*stands up for your educational freedom*

*stands up for your educational freedom*

Other urls found in this thread:


Stick with fucking Ms. Piggy, ok Kermit?

Who are you quoting?

I wasn't prepared for this guys voice to be literally kermit the frog when I first heard him speak lol

Him and his followers like to imagine a utopia vision for academia where everyone's ideas are given equal weight and no "consensus" will be reached. Unfortunately that's not how social organizations work. Inevitably a consensus will be established, however this happens ,and a specific idea, or category of ideas, will come to be the most popular within the system. In the case of academia its mostly liberal to left-of-center politics, Marxism and other types of far-leftism being somewhat more popular in very specific subjects (though still very much a minority in academia overall).

Peterson, his followers, and other similar right-wing groups and individuals are just butthurt they lost in the free market of ideas they love jerk off about.

"Freedom cannot be granted. It must be taken."

t. The Milkman himself

Can't agree more with the Milkman.

Peterson is an egoist, he is seizing power and getting paid handsomely by his reactionary farm. You and are just butthurt that he is a master of farming reactionaries and you will never be as egoistic as he is.

educational freedom from what? you can't have liberation without an oppressor.


read the fucking book.


It can be if you decide for yourself it is.

Stirner wrote against hedonism, if you just read the book…


…Now seriously, fucking read it…RIGHT NOW

that's objective morality

Can somebody explain to me why you hate him? Like a real explanation not some meme about him not understanding post-modernism or nihilism or being a pseud, the guy has way more credentials than any of you do, has thousands of hours uploaded on literally post-modern deconstructions of the bible, has a 2hs video on a single nietzsches paragraph, and thousands of hours of what looks to me (i could be wrong) like a synthesis of both french post-structuralists and neuro-psychology into a healthy way to react to the new.

Like, his fanbase is crap, but im reading his books and have listened a lot to his lectures and it really seems to me that he is just trying to push depressed people back into normie-dom.

Is this it? You resent that he brings up the inner-workings of your denial mechanisms?

Just to be clear, i also don't understand why Holla Forums likes him, his ideas seem to me very clearly against Holla Forums, tumblr, and Holla Forums and whatever other den of unadjusted politicized morons there is on the internet.

Your being sucked in by his verbose lectures that seem impressive but ultimately betray his lack of understanding of the ideas he talks about. His understanding of the philosphy he talks about is simply incorrect most of the time, and his understanding of political theory, namely leftist political theory is beyond atrocious. His credentials are entirely in psychology and nothing else. Plus he's just plain hypocritical and its hard to tell if its because of his lack of expertise in philosphy or if he's doing it on purpose. To give an example of his hypocricy just look at how he criticizes gender non-conformism, which has heavy nietzschean undertones in its philosophy, yet shills for Neitzsche at every opportunity. The only reason he's famous is because he (rightfully) says SJWs are bad, a position so basic and self evident to the majority of people that there are high schoolers who are able to not only come to thi conculsion themselves but articulate it more or less the same as Peterson does.

nothing he says is new or innovative, its the same tired critiques of postmodernism and sjwism from the right except now the person saying it has a degree-and not even a degree in any of the relevant fields that he's famous for talking about.

He's a pseudo-intellectual with a meme tier understanding of anything he talks about, when he isn't peddling out self-help woo like a fucking con artist. Listen to any of his shit on Marxism sometime.

The only thing he's good at is milking the aut-right crowd by attacking esjews and acting as a surrogate parent ("clean your room" indeed)

He literally just talks about psychology doe, all of his lectures are about psychology, not about politics, he studies the psychology of ideology and his thesis seems to be that ideology serves as a protecting mechanism to address the complexity of the real world.

He is very fucking Neitzchean, i think you are muddling up pop-nihilism with actual nihilism.

You are looking at Holla Forums's edits of his lengthy lectures, they cut the moments he addresses sth in pop-culture and keep all the rest aside. Im asking about his actual ideas, not the normie-friendly version he gives in interviews or his 1h lectures in which he mirrors his course's first class contents.

