So, I've been perusing the gruanidad and they've got a piece up on Peterson:

So, I've been perusing the gruanidad and they've got a piece up on Peterson:

They state several positions Peterson holds and I find myself in agreement.
We've all heard this before.

Happy to agree with three of these

The nomenclature is probably disagreeable to most of us but the the right do seem fairly consistent in applying this to critical theory / post-structural cultural studies disciplines.

Again, arguably nomclature could be disputed, but the capture of various sectors of academia by the new left and the establishment of the cultural studies disciplines is a matter of established fact. Much as his claims about those disciples could be read as hyperbolic, I'm happy to agree with him that I do NOT want the people these disciplines are churning out anywhere near the levers of power.

I would express my disagreement in different terms, but I would broadly agree with rejecting everything Peterson rejects here.

I also note some outright disingenuity from the guardian.
Or it could be argued that their predictions are now bearing fruit.

The existence of the cultural studies disciplines is not shadowy or secret.

Much as I support "from each according to their ability…", I don't see anything much to object to, here. I see much to object to in his opponents in the culture war who attack me on the basis of my skin colour or sex simply because I am alive. Given that the Guardian piece has clearly been written by his opponents, I don't think I'm interested in opposing this man.

Other urls found in this thread:

omg did u see gthe article about kims baby whaaaaat

Literally who gives a fuck?

Lol I Did Like SO CUTE like OMG i hope i have a Man Who loves me that Much One day Like LOL OMG

He believes that Frozen is marxist propaganda.

omg omg omg that damn babbie lol

This is literally the "cultural marxism" conspiracy.

I had a ruminate on this before posting.
Sourced to an obvious fash site:

I don't think I'm interested in arguing with such low effort bait

I bet if I were to say that muslim societies oppress women this faggot would agree, and yet the treatment of women through much of history was every bit as bad. Also OP is a massive faggot for posting this shit here.

His opponents claim there is no such thing as biological sex. Odd is preferable to abjectly psychotic.

Believing there is marxist propaganda concealed in disney movies *is* abjectly psychotic: it's literally paranoid. Peterson needs to take his pills and you need to stop bumping this thread you dumbfuck Holla Forumsyp.

Movies do not contain any of the ideology that guides their creators? Have you ever watched Triumph of the Will? The Last Jedi? Battleship Potemkin? Literally the only reason to be against this man is because you're the sort of person who thinks the drivel that comes from people like Judith Butler has any value.

1. OP is a faggot
2. Peterson is a reactionary concerned with reinforcing hierarchy, capitalism, and neoliberal individualism. He's a boomer-tier retard who can't bear the thought of a tranny making his peepee feel funny. He might be correct about postmodernism and critical studies in a sense, if you change up the nomenclature- but buy into his nazi-inspired cultural marxism fairy tales and you're sowing the seeds for the state and the far right to initiate another red scare. A red scare where crying "but wait! WE'RE not the idpol liberals!!" will be absolutely meaningless
3. sage you fucking idiots, sage

Imagine being this much of a brainlet.

If anything, the influence of the New Left on academia was purely liberal if not explicitly anti-Marxist. It attempted to subvert materialist economic and class based analysis with idealist cultural critique with a gross perversion of Antonio Gramsci's ideas. Media is no longer viewed as a tool for reinforcing bourgeois cultural hegemony, but something that somehow creates reality, with the broader socio-economic order largely gone.

This wasn't Marxist subversion, but quite the opposite. It was a way of spreading liberal ideological hegemony, something that reduced economics and class struggle to something either wholly unimportant or merely another idealist "form of oppression" no different from any other cultural issue, rather than the driving force of history.

Which is an entirely fair remark, bar that you're expecting the right to be able to discern what to them are likely fine graduations in unfamiliar belief systems. Similarly, most leftists have difficultly discerning any divisions among the right, no?

My understanding of right-wing ideology is that there is or was some harmonious natural order that was perverted and corrupted by some malignant outside force, creating the conflict and strife we see today. Rightist ideologies differ on what exactly the harmonious natural order was and what the corrupting force is.

It's not that there is no ideology in movies, it's believing that a big budget children's movie from Disney has a Marxist slant.

Peterson has demonstrated multiple times that he hasn't the slightest clue what Marxism is beyond what he read in explicitly anti-communist works like Solzhenitsyn's Big Book of Anti-Communist Fairy Tales.

