every individual meme (story) has a positive adaptive effect. I can easily come up with scenarios where this is not true:
1. Adaptive landscapes are not constant, and depend on the environment of populations (both physical and cultural), thus, a meme that increased fitness previously may not do so now, or may be deleterious.
2. Memes can be exploited by some to increase fitness for themselves at the detriment of the general population. (So, higher fitness for the powerful, lower for the masses). The decrease in fitness for the masses may be small enough to maintain it in the population.
3. Memes, can interact and group, let’s call them meme complexes. These include several memes, some of which positively impact fitness, while others have no impact, and some even lower it. If the net fitness gain of the meme complex is positive, it would remain in the population even if it contained deleterious memes (sort of like a selective sweep of memes).

I would wager any of these hypotheses can occur simultaneously. This, to me, makes the that individual memes (traditions, stories), don’t have any inherent value by virtue of having persisted in populations for a long time, as they can be old and simultaneously deleterious.

To be frank, I’m not convinced whatsoever by the validity of Dawkin’s memetic hypothesis, but you can use it’s framework to argue against what (I think) you were saying.

Finally, I agree that dismissing Peterson out of smugness is idiotic, but I don’t know anything about him, and sadly still know very little of philosophy to form an opinion on your and the other poster’s arguments.

Your criticisms are very good, there's lots of cases where something that survives memeticly is no longer useful. Or was useful only in a certain way but with costs or was useful to a certain group of people who had control over reproduction of knowledge but fucked everyone else in the ass. Something I think is purely #1, a cultural tradition that is a relic of past conditions and now no longer useful or harmful is the Kosher diet orthodox jews keep. Modern sanitation has pretty much abolished the risks of poisoning or disease that keeping kosher used to minimize. Something I would say is #3, a meme complex would be something like a religion or a culture. There's a lot of different interacting ideas, stories, ways of looking at the world all bundled together. Some are no longer relevant, some are detrimental but they're intertwined with useful bits. The thing I think is interesting about meme complexes too is that they don't exist at the level of individuals, they exist at the level of larger social groups. No one person has all the stories or ideology or rituals that make up a culture. The culture is distributed across many individuals and its only obvious that it is a culture when you have many individuals interacting together. I think you are correct in all three of your criticisms here, something like Christianity is a good example of all three and there's a reason it is in decline. But lets say that Christianity and the sort of traditional western worldview are a meme complex. One where the core beliefs that held it together are no longer believed true and is failing to reproduce itself accurately over the generations. If the genetics metaphor holds then we're in a period where the central meme complex of the culture is mutating and disintegrating and like organisms after a big extinction other meme complexes are viciously competing to replicate themselves over the population. Whatever wisdom was in the central meme complex may be lost forever if it disintegrates entirely and is replaced.

Peterson's view is basically that we are in the midst of that disintegration. That this is not a normal period of incremental evolution of meme complexes. There was an extinction event, god had his guts ripped out sometime in the last couple centuries. He was in his death convulsions for a while but now his corpse is getting cold and no new stable memetic order has arisen. He views himself I think as standing up for the value of traditions and bringing out what was worthwhile in the old meme complex because he does not see anyone else doing the work. The Christians in this view are not true descendants of the meme complex they're twisted mutants who are half-sterile because they did not maintain the core properties of the meme complex in their culture. So the conservatives are mutants and the liberals are all intent on destroying the old order to accelerate the arrival of a new order determined by their meme complexes and no one is defending the value of the old traditions so they'll be lost and we'll find ourselves in a sort of dark age where the tech knowledge was kept but the knowledge on how to live together humanely was lost leading to death and suffering on a scale not seen since the horrors of the 20th century. Hence the claim that modern liberals are bringing about the conditions for genocide by saying gender is a social construct.

he deserved to be treated like shit lmao

...