How? What are your credentials? Have you worked in Harvard?

He is a fucking psychologist, his whole career revolves around helping people help themselves

Sorry, i should've written a bit more, if you go past his course's first class contents he stops talking about politics and he goes full depth into psychology always using Jung, Dostoievski, and Nietzsche as tying points between different psychological theories.

so he's Zizek except he's a liberal and also retarded

I don't have any credentials. And I normally bow to the opinions of guys like him.

But that's just the thing, with my normie tier understanding of the topics this guy tries to address, having just read a few books and listened to a few lectures, I can still tell that this guy is a fraud. And I've heard several psychologists talk and discuss their field, and none of them peddle the apocryphal self-help bulkshit this guy does. And by "self-help", I'm not talking about a psychologist talking you through your problems and giving advice, I'm talking about Tai Lopez style con artist shit.

I thought Holla Forums out of everyone would like him, his whole lecture revolves around giving reasons why idpol is stupid, why slaving for a corporate master is alienating, and taking a stance on local activism, communal caring, complete awareness of corporate fake-consciousness, and self-determination.

In fact, if you ask me, i think he is not only leftist as fuck, but also a postmodern apologist, im half his book and im still waiting for the fascism to kick in, he is basically digging postmodernism out of its depressive stance via neuroscience and Piaget.

Well but have you read his shit and/or listened to his lectures? Have you given him an intellectualy honest chance or have you just jumped a bandwagon cause Holla Forums jacks of to him?

Yeah, I said he likes Nietzsche as he understands him. What he ignores is not only the Nietzschean undertones of certain SJW movements, but also Nietzschean philosphy's role in the formation of post-modernism, which he claims to hate.

His psych lectures are not why he's popular, his purely political statements are. Besides, his talks of psychology of ideology aren't based on any experimental research he's done but on theoretical analysis, which isn't something you cite as fact. If we took his ideas about ideology seriously we'd all have to abandon the very concept of having opinions.

You go on about his credentials but when people who are actual experts in the fields he likes to spew his opinions about (philosophy and political theory) say he's wrong about something then his credentials don't change that, he's still wrong.

I've seen the shit that people on here meme about and it's all stupid. Maybe he's a genuinely good psychologist, but I don't give a shit about his psychology. I care about the political and self-help bullshit he's been peddling out. His stuff on Marxism alone proves he doesn't have much intellectual rigor, even if he does have fancy credentials. One of the shocking things for me was that he was supposed to be a fucking professor.

That's the thing, he's accidently supporting ideas he claims to disavow, which is itself a very bad sign about his knowledgeability. He's also not leftist at all, he constantly attacks the far-leftism, or what he thinks far-leftism is, and jerks off Solzhenitsyn as if his book proves anything beyond the self evident fact that Stalinism is bad.

He doesn't, i think in lecture 3 of 2014 Maps of Meaning course he goes on a 2hs explanation of why pop-Nietzsche in pop-post-modernism isn't actual Nietzsche. Later on he goes deeper on why the French May's intellectuals got it wrong.

If you have ever read Evola it kind of hits in a similar pole. Not in terms of the political position, but in the sense Evola is a kind of an unapologetic Terrence McKenna.UR-Fascism is kind of the Archaic Revival's bastard brother.

He cites research every single time, if you go beyond the self-promoting interviews and the opening statements of Maps of Meaning he goes full on neuropsychology and experimental psychology, i think he starts from Escher-tier shit (i don't remember right now the psycho-perceptual movement surrounding his work, but i know his illustrations are based on it), then goes into Piaget's work and then keeps going on and on. He always uses Nietzche from the philosophical perspective, Dostoievsky as kind of a poetic implication to it, and Jung as a way to tie poetics to evolutionary psychology. He also goes inside AI research insights in functional perception. You are just not being intellectualy honest man, you didn't really gave him a chance.

