Jordan Bernt Peterson

Cultural marxism man. For someone who talks so much about meaning and love and religion and so on, he sure does vow strongly to defend the system that's destroying all of these things

can you give me source of that graph?

Also marxist source is terrible for sending to Solzhenitsyn fans.
The more anti-solzhenitsyn sources the better, and always link your souces.
This is a nice thing for starting research: encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=gulag deaths&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=

Source for image is J. ARCH GETTY, GABOR T. RITTERSPORN, and VIKTOR N. ZEMSKOV, Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence

You're the one who can't do basic googling.

Has he ever used to term 'cultural marxism' or does he just call it 'post-modernism'?

I support your point, I just want links to studies, as I am interested in good critiques of Solzhenitsyn.
More links the better

if you speak out against the sjw/idpol crazies, you will find an audience, even if your own views are just as stupid and worthless

this is why actual, educated, informed leftists need to need to denounce and refute the sjw movement, and stop the right from filling the vaccum and making their voice the dominant one

archive.org/details/ArchipelagoOfLies
marxists.org/archive/mandel/1974/05/solzhenitsyn-gulag.html
archive.org/details/pdfy-vswh1WhfRHkMIl4A
Also see this thread, CTRL+F Solzhenitsyn
8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html

...

definitely. listen to joe rogan with him

The reason Jordan Peterson does so well, is because he obfuscates Christianity to make it harder to attack (truth is not true if humanity will die in the future), but then gets mad when SJWs do the same thing for gender. He redefines words to save his religion, while getting mad at SJWs for doing the same for social justice. In my opinion, both sides are wrong.

The right simply wanted Peterson to beat Harris in a debate over religion, but failed.

I think so. He fucks too much with the meaning of truth, for the sake of his religion.

I mean he gets so fucking popular right now and he can go anuddah shoah by POST MODERNISM any day now

It's hard to imagine a fate sadder than losing a debate to Sam Harris.

He's pretty decent at debates tbh. The people he debates are usually retarded creationists (peterson isn't that much better), but still, he's good at keeping his cool and he's very articulate.

People mistake debating ability for actually having the stronger argument. Rhetoric is the ability to convince regardless of the reasoning used. William Lane Craig is a great example since his arguments for the existence of God are just repackaged Thomism and he still slaughters his better informed and more reasonable opponents, at least in terms of how debates are usually "scored".
They're garbage to be honest. Verbal debates are way more often than not exercises in sophistry. I can see how a relaxed discussion with some agreed on premises can be productive but debates are universally terrible.

This is shit, it should say "all the escape mechanisms that make the hell we have made for ourselves tolerable".

For me it clicked when I saw him try to answer that question about "so you believe Jesus rose from the dead". Aha, that's what it is: he's producing christian apologia for the 21st century. I could tell before his belief in reason was a facade, I just couldn't quite figure what was behind it.
Not sure he is dangerous, though, he's more of a leech than a leader.

There are people on this board who say nearly the same thing in every one of those /r9k/-esque (about girls, loners, etc.) threads: "sort yourself out; it's all your fault." This advice may be useful to tell certain people in that situation, but it isn't actually true.

I don't see many people who can beat Sam Harris in a debate. It's funny because the left and right both act as if Harris can't debate, and pretend he doesnt have week reasoned opinions. Harris is very rational.

I suppose must see what they want to see.

Opps, I meant that most see what they want to see, and that Harris has well reasoned arguments.

There is another one too, where Peterson is asked if he believes in God. Watch this video and be amazed…
youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

The guy needs to learn some fucking manners for fuck's sake. He's like a trans-nigger but smarter.

...

Your tactics are being turned against you. Here's a prime example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality

Douglas' point was that even if you accept the 50 gorillions narrative, liberals also killed people to instantiate our modern societies, and way more than MLs.
Do liberals shit on Locke, Adam Smith and Voltaire because of this, like they do on Marx ? No, they don't. Therefore why Marx should be repudiated because of Leninist crimes/mistakes ?

5 minute answer to "do you believe in god?"
just say yes you fucking pussy
unbelievable

...