The New Left arose as the response in the 1960s during the rise of post-industrial society, the welfare state, and the growth of the post-Stalin Cold War especially in Asia and Africa. Post-industrial society involved the death of the so-called classic labour movement, and of the Left becoming more prevalent in university campuses rather than factories. If you look anywhere the Left predominate, the fact that the Left has become so dominated by the intelligentsia has become a point of contention amongst us, and arguing that we're purposefully "infiltrating" universities is nonsense given we don't want to control the universities, what we want to control is the factories.

Postmodernity, the cultural logic of contemporary capitalism, arose in the 1980s as the prevailing cultural norms as a result of the cultural ramifications of the then rising in power neoliberal economic doctrine, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and the new forms of digital technology.

Postmodern theory, the theory of the intellectuals who are either defined as those view the shift in culture in a positive light or those fully immersed in postmodern culture (Zizek, for instance, is fully immersed in postmodern culture and can be regarded as a postmodern philosopher as such, but is also opposed to those trends, which, if you use the prior definition, renders him not a postmodern), in general arose in opposition to Marxism, and was borne out of that opposition. In many cases, there are lots of overlap, as in the core theoreticians are still quoted, such as those of the Frankfurt School and of the Marxists in general, Freud and the pyschoanalytics, Nietzche, etc. We all draw from the same well - the so-called western canon. The difference is that of emphasis on interpretation - the postmoderns interpret thinkers like Marx in a fashion diametrically opposed to Marxism.

Sage because Peterson is a bizarre mystic that likes to attribute mythic symbolism into real phenomena in a very vulgar fashion. He uses pyschological associations as hard facts when they're not. The fact that thinkers use Marx, creating a vaguely similar feel is enough for Peterson to simply assume they are the same because that's the foundation of Peterson's entire thought process.

rationalwiki aren't fascists. they're nu-atheist liberals

Frozen is postmodern bullshit tho

I disagree with you on this, there absolutely is ideology in that Disney movie. I had a chat with someone from Worst Korea a few years back and remarked that DPRK schoolbooks presented mathematics problems in terms of killing a number of American soldiers. Propaganda, I declared. My Korean acquaintance agreed, then pointed out that capitalist societies present these same problems in terms of spending currency to purchase goods.

I think berating the accuracy of Peterson's definition is a waste of time. That's likely a label for the outgroup, in much the same way "Alt-Right" works in other places.

nothing wrong with dead american soldiers user

first, Peterson is reactionaty brainlet, who does nothing at this point other than spew that bulsshit "cultural marxism" stuff at retards like you.
that's fucking based

First, Peterson is supposed to be an academic and his followers certainly treat him as one, he can't use the excuse of making some amateur mistake because he's a fucking professional, this sort of thing is literally his job.

He tries, in a very intentional way, to link this sort of thing to Marxism. He gets it wrong because he's a hack and a demagogue. Sure, Frozen probably does have ideology behind it, but to claim that it's anything other than some form of standard liberalism is quite a claim that Peterson doesn't even come close to backing up.

Nice moving the goalposts from

why lie like this on an anonymous imageboard, it's baffling

Oh look, another Holla Forumsyp who doesn't read.

why did this movie trigger them so much?


Fuck off retard.

Look everyone, psychotic idpols. Here is video footage of someone openly stating what they claim is a lie:

t. lobsters


Yes, he's linking this stuff in a very intentional way to marxism. I don't know if you've noticed but there are people in this thread on a nominally marxist board defending the "standard liberalism" you're referring to. The same thing is happening on reddit too. And on libcom. And on twitter. I'm sure he's completely wrong and there is no link, though.

Now this is some peak confirmation bias right here.

t. liberal


And Holla Forums, T_D, Stormfront and fellow travelers agree a lot with standard liberalism, and in a much more intrinsic way than communists.

I don't see the reactionaries agreeing with the psychotic ideologies referred to by Peterson and you covered earlier as part of "standard liberalism". There are people in this thread actively defending those ideas. Are you telling me those other persons in this thread are communists?




Reactionaries and liberals are both idealists and culture-reductionists, making them more similar to each other than any materialist philosophy like Marxism.

Yes or no, please.

Yeah, numbnuts, but he's an anti-communist. That's already enough reason to oppose him.

Yes or no to what?

Yes or no to whether communists agree with "psychotic ideologies"?

What "psychotic ideologies" are advanced in Frozen? What are you talking about?

The absolute state of anti-peterson fags.

He's attacking idpols who pose as communists.

Jordan Peterson is knee-deep in idpol, I don't know where the right got the idea that it's only identity politics if the "left" is doing it.