Not at all, again you haven't really heard what he has to say, he isn't advocating for no opinions, his whole lecture revolves around this question: "If you were in nazi germany, would you have been a concentration camp guard?" Pointed to deconstruct acontextual self-righteousness and how endorsing a system of opression is the easiest copout to self-awareness.

His "self-help bullshit" (i guess you mean the self-authoring) was actually tested in colleges and corporations and actually worked. Is also not really self-help but actually a way to jot down an accurate assesment of intentions for the future.

Like what exactly?

Lol no, you are having depth-perception issues, for example you just said Stalinism is bad, can i say you are accidentally supporting leftism even if you claim to disavow Stalinism? For sth who isn't really knowledgeable of Communism it would seem like it, for anyone who actually knows his shit you aren't.


Again, his whole lesson revolves around the deconstruction of the "i wouldnt have genocided people if i was there" bullshit. He jerks off to
Solzhenitsyn because he is the best source for countersignaling

His "self-help bullshit" (i guess you mean the self-authoring) was actually tested in colleges and corporations and actually worked. Is also not really self-help but actually a way to jot down an accurate assesment of intentions for the future.
I'm talking about his "clean your room" crap like in the MP4.

Like what exactly?
Take your pick, fam. I've never seen him say anything remotely intelligent or informed about Marxism.

Here's something that gets posted on here a lot.

This guy has a fucking degree. Jesus Christ.

Sorry, I completely fucked the formatting on that post.

Clean your room is a metaphor for a conscious evaluation of life priorities

Whats your argument against this?

He literally says this in the video, he is saying the individual who thinks he could have been a better Stalin wouldn't have been able to handle the contextual situation in which a character such as Stalin was the most suited to grasp power.

Lol, his entire irl shitpost could be used to demonize any sort of revolution or change whatsoever. I think somehow he operates under the belief that people like Stalin are only possible because of Marxism or something? I really don't understand this rant at all. You could argue that a physical overthrow of the government makes that possible, yeah. But Marx wasn't really 100% about that.

Thats the point, radical change attracts psychologically weak people who endorse it due to personal reasons, if they push far enough it ends up empowering people who don't give a crap about the ideas but are most suited to operate under chaotic circumstances.

Nope, he thinks Marxist was helped by people who just wanted to escape from their shit lifes, this accelerated things until a point actual Marxists couldn't handle the heat, then the only way to keep control was by being inhumane, the escapists only way to keep escaping was to go through with Stalin commands even doe they knew it wasn't right.

See Spring Revolution or the Alt-Right

He not only talks about Marxism, he also talks about Nazism and Fascism, but Holla Forums never makes videos about that.

Wew lad, so you know as little as he does.

First off it the point is that it wasn't real socialism, not that it wasn't real Marxism. Marxism describes a group of philosophies and political/sociological theories, it isn't a socio-economic system like Peterson suggests, and as a guy with a fucking degree, he should really know that.

Second, the critique that the Soviet Union "wasn't real socialism" comes in two forms. First, that it was state capitalism, that the state itself acted as a giant capitalist corporation. Second was that it was a degenerated workers state, the general idea being that while the Soviet Union began as a workers state, circumstances arose that caused it to degenerate and the bureaucracy take over and become the de facto ruling class.

What's common in both these arguments is that central undemocratic central planning was one of the key elements that made the Soviet Union not genuinely socialist.

In other words, the exact opposite of claiming the problem was that you personally weren't the central planner.

He would have only needed to google something like "left critiques of the Soviet Union" to find this out. This is how little intellectual rigor this guy has.

The fuck do I care his ego says? I have mine and my desires of my own.

I fucked this post too. I wish Holla Forums had an edit feature.


I can see how this would be true, but treating Marxism as something worth dying for is probably not something Marx would have advocated.
Either way, the revolution would have occurred with or without Marx's writings. The fact that Lenin picked up and read Marx was purely by accident, but he was already a revolutionary beforehand.
People like Peterson also fail to realize that Marx wasn't a "utopian" (and boy he loves spouting that buzzword) In fact, Marx spent more time criticizing and demolishing "utopian socialism" more than Peterson will probably do in his lifetime. Only about 1% of what Marx wrote described his person ideal society, because he knew it's just not something he could predict. All he knew is he wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat. There is nothing utopian about class war.
Peterson think it's "utopianism" which it's not. Going against the status quo is not utopian. Are revolutions usually utopian? Yeah, I'd say so. Marxism by itself? 0% of what Marx wrote was so.