You're acting as if Holla Forums single-handedly made him into a star. Protip: It wasn't Holla Forums. It was a legion of normies who flocked like sheep to their Shepard. The culmination of men being alienated by the media around them and jabs at them coming by people calling for diversity and the wage gap bullshit.

please explain to me what is meant here by 'structural similarities.' are you referring to biology? obviously we are the (roughly) the same biologically to our predecessors, but this has NOTHING to do with our current social relationships to production, and the ideological sphere which we inhabit today.

yes, and please enlighten me as to what else we could possibly come 'pre-wired' with. is it Autism Level? is it racial identity? sexual categories? any theoretical framework surrounding 'human nature' which assumes anything more than language (which is to say social relationships) will inevitably conclude in reactionary eugenics.

oh fuck off and stop posturing. the dialectical method created by hegel and refined by marx has little to do with any preceding historical 'wisdom.'

what are you insinuating here?

lol in which period have we lived together humanely
his problem is that communications tech in general has advanced and proliferated a lot so more and more people can see that his "living together harmoniously" is as false as a norman rockwell painting

I've been calling Peterson "Kermit the Fraud" for a while now.

There are all sorts of daddy issues that stem from different kinds of poor parenting. The daddy issue that fits with rightism is the desire for an authority figure telling you what to do.

Why do you not like him. He uploads all of his lectures and class footage for free on the internet.
How is this not in accordance to your communist ideals?

He's not even right wing. He's like a mild conservative.

This board has become a parody of itself. If you so much as see something mentioned on Holla Forums you instantly dislike it. Pathetic.

Meme this meme that meme memes
This is serious business guys!

When will reddit leave?

That doesn't really change anything from what I've said…

You seem to not understand…pretty much anything.

...

Our biology has nothing to do with our social relationships? You don't think your dick affects your social relationships? Imagine if we were all sexless, how different would our society be? Biology enormously determines our social conditions its just we can't change it on an individual basis so we fight over the parts we can change which are social, economic etc. It's interesting that you're so dead set that biology, history, myth and the contributions of the people who came before us don't matter. I'd like to have a conversation with you about this since I think there's something interesting here but I'm not really sure where to start. When you say biology has NOTHIING to do with ideologies that's so obviously false to me. What world are you coming from where that statement makes any sense?

Depends what you mean by humanely, more cholera less obesity. More serfdom less alienation of labor. Personally I'm with you, the shining kingdom was always an illusion and its time for it to fall, but its interesting seeing the other side. They think we're barbarians who have no respect or care for the kingdom or what it meant to its people and will tear it down leave its people starving in a wasteland and expect them to thank us for it. That's an accurate view of us no?

who's "they"? right-wingers? they always thought that. and if we're being honest, "we" think the same about them.

quora.com/If-you-could-write-a-rulebook-for-being-a-man-what-Man-Law-would-you-write/answer/Jordan-B-Peterson

I only cringed at his statements about politics, but as I person educated en formal logic who has actually read Godel, I marvel at how can people take him seriously after that tweet.
I refuse to believe that none of the STEMlords who seem to follow guys like this called him on that bullshit.

explain

With most people, I'd instantly write it off as a joke.

God's goal is communism so I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

The STEMlords who like these types of guys were always fascists first and skeptics second. We warned you about new atheism.

What this guy did is to construct one of the most coward truisms I've seen, and given the fact that I'm here, it's given that I like to read about politics.
Godel didn't prove anything about proof without axiom, bur he did indirectly provide an example of why we need to pick carefully our axioms with his "Ontological Proof". The inclusion of Godel doesn't add anything beyond attempting to earn credibility by some faggots who might have heard the name of the logician, but lack an understanding of his work and use it as an authority argument of Peterson's beliefs.
Still by the reason I mentioned before, provides an easy escape if anyone tries to challenge his claims. He can just weasel out claiming that the intention of the tweet was to say that belief is necessary before any proof of god, and because of brevity he just casually omitted the last part, which would fit if not for the unnecessary reference to Godel.

Even if he needed to mention a great thinker (he didn't) he could have used any scholastic philosopher for the purpose, but that's not intended for the target. The guy is intelligent, but a fucking sneaky bastard. Of course he's likely to know that all the bullshit he says about cultural marxism and the trillion deaths book is just false, before this tweet I consider him ignorant, now I'm pretty sure he's deliberately misleading.