So what? Is allowing one group of idpols to attack another group of idpols a problem for you?

I will never stop being impressed that 8ch lefties responded to Holla Forums retardation by just being retarded in the other direction.

Hey Anarchists and Communists, hierarchies are not social constructions of Capitalism.

It's more that he attacks communism and Marxism.

the absolute state of petersonfags

We're opposed to class society, not all hierarchy writ large in every situation.

what the fuck do you think a vanguard party is

I'm not even an ML but holy shit

Except you already tried to assert this here: . We're going round in circles because there's something you're not admitting to.

That guy wasn't me.

Then make a new argument.

Do you prefer your coffee without cream, or your coffee without caffeine

You're right ultimately but he has a bit more weight than some random jackass

You might not be but getting rid of all hierarchy IS a goal of a lot of communists, you can create a shitstorm in places like /r/communism just by asking of apprenticeships are allowed.

Go on, how am I wrong?

Because men are the bad guys and for idpol cucks like peterson and molyneux it is an attack against themselves as people

Pretty self-explanatory

Because Elsa didn't get with a man and the main relationship in the movie was based on the two sisters instead of a prince the Glenn Beck types thought it was a way to sneak in a lesbian relationship.

Hundreds of thousands of conservatives watched a film about sisterhood and thought it was lesbian incest.

The persistent refusal to answer direct questions and deflect is itself an answer.


ah you're right, in that case we'll just kill you right here

What new argument?

He attacks idpol liberals and he attacks us. We oppose him for the latter. We also oppose him for trying to associate the us with them.

Who's this we? He's attacking idpols who present themselves as communists. Now who could have a problem with attacks on idpols posing as communists…

So, OP, what exactly are you doing here instead of shitposting in the comment section of a le rationale skeptic on Youtube?

No. He attacks communists and Marxists and any liberal to his left and lumps them all together. Even if he didn't peddle out reactionary ideology and self-help bullshit, he should be opposed for his brazen anti-communism.

No. The idpols are posing as communists and that is what he is attacking. He and his followers have little reason to distinguish between idpols and and those seeking socioeconomic change given that the idpols are by far the larger group and with deny the existence or/and validity of other groupings. In doing so the idpols have already poisoned Peterson's audience against us; thus what Peterson "peddles" to them is of little consequence. There is no reason to prevent the reactionaries from solving our idpol problems for us.

t. alternate reality

There 'solution' is liquidation of the left, faux-idpol left or not. That includes communists.

Show me where Peterson advocates for mass murder.

He's a rabid anti-Marxist reactionary you dumb cunt. He consistently equates anti-Marxist PoMo theorists with Marxists, and spreads anti-communist bunk history and economics.

The man is a mortal enemy.

No. Peterson attacks communists directly. If anything, he uses the association of us to to liberals as an attack on liberals far more so than vice versa.

He attacks all communists and makes no distinction between those who do or do not espouse identity politics.

Nor is he actually opposed to identity politics in any way, he simply wants his own brand of identity politics to take hegemony, not the abolition of identity politics.

He wouldn't be bringing Solzhenitsyn's Big Book of Anti-Communist Fairy Tales back from the grave if he was not a genuine anti-communist.

Are you so idiotic you have forgotten why reddit is a snarl word here?

Somebody made a video of him cleaning his room because Peterson told him so

No they haven't you illiterate fool. Marxism is a modernist ideology, and is routinely attacked by PoMo theorists. Just because you're ignorant of the academic literature doesn't mean it isn't real.

The "New Left" in academia is full of post-structuralist anti-Marxists.

u wot, your arguments would be stronger if you knew his arguments.

Do you live in an alternate fucking reality?

First off, Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism either. By and at large, he himself is a postmodernist.

And his claim is that Marxists created Postmodernism through le Cultural Marxism meme.

"Post-modernism" does not refer to any single theory or even well-defined set of theories. Originally a term borrowed from art criticism, it's come to be used to refer to a number of French philosophers, also called "post-structuralism," from the 1970's and 80's. There's little in the way of a singular project shared by these philosophers other than a critical attitude toward a variety of modern concepts. This attitude isn't all that unique to them and fits pretty well in the critique of metaphysics that's characteristic of 20th century philosophy in general.

There's no real connection between Marxism and post-modernism other than an influence of Althusser's structuralist Marxism, more in it's structuralist method of critique than anything uniquely Marxist, and the philosophers called post-modernist are generally left-leaning, though no more radical than European academics of the time. Orthodox Marxism is an explicit target of so-called post-modern critiques.