Peterson on 'Why Marx Was Wrong'…

I agree, but Marxists are; again you are reacting to Holla Forumss editing of the guy's courses, he doesn't just criticize Marxists

I can, i just don't think spoon-feeding you will make you any good, im not life, im not gonna waste my time hitting your head against your own bullshit


Why so hush hush, famalam?

You had no problem waxing poetic on Pererson's theories and defending them before. And now you can't even quickly name the fallacies in my post.

Does he even understand what he is saying?

Because you aren't engaging seriously

I've been engaging seriously this whole time. And though I fucked the penmanship, you decided to give up on my most serious post.

I feel like me not being serious has little to do with your unwillingness to respond.

Because he spouts stuff like this

I honestly think this would go the other way around if America's (especially) educational system was centrally planned by the current administration.

Your whole post is based on at least: no-true scotsman, masked-man, circular logic, etymological fallacy, furtive fallacy, and presentism

So your "criticism" wasn't of my post but of my description of the arguments that the the Soviet Union wasn't socialism.

First, I would say that these arguments don't contain any of those fallacies and that you don't understand a few of the fallacies you attempted to cite, like no true Scotsman. I gave a brief description of them, not to defend them necessarily, but to prove a point, that those positions that criticize the Soviet Union as not being socialist weren't saying that this was due to poor decision making of the central planners, but rather centered on critiquing the existence of central planners, and undemocratic central planning is usually cited as one of the reasons the Soviet Union wasn't socialist, not poor decision making on the part of the planners.

While there are Marxist-Leninists who claim that the problems with the Soviet Union came from "revisionists" within the CPSU, these people almost always assert that the Soviet Union was genuinely socialist.

So, once again, Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's more like "Marx was wrong because the parts that he criticized are immutable laws of nature that cannot be changed, also muh social mobility".

He's an idiot.

That was meant for

Wasnt your post a description of the arguments that the the Soviet Union wasn't socialism(psst: Marxist)

Marxism was attempted, and marxism ate itself from within, not one time, but many times, communism, anarcho-collectivism, cooperative communes, gift economy, open-source, socialism, latin-american socialism, they all had the same inherent flaw based on the unwillingness to accept the inviability of an organizational system that rests on the hope that the transition between paramilitar/revolutionary/militar coup-based central planning to workers control will not fall prey to the power-greed of human beings. That is marxisms central failure, why you can't understand it is beyond me

Just read a book that isn't ideological brainsturbation, just one, please

Like literally 90% of democracy is accountability systems and division of powers, you get rid of this at the beggining and pretend is going to magically reappear after the chaos period when everyone with the guts to murder everyone can get full control

Marxism isn't a socio-economic system. No one disputes that the Soviet Union was Marxist. What they dispute is that it was socialism.

Marxism isn't "attempted". It's just a philosophy. The word you're looking for is socialism.

Also, this isn't even remotely true. Most socialist revolutions were crushed from without, only two really "corrupted", the USSR and the PRC.

First, you could claim this about any revolution, this sounds like old monarchist/feudalist bunk about why democracy is impossible.

Second, this might be a good critique of tankies and other Stalinists, but, once again, we're talking about anti-Stalinist Marxists who disagree with the concept of some "transitional dictatorship",so once again you're conflating two entirely different factions.

Naturalistic fallacy, Hume's Guillotine

Look, I can do it too.

By escaping, do you mean escaping death? By the time of Stalin, people weren't all just in denial. To go against the party would be to risk getting sent to gulag for being counter-revolutionary.