...

Cut him some slack, it's hard being a christian since the death of god :^)

How do you construct a defense of "western values" from Nietzsche without completely misreading him?

...

That's a picture of a book, not a citation. I understand that you are telling me that the book is the citation, but you haven't actually cited a passage in the book.

I saw a lecture where Peterson sort of defended this point, albeit badly. He thinks Nietzsche was ultimately right about the importance of values and their ability to fade but that we're "too stupid" to create our own values and need to rely on what has already been constructed through myth, scripture, and jungian archetypes throughout millennia. I guess the solution is trying to resurrect god, a bastardization of Nietzsche to be sure.

It seems like an incoherent point on its face since "myth" is by definition a human creation (leaving aside the very odd interpretation of what seems to be Nietzsche's Genealogy), but I guess there's no one here to defend his views anyway unless you count the one Holla Forumstard who's just triggered by Adorno.

But it's a cooperative one, I think is the point. It's collective wisdom being passed down so it's superior to our own individually created values. I don't know though, I'm not a Peterson expert, I think he's a fucking dullard.

Individually created values are necessarily situated within the general ethical framework ("collective wisdom") of the society in which such values are created; individual views are always informed by what is passed down, even if only in a negative sense. That would be one argument against that (on what basis we're judging "superiority" would be another). If that's his argument, though, his followers would be better served by reading Hegel's Philosophy of Right which has a much deeper understanding of a similar point.

But it is odd how "rational" liberalism is just coming to recapitulate conservatism.

I see nothing wrong with this tbh

present series of volumes
represent.� the first
fruits
of this effort.
In a sense, the
initial
five volumes
constitute one
unit, an
integrated whole, each
part of which illuminates one
or another
facet of the phenomenon we
call
prejudice.
Three· of the books deal with those
elements
in the personal­
ity
of modem man that predispose
him to reactions
of hostility to racial
and religious
groups. They
attempt answers
to the question:
What is there in the psychology of the individual
that
renders him
"prejudiced" or "un­
prejudiced," that akes him more
or less likely
to respond favorably to the
agitation of a Goebbls
or a Gerald K.
Smith?
The volume on
Tbe Au­thoritarian
Personality
by Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik,
Levinson and San­ford, based upon a combination
of research
techniques,
suggests
one answer.
It demonstrates that there is a close
correlation betw�en
a number
of deep­ rooted
personality traits, and overt
prejudice.
The stUdy h45
also succeeded
in producing an instrument for measuring
these traits among various strata
of the population.
-From forward in Studies for Prejudice.

characteristic of ethnocentric ideology
is the generality
of
outgroup
rejection.
It is as if the ethnocentric
individual feels threatened
by most of the groups
to which he does not have a sense of belonging; if he
cannot identify,
he must oppose; if a group is not "acceptable,"
it is "alien."
The ingroup-outgroup
distinction
thus becomes the basis for most of his
social thinking, and people
are categorized
primarily according to the
groups to which they
belong.
-Page 147 of The Authoritarian Personality

Fix your formating you fuckboy.

I can keep going, I don't really know what you're expecting here. The entire book is a series of studies intended to pin traditional right wing tendencies down to nothing more than a series of complexes and scales. You could flip open to nearly any page and find a sentence supporting my claim. As someone involved in contemporary political psychology, I can tell you from personal experience that he set the trend for the entire area of study, at least so far.

Then you'll have no problem when it's turned against you. People like Jordan Peterson are going to continue to pop up and make bigger and bigger waves.

Please, keep going to the part where it's not laid out like dogshit and backs up the original complaint that they're painted as mentally ill.

I can't copy and paste the whole book for you here, if you're too lazy to read it that's not my fault. He paints people with these views as abnormal and dangerous.

-Preface to Authoritarian Personality

In particular, he's referring to people who score highly as anti-semitic, ethnocentric, politically and economically conservative, religious, and anti-democratic, which he devotes a chapter each to.

Actually cite from the work you intend to reference, this time, and not a descriptor. On that note, maybe don't use the "read a book" cap if you do not do so yourself.

