H3H3 had Jordan Peterson on. Fucking centrist Ethan allowing Peterson to redpill the 13 year olds

Notice how there isn't even an attempt ITT to refute anything JP has said, just simple dismissals and ad hominems.

Just proves the point that the left are "hyper-intellectual radicals!" when they're punching down at stormweenies, but suddenly recoil into whiny 12 year olds the second they are challenged by an actual academic. Hahahaha

This doesn't sound even a little unhinged to you? You honestly believe there is a "conspiracy" to discredit Marxism?

No one here is interested in refuting a fucking two hour video because some random Holla Forums brainlet will declare victory otherwise.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Refute this motherfucker.
Don't wanna? Looks like we won again!

Agreed, but this is hardly unexpected given that the people JP is attacking are a band of self-serving sophists who will say anything they say fits their aims.

s/say fits/think fits

Even if you assume communism is responsible capitalism is still worse by far and continues to be so in this day and age.
youtube.com/watch?v=QnIsdVaCnUE

nice strawman you fucking faggot, learn to read. He said blaming EVERYTHING on marxism (see also: cultural marxism) is nazi propaganda. Because believe it or not finding an unnamed and/or undescribable thing and blaming everything on it is a lot easier than actually fixing problems, and that's exactly what nazis do. Other examples are jews or banks (which all happen to be marxist in their eyes btw)

At least the deaths caused by capitalism aren't as unjust as death/work camps, and tbh fam that video's really stretching the idea of responsibility.

Why are leftist philosophers so fucking lazy when it comes to defining motivation and the ways people approach their goals?

And people continue to not refute JP and just casually dismiss him. All this does is reinforce your opposition.

I'm not the same user you're replying to and am open to actual conversation

There have been way too many threads about this guy on both of the chans. can some one just make a JPEG or something and end this?

discrimination, proscribed speech), which is not postmodern at all.Jung's a reaction against modernism in psychology the way Heidegger's a reaction against modernism in philosophy, and both are postmodern.

>Peterson basically proves he doesn't know what postmodernism is by criticizing what are modernist movements for postmodernism, while being a professor who specialized on a postmodern topic. There's apparently no sense of irony about the contradiction either, so I think he's just ignored the friendly nudges his colleagues must have given him by now because internet fame got to him.

>You know, this is the exact same kind of logic a lot of apologist Christians use. "Just because we haven't yet proved god…" Let me know when JP discovers Objective Morality, or the tools which will allow us to discover it.Even if such a discovery were possible, how will it be utilized?

>In the mean time, the much simpler explanation is that moral systems are
human constructions that morph and shift depending of the time and place.

truth value. They're definitely iterative, they aren't invented ex nihilo, they grow out of older ideas and new circumstances. They're surely partially motivated by biological circumstances, but because biology is evolutionary, there is nothing eternal, objective or universal about them.

>Morality is an invention of homo sapien, at best maybe some other social animals develop such systems. But if life isn't even as old as the earth, then morality is but a temporary invention of intelligence. If intelligence disappears from the universe, then so does morality.

making new genders and w/e, it's just window dressing for a bigger change that's happening.

>postmodernism doesn't say this. it just says nothing universally matters, not that things don't locally matter. it says the things that happen in your time and place will have a great meaning and impact on how you operate and perceive the world, more so than any universal.

> it's not that there's no more god, it's that there are many new gods and no way to get rid of them even if you wanted to do that. it's important to keep in mind that modernism believed in science and progress, not so much god.

>in reference to this thread, the people who peterson is up against are *modernists*. they believe their view of society is the route to scientific human progress, and should be universally employed. they think gender is a fact, and not something that changes based on your culture and timeframe, but something essential to your being. for most postmodernism, that's impossible, and as much a fad of our current era as crossdressing in the russian nobility was a fad in the period preceding catherine the great. the nobility didn't like it, but "don't argue with the empress of russia" is closer to a universal truth than the type of thing SJW gender theorists come up with

>i don't get why peterson needs to call them postmodernists. postmodernists would largely disagree with the people he hates because they're mostly essentialist modernists, trying to enforce their "truth" on others through "science" that's about as sketchy as the "proofs" for "god" before it.

complained that it would lead to fines for using the wrong pronouns, which got him on the public radar. But if you actually read the bill, there is nothing on there suggesting that. There is nothing on the bill defining using the wrong pronouns as hate speech, or even mentioning pronouns at all. It was just a bill that prevented transvestites from being discriminated against, as in, they could not be rejected a job if they were qualified simply because they were trans.

what the fuck is this formatting, what am i even supposed to read here?