Before that, people were fighting for their lives as well. When the Bolsheviks took power, they immediately had to deal with counter revolution, supported by western powers. I think there was an English general that said for every one killed by the bolsheviks, the counter-revolution killed 100. The fascists and extreme right were in direct response to the bolsheviks taking power. They would have slaughtered and repressed millions more of the socialists in a right wing dictatorship if the socialists didn't fight for their lives. The escalating assault on their power ultimately culminated in WW2, when the reactionaries who almost entirely defined themselves as opposition to socialists obliterated Europe and killed 10s of millions.

And this all came out of a largely democratic movement in Russia. The soviet had to be begged endlessly by a population in turmoil to take power. The government of Russia post-February of 1917 was a coalition of center-left and right liberals (some stronger reactionaries mixed in from time to time that wanted a new dictator) who could barely assert any control of the country even with the support of the socialists in the soviet for several months. It got so bad that the liberals plotted a military dictatorship in league with the far-right faction of military generals that ultimately failed when a popular uprising of 10s of thousands of workers and soldiers in St. Petersburg (including the armies of the would be dictators themselves!) repelled them.

So this was a movement of people who wanted socialism in the face of military dictatorship, and all they got was endless violence trying to destroy them. What does Peterson have to say about this fact, that every time we have seen mass popular movements for left wing governments, violence arises to oppose them and the governments themselves are pitched into the turmoil of fighting for their lives. People die at the hands of counter revolutionary violence, and all you can do is blame them for their murders on high minded principles.

Then whats even your problem against the original JBP's point?

Socialism is a way to attempt marxism. Most ways to attempt marxism, not only socialism, have failed spectacularly


1- Yes, every radical revolution suffers this and can never go past it
2- No, because the monarchist revolution was based on people's accountability on the unaccountable monarchs

Of course, YOUR attempt at Marxism would be better

No, you cant

I never said what was good was natural, nor pleasant or desirable

How did central planning factor into Catalonia?

No, escaping the risk of getting sent to gulag for being counter-revolutionary

Exactly the same, that escapists do horrible shit to avoid not escaping

You have to be trolling.

it literally is

It still violates Home's Guillotine.

No. It isn't. Marxism is ultimately an analysis/critique of capitalism that postulates that due to the contradictions within capitalism and the available productive technology the most logical step in human organization is socialism/communism. Marxism isn't a socio-economic system.


Its a way to see the world that implies certain actions to be taken

It doesn't, i didn't say what ought to be, i stated what is

I'll answer you soon but I need to do my commute.

You did. His statement, that you defended, implies an ought.

We ought to have a class system with wild wealth inequality because that is what is.

Exactly my problem with this dude. I want to reply in good faith though to discern if he sees this, or if he has a substantial response to it. In shorter form for now:

What do you mean by reiterating about escapism. We are talking about popular movements that were faced with violence. The bolsheviks denied undemocratic power multiple times. Lenin himself called some of the armed uprising against the liberal government between February and October "adventurist" and "blanquist" because he wasn't convinced they represented the people. He wanted to wait until the soviet (a democratic body) had a majority of bolsheviks voted in before he suggested accepting power. The point at which they rose up was in response to on one hand the bolsheviks and their allies gaining a majority in the Petrograd soviet, and two the fact that the Germans were going to sack St. Petersburg in little time and VERY LIKELY institute a right wing dictatorship that would murder and repress millions.

So unless you have a different version of events to put forward, let's say that the bolsheviks were a part of a popular movement faced with right wing violence at their doorstep. How does escapism relate to the following civil war? Open-ended to you, I just want to know what you think escapism explains in this context, and what action it would prescribe to the workers that supported the socialists.

Because his statement that people were claiming that "that wasn't real Marxism" implies that he doesn't know what Marxism is an conflates it with the socio-economic system of socialism.

No, that's idealist. To quote Marx "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Except they did? It was a long struggle, but France is a republic now and feudalism has been toppled almost everywhere. In fact, the current reign of capitalism atop the ashes of feudalism is a living testament against this logic you're trying to use that all revolutions fail and systems can't change. In many ways, we live in a post revolutionary era where capitalism won and destroyed feudalism. And just as capitalism destroyed feudalism, socialism can and will destroy capitalism.