A preface is an introductory addition and not actually part of the work. This is really basic.

If you're really that interested you can just look up the book yourself and read it.

What? I've read the book, that's why I referenced it when you tried to play stupid.

Which would be valid, sound advice even, if the other poster hadn't make several ridiculous claims that warrant literary proof. Of course, one has to actually read the work to be able to provide the necessary citations.

First, your copy-paste skills are beyond lousy. Second, it's "foreword." Third, it's obvious you've never read that book (unless skimming it for poorly formatted copy-pasting counts). Confusing "foreword" with "forward," I would be surprised if you read much at all.

Oh, please. People on the internet have been diagnosing their opponents with mental illnesses for ages. It's always an effort to avoid having to make an argument. Peterson isn't new in that regard.

The book you're citing is trying to find a psychological typology for those who would follow fascist ideology; it isn't principally talking about "mental illness" per se (it actually has a chapter which distinguishes between the personality type and those with the personality type who also have a mental illness), but you don't seem to know the difference.

Then again, you're a mentally ill Nazi bonehead, so I guess you wouldn't be aware there was a difference.

No you don't, you can just scan it, "ctrl + f" (unless you fuck up the formatting like this clown>>2055081) for something that is plausible enough, and few if any will be any the wiser. It's a useless thing to demand, just debate in the open about the concepts concerned.

It is not merely trying to talk about a mental illness but to explain it. For that, the author uses the Freudian paraphernalia bullshit at his disposal at the time.

I can tell you guys don't read very much

But that's the beauty of what he's doing. If you're not able to read people's intentions beyond what they claim them to be, then I don't know what to tell you. He's saying outright that fascism isn't a mental illness, but then he's otherwise treating like he would a mental illness; a behavior to be analyzed and corrected.

Trying to find a personality typology isn't necessarily locating it in a mental illness. In fact, there's no point in the book distinguishing between the type and those of the type who have mental illnesses if the type by itself constitutes a mental illness.

It's a product of its time. Homosexuality was often associated with fascism at the time (especially prior to Stonewall).

If you did read it, nothing in it seemed to stick.

You need to be able to convince anyone your interpretation of his intentions is correct. Interpretation isn't the same as correct interpretation.

He's treating it as a personality predisposition which individuals may want to correct. Many people with low conscientiousness or high neuroticism as measured by the Big 5 personality test may want the effects of those corrected, too (and both have been analyzed in terms of employment, education, general life outcomes, etc.), but that doesn't mean either result constitutes by itself a mental illness.

People are naturally swayed by emotionally charged words especially if they are emotionally vulnerable. The alienation that capitalism causes makes many feel this way so like a Christian pastor, Jordan works with the crowd and regurgitates his shit with a flair of eastern philosophy. His self help advice is something you can Google and find better explanations less than a minute. It's better than listening for an hour to Mr.Kermit. But many kids spend their time in YouTube and see this guy telling a world truth for the first time they believe anything he says is true.

You are not interesting.

Best result of peterson is you can immediately tell who the lazy fucks are. Protip: they are people just like you.

You're being disingenuous. The book frames it as a shortcoming. I love how you seem to pretend the book can even be considered a work of science and not pure political propaganda.

Because the personality is associated with qualities most would regard as negatives. Both high neuroticism and low conscientiousness are also viewed negatively both personally and by other people, but no one I'm aware of indicts the Big 5 test as propaganda of some sort for framing certain personality tendencies as largely negative.

Personally, I like how you've abandoned trying to justify your original point that the personality itself constituted a mental illness when that is easily refuted by the text. That's why you now have to attack the authors' motives, after all, rather than engage with the material.

Is poor baba upset he got laughed out the other thread?

laziness is a mental illness, farting in an elevator too
what else? pissing in the sink, biting your fingernails, leaving the toilet seat up…

[citation needed]

Spotted the wage cuck

i like in the video how the book jordan brings up to make his point is also one of the most profound writings one could read. you have to love his blatant sensationalism and showmanship, even if he may believe it himself.