They're not?
How so?
Certainly not for capitalism. Pic related.
They're not?
If you bring up his arguments in person rather than expecting people to watch and react to some 2 hour interview you'll find people will be more up for debate.
In my view anyone open to ACTUAL conversation would become class-conscious rather quickly. Unless they're literal porkies of course.

What kind of logic is this? 3.5 billion years of biological evolution. You only live for about 80 years if you're lucky. 3.5 billion years is pragmatically eternal and universal and objective in so far as human beings are concerned.

If there's any value to existing, this statement is exactly wrong. What about moral systems becoming prominent by any means over other moral systems? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Of course not.
I'm not arguing that there isn't injustice in capitalism, to be clear. Thought experiment time. Two situations. Someone dies. In one case, someone else willed that death, in the other, no one willed that death. Which one is more unjust? Granted, we shouldn't stand for injustice, period, but if we can manage less, that's a step towards 0.
yeah, money and power (over other people) don't exist outside of society, and we had to learn to exist before society before we could bring about society. That necessitates motivations absent of money and power.

(This is were you're supposed to provide examples)
Someone dying due to a neglectful society and system is equally unjust.
Not sure what you're what you're going for here?
I take it you'll type up a 34 paged refutation of the communist manifesto if I asked you to?
Class-consciousness is at its core being aware of how the capitalist system functions. How it concentrates money and power to the few and how the struggles of the working class relates to this.

(same user) just want to say that the criticism of Peterson improperly using the label postmodernist is accurate, though I think it's more so a case of him compacting his message down for the layman than actual poor philosophy. The criticism is valid, but it's not damning.

...

...

google "cultural bolshevism"
its basically attributing everything wrong in society to marxists, which Dr. Peterson does very often, hence the whole "postmodernist neomarxists destroying Western civilization" rhetoric.

There is a hierarchy of injustice, and will certainly has an effect on that. It is not equally unjust to be neglected and to die than it is to be made to suffer then die. It is still unjust, but nowhere near as unjust.
Primal society necessitates motivations different from and dominant over money and power. (this is where I'm providing an abstract of examples. Generally people just want to not suffer more than other things)

We don't refute JP's points because he has no points to make. His whining and bitching is just about "culture wars" and everything right wingers whine about; free speech and identity politics. He blams most of society's woes on the SJWs and the "postmodernist neomarxists".

Seriously man, I'm trying to help you. Shit like what you're saying in that post only reinforces your opposition. That is seriously not wise.

he still blames a disproportionate amount of societys ills on a group of people with nearly no power in society
how so?

if his arguments towards something that he bases a large part of his critique on is a strawman, how is it not damning?

(not him) how does that sound like an ideologue. thats literally qhat it means to be class conscious - to understand the tendencies of capitalism and ots effects on you as a working class person.

please explain his points to me then, if you want to help

Guys guys, please, I only have so much time. Surely if you're willing to listen to someone who's listened to Peterson, you'd be willing to spend the time listening to him, and what he himself says. He's done plenty of podcasts where he compresses his message, and he's done other videos where he's gone into much more detail.

Because it's not a strawman. People on this board complain about idpol, and that's mostly what he's arguing against. He's blaming the conceptualization of society as groups v other groups for that. As it turns out, this is what the idea of class consciousness appears to be.

Not really, he just argues against academics. I'm not aware of any point where he tried to blame specific ills on postmodernist neo-marxists, other than bill C-16. He does argue that people are afraid to speak up for fear of ridicule and being ostracized, and relates that to ideas similar to what postmodernist neo-marxists put forth.
abandonment of Western virtues and ideals (including objective truth and the divinity of the individual)

It's predicated on a specific worldview that is articulate at it's core (which people are not).

Meant to point out that he argues that the relationship is causal.