This is like claiming that any attempt to form a republic will end up like the Protectorate of England with an Oliver Cromwell as dictator. Yes, under radically different circumstances and radically different organizational methods and praxis, we could reasonably expect different results.

Nice how you avoided the 2nd point, the reason why capitalism(republic democracy) destroyed feudalism was because it added accountability to the state of affairs, my point is that any succeeding system can only triumph if is brought forward by increasing accountability onto the previous system, any attempts to centralize power as a first stage result in the second stage never being possible.

If the people were truly behind Lenin they wouldn't have allowed and/or followed Stalin, thats the claim, escapism maskeraded as socialist revolution and then maskeraded as Stalinism, it was always never about self-determined enligthened individuals, and that is made perfectly clear from what they ended up doing when they were supposed to be attempting the opposite thing

That's an interesting idea.

It's wrong, but interesting. Feudalism fell because it was outmoded by capitalism, and this ultimately meant the fall of the feudal form of government (monarchy) and the rise of the preferred capitalist form of government (republics). The form of the republic that makes it attractive to capitalism has nothing to do with "accountability", it's because republics are public institutions and, therefore, can act in the interest of the whole bourgeois class (as opposed to monarchy, where the state is the property of the royal family, and the feudal aristocracy by extension, and serves their class interest rather then the bourgoisie)

This is, once again, only a criticism of Stalinists.

This retard is even more qualified to be called a post modernist than the people he tries to criticize.

And I'm claiming that they acted in self-defense, which resulted in a certain insular closing off of the party apparatus to outside influence, a vesting of power with military men and police that resulted in abuse, and ultimately Stalin.

I don't like to make analogies because arguments can get off track, but I'm saying when a group is faced with an enemy that is physically threatening them, and that enemy is so determined that it also will attempt to invade their group in order to break it from the inside, then paranoia and fear leads the group to outwardly defend itself on the one hand, but also close itself off. It vests power in trusted individuals who are unaccountable. This state of affairs, by experience, seems to lead to atrocities of an increasingly severe variety, and a centralization of power that can reach a tipping point at which, with no apparent enemies in sight, the originally defensive body becomes an institution of tyranny with the structure of that paranoid, defensive body. It attacks shadows and abuses power in the name of the thing it was built for, defense of the group.

My claim is that in the case of the Soviet Union, Stalinism was not a result of socialists or even their initial manifestation, which was almost absurdly democratic (originally the liberal government was mad at the soviet for even democratizing the army such that officers were voted on by their subordinates). Rather, it's the result of the moral failings of i democratic reactionaries within the country and foreign enemies who were afraid that their power would soon be challenged by popular uprising, and so did everything in their power to stop it including to some extent enabling fascists and right wing dictatorships that they themselves acknowledged were barbarically murdering innocent people. What I'm confused about is why you (I don't know Peterson enough to comment on him) start with criticizing the socialists as integrally flawed and authoritarian, when historically speaking the socialists were the ones who were the popular, democratic force and they were under siege by right wing enemies. I just don't understand why the democratic faction is attacked for its moral failings, but not the actual authoritarians that wanted to impose a brutal dictatorship "for the good of the nation" who perpetuated a civil war and ultimately became fascists. Why is it escapist and a negative attribute to defend democracy, but the motivations of those trying to overthrow the government just not at all considered in the equation?

Because he talks in an uninformed manner about Marxism. It's not that complicated.

stay a slave.

Where did he write against hedonism? I have no recollection of this

let me guess, you think any attempts to change the present state of things is "utopian".
stop doing acid and actually read some of the shit you criticize.

But why though

what's with leftypol attracting these retards. lol

This, but unironically.

This is perhaps the 3rd time that I'm posting it. Alright OP, here's why I think he's a complete drooling moron with prowess in psychology in the same sense that a retarded savant is an extraordinary artist. I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread so I could be repeating here several points.