Seems more likely he's referring to Godel's incompleteness theorem in that tweet. Which is substantially more well known and does deal with the nature of logical systems. Still wrong since logical completeness has nothing to do with requiring axioms to prove things. Also

Have you read any of these people, or are they just names you know?

You're a fucking idiot, actually kill yourself.

There are communists I hate, because I'm not a fucking sheep like fascists are.

This is precisely why you need to read lacan and not this ridiculous jungian mystification. The dick means nothing until it becomes the phallus, a wholly social phenomenon decided by the dialectical relationship of desire. In other words, the stupid biological material we refer to as the penis is completely unrelated to what we're talking about when we mention the 'dick' which permeates our sexual social relations. Just think about it, the penis 'in an of itself' has no reason, due to some essential character of its being, for having any bearing at all on our relationships, but it does because there's something else at play outside of JUST our biological material which is determinate of our social relationships. This is desire, which, while still emerging from a material element, is not explainable via some kind of strictly biological hermeneutic. To address the rest of your points on this topic, it's pretty fucking simple: no one is denying that biology exists, but how we as linguistic beings relate to it, and where our subjectivity lies within this process of relating, is what is really important for the analysis of any specific historical epoch.

I've literally never said this. My point has only been that it is purely an IDEOLOGICAL move to find approaches to our modern ideological universe in historical texts without taking into account the specific contexts these texts were created in, a move peterson is abhorrently guilty of. All we have to learn from is history, however it is crucial that we do not position ourselves as outside of history, looking back, when we do this.

Ideology determines our relation to our biology, and not the other way around.

If a group of white peoples comes together and do a podcast supporting anuddah shoah, will you support it?

Searching for defranco and peterson didn't turn up anything: youtube.com/results?search_query=philip defranco jordan peterson
Sure it was Philip DeFranco?

"Reddit spacing" is a term that has been used on Holla Forums for ages.

wew lad!

Fascist have always clung to Christianity like flies on shit, tho.

Except for when Christians disagree with fascists and in which case they are killed. As opposed to communists who often are atheist, but many movements (especially in South America) have things like liberation theology with their faith as the groundwork for their struggle.

Well I don't know how much you want to get into the specific neurobio but you have to admit things like having two brain hemispheres and other structural facts of our neural system constrains the ways in which we can think about things. If our brains were structured differently the historical dialectic would have formed very differently. I don't disagree that as linguistic beings the way we relate to our biological nature is a linguistic one. But take the biological differences between men and women, there's a lot of ways that relationship can play out but men being bigger matters. Now if we're going to be Lacan and looking at the differences in thought between different epochs we should probably ignore the biological constants because they're gonna be more or less the same in each epoch. But if we're trying to be Jung and looking at the fundamental sorts of relationships and themes between man, nature and other. We probably shouldn't ignore the biology.

If he was doing that then yes that's bad, but from what I've heard he's about as good as a non-historian could be about talking about the circumstances Christian ideas for instance came from.

You sure its not a reciprocal relationship? Can I really just decide that vaginas symbolize masculine energy and cut my dick off to be more manly?

I like to listen to his lectures once in a while, I'm a sucker for exegesis and yes, I have father issues.
He is a little like a motivational speaker, but instead of making you believe you can become a wealthy person too, he just want you to be a well-ajusted person. I think he is sincere and his insights sound fair to me.

On the other hand, it really make me wonder about the political landscape in Canada. He would never get away with his caricature of the left in my country. Here, a youngster who wants to change the world (with little imagination) but can't wipe his own ass is the last thing people think about when we talk about leftists.
The stereotype would be a civil servant who doesn't want anyone to come near his rights and who would go on a strike with his comrads when he feels like it.

That's a good point actually. Based on what other anons said, he's a skilled demagogue.

This is the most dishonest thing. Peterson does not recognize any of this. You make it sound like he's making the argument for a purely rational synthesis of tradition and modernity, while he is in fact simply uncritically regurgitating religious dogma and packaging it as "wow so old, deep". This is why we accuse you of daddy issues: you are so in need for daddy Peterson to be right, that you don't actually listen to what he tells you, and make up your own fanfic version of his theory.

Read a book

this post gave me Rafiq - nice