First off, let's consider why is he famous to begin with: He argued with a liberal for ten minutes on camera. His notoriety is circumstantial and his popularity is based off of ideological appeal. He isn't famous because of any work he's done, he isn't cited, he isn't influential, in fact he was an academic nobody before that confrontation. No OP, I'm not implying he doesn't have credentials or that his work is useless, I'm stating the fact that his current position has ABSOLUTELY 0% to do with anything he's done in his academic life. He feeds his crowd what they like to hear with a handful of mysticism and a pinch of reactionary views. And now that he enjoys the spotlight there is no reason to doubt he feels a bit more bold to insert his pet theories here and there. No OP, the fact that people flock to him doesn't indicate its inherent intellectual merit no more than people agreeing with a statement as long as it's been uttered by a candidate from their party. All I'm saying is that there really isn't anything extraordinary about what he teaches or about his achievements and he definitely isn't worth the time he's given or the magnitude he's presented in. Every long tenured professor in any decent university wrote a book, done a research, developed his pet theories, studied some phenomena that fascinated him for decades and gave lectures on it - Peterson is a run-of-the-mill academic, ironically fitting the "hack professor" stereotype that Holla Forums and reactionaries lament over infesting academia with a silly right-wing spin on it.

So as you may guess, since I don't give a shit that Peterson is fashionable today, I don't really pay attention to anything he says or writes. Occasionally, however, I do watch some clip or interview with a bait-y title. So let me demonstrate to you why Peterson has absolutely no idea what he's talking, that, or he's just dishonest: youtu.be/wLoG9zBvvLQ?t=28m42s

Later in this interview he talks about diversity quotas. He espouses that "Post Modernism" (let's just refer to his collective boogeyman by that name) says that your opinion is determined by your group, that everyone from a group thinks the same. Then, he says that PoMo also rejects biological essentialism in regards to gender, while he insists that on average women have a different set of interests than men because of some biological imperative. And then - the coup de grace - taking gold in Mental Gymnastics, he derives that PoMo does support biological essentialism based on race, at least ignorantly if not maliciously.


Now let's do Peterson some literary violence and deconstruct what he said. First of all, he constructs a very pleasant strawman for himself - "PoMos claim your opinion is determined by your group and is all the same" - which is of course nonsense. Not one intellectual nor even a measly liberal ever claimed this, what is true however is that groups do happen to have points of view about the world, you know, culture, which could give you a different perspective on society given you grew under different conditions - it honestly feels retarded that I need to point this out as if it's some esoteric knowledge that groups have consensus over their world view and experiences. On top of that ridiculous accusation he adds that diversity quotas exist to get a diverse verge of opinions in a company, while I'll let this one slide since I'm no Burger, I'm inclined to call bullshit since the practical point of having diversity quotas is allowing recognized marginalized groups enter positions that would otherwise not be available to them and thus giving better perspectives for the future of their community. Next we have his claim that PoMo rejects gender biological essentialism, which is true, but that so painfully begs the question as to why would there be gender diversity quotas for women if gender is not biological, which would further beg the question as to why did he conflate diversity with essentialism in these groups, when he talked about identity groups - i.e. not racial or otherwise - in the first place. And, as a cherry on top, he says women and men do have different interests inherently, which at least partially validates the first thesis of Mr. PoMo that groups determine a world view. There are of course more points I could dig into, throughout the entire interview, but I believe this will suffice.

So there you have it: PoMo wants quotas based on biological essentialism because these (biological) groups determine your opinion, but it also wants non-biological essentialist groups because these (constructed) groups also determine your opinion. Peterson apparently doesn't stop to ask himself "wait, if there are contradicting factors, maybe I got something wrong? Maybe they aren't making quotas based on biology?" Instead, he either overlooks it or either reassures himself that PoMo is contradictory and insane. Conveniently, he ignores the fact that PoMos constantly insist on race being a social construct.


here you go


*defends solzhenitsyn*

no wonder the right loves him, he makes them look smart by using complicated words.

I saw the interview at the point you mentioned and I think he could have expressed himself better. But I think I see the contradiction that he wants to bring attention to, and so let me see if can disentangle it from your analysis.

He says "that is how racists used to think", because in PoMo, just as racial supremacist would do, the individual is reduced to the "group quality" without paying attention to the individual in question.

True he said that, and I agree that statement is wrong. I think the usual argument goes as: PoMo suggests at least part of your thinking is dictated by your group. I believe you agree with this. You said

so you, while rejecting biological essentialism, you still believe there is an "essence" to a group, and an individual, just by beloging to a group has characterististics of that same "essence". I'm not claiming it is biological necessarily (and neither did he in his video), but that is still a part of PoMo.

Now the question is, how is that different than the racist perspective, which will tell you that racial groups have inherent traits to them, and you can discriminate on an individual basis based on these inherent traits? It is exactly the same, from the perspective that you are looking at an individual and attibuting to him characteristics of his "group membership".
Thus his criticism of "diversity quotas". It directly implies that you will have a more "diverse" set of individuals because having token elements of each group is enough to have different individuals, since they necessarily must have a different "quality" to them.

First off, where does it say your thinking is "dictated" by your group? Secondly, I don't.
You're under the impression as if I'm saying there is something that binds you to that group. Except groups are drawn from an aggregation of individuals, not the other way around. It also heavily depends on how you classify a group. I could say owners of item X are a group as opposed to non-owners of items X, it will mean absolutely nothing in their view of the world. On the other hand groups that aggregate based on position, often tied to identity, are a different matter and it's FALSE to say they don't have a consensus on certain matters, otherwise they wouldn't aggregate as a group. All of this would be relevant to your argument if diversity quotas were meant for the sake of having different perspectives, but they're not and Peterson is full of shit for saying they are because you aren't hired to a firm for your ethnicity's perspective, you're hired for having specialized knowledge. I've already explained the practical use of diversity quotas.
No, it isn't "part of PoMo". Attributing some inherent essence to groups has been a notion throughout history. And Peterson did say it is the worst kind of biological essentialism, otherwise he wouldn't contrast it with the rejection of gender biological essentialism.

When you demand a certain quota for diversity, or you make an statement such as "more diversity is necessary", then you are implicitly saying that.

The question is whether you are making an argument in odds or an argument in absolute. When you say that 2 white people is worse than 1 white and 1 black because the second group is more "diverse", then you are saying that just for the fact that one person is black, they will have certain characteristics to them that make the second choice better. You said the group has a "consensus" but that's essentially what it is.

They absolutely are. This is the main way of selling diversity to companies, it is the main way HR sells it to employees. The idea is more diversity implies more diversity of opinions and ideas which implies more creativity, and a more productive company.

He is criticizing diversity quotas, which is something that is done in addition to looking at specialized knowledge.

What is the practical use of diversity quotas for a company? I can't see it in your previous post.

He did not choose his words carefully when he said "it's the worst kind of biological essentialism", because technically it is not "biological", but it is still a form of essentialism, where you give an attribute to a person just because they are part of a group (for example a racial group).

Everything I've heard him say on psychology is incredibly non controversial and honestly so fucking basic Its rare to see psychologists or psychiatrists talk too much about it, since by the time you get to needing to see one of those you will already have been told these basics multiple times. He sounds more like a teen counselor than a professor.


Basically he says that by engaing in hedonism you set the value of pleasure above yourself and you become a slave to your own desiresa. The egoist's freedom comes from his ability to take and drop his desires freely, whereas a hedonist becomes enslaved to his base desires, whether its entertainment, sex, or money. "Is the heroin addict who follows his desire to gain heroin more or less free than someone who isn't a heroin addict?"

you wish, ragamuffin.

Lol the old "no u" argument

Cmon now are you threatened that your nihilism gravy train of muh spook chef is coming to an abrupt close as more and more people eake up to your teen angst mind fuckery?

haha, nice one dood, *highfives*