For Peterson and others, often to the American political right but also self-described "centrists", in an effort to establish a narrative to condemn a variety of movements popularly viewed as politically left, such as Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ or student protests against speakers visiting their university, conflate these through shoddy scholarship and innuendo. Peterson and the like view these movements as a consequence of an ideological stranglehold that "postmodern neo-Marxism" has over academia, but on further investigation of their claims, this is nothing more than a pretense in response to an attitude defined by it's most "dangerous" effects apparent to people like Peterson.

He's full blown in favor of idpol. I've seen him argue for the old patriarchal order and muh western civilization multiple times, which is just right-wing idpol.


Jordan Peterson doesn't understand Post-Modernism, and not do you by the sound of it. There is little evidence that Peterson has read anything else other than Hicks' book on Post-Modernism. There is no real link between post-modernism and Marxism, nor do post-modernists "masquerade" as Marxists.

Peterson's repurposed form of Hicks' Randian structuralist boogeyman argument goes like this: (i) Kant introduced into modern philosophy a radical skepticism which denied that there is any objectivity in knowledge or any human acquaintance with reality, (ii) Marxists in the twentieth century realized that Marxism was irrevocably irrational, (iii) to continue to espouse their Marxism in the face of its irrationality Marxists in the twentieth century embraced the Kantian repudiation of objectivity, (iv) this skeptical position argued for philosophically by Kant and popularized on political grounds by Marxists is what postmodernism is, and (v) postmodernism forms the basis of progressive politics in the twenty-first century.

Not a single one of these claims is true–or, if we wish to be more diplomatic, not a single one of these claims is consistent with relevant mainstream scholarship. Most of them are closer to having things exactly backwards. So if that's the kind of theory you have in mind, I would guess that that's the sort of problem it faces. It's a bit of a mess from beginning to end.

And thus accepting Peterson's carte blanche attacks on Communism and leftism is A-OK and totally not cutting of our nose to spite our face

Anyone who has actually read any of those authors will see how obviously incompatible they are with Marxist meta-narratives.

Once again, he's attacking the idpols. If you want to run along and defend them, do so.

I'll be sure to let them know. Doubtless they will change their opinions instantly.

He is an idpoler.

Seriously, it's like the most pro-white and pro-Nordic Disney movie.
I don't get why they'd call it Karltural Marxism but maybe it has something to do with feminism

I have read very little critical theory or "postmodern" texts, and none of it being the essential works either, in other words I come to this topic with very little background even if it's miles above Holla Forums (not a complicated achievement anyway).

I think we should give "Cultural Marxism" some consideration since it is a prevalent idea on the internet that keeps metastasizing. We can't continue by just waiving it away, because eventually you'll start hearing it around, and as long as we don't have a serious and meticulous answer to whoever bought into this idea, they will just waive our response back. We should start by recognizing the kind of narratives that are presented in the idea of Cultural Marxism, so far I've recognized two: antisemitic and non-antisemitic. The former is par the course Holla Forums talking points, not much to expand on it right now, the latter is a bit more complicated, it involves people like Peterson and others who are dubbed the "Alt-Light." We'll concern ourselves with the Alt-Light for the time being because they're the "normies" and the actual bulk of the population that matters.

So first of all, regardless of which kind you're confronting, there needs to be established some concrete and simple definition to "Cultural Marxism." The basic definition that they give is the subversion of Western values by leftists, which begs the question as to what purpose, how did it start, and how is it exactly subverting. Judging by the typical videos from conservative YouTube channels it'd be something like "The USSR funded leftist intellectuals in the West that infiltrated the universities" and then some namedropping like Derrida, Foucault and the Frankfurt School. Confronting about the conservative nature of the USSR and all ~state capitalist~ socialist countries, they'll just say that it's precisely why they wanted to subvert the West through culture, so they could take over. What's important here to notice, disregarding that this is some all-binding conspiracy from France to Frankfurt to American colleges, is that they indirectly admit that this isn't sincere communism, in other words they're forced to admit that it doesn't reflect a Communist/socialist society's culture or any tenets of Communism - this is an opening to introduce nuance into their perspective.

Now to address the implied all-binding conspiracy. You could just ask for evidence, but that would be an unsatisfactory argument since for them it's enough to point at some leftist names and YouTube videos as evidence. First dissect the four conspirators: Derrida, Foucault, the USSR, and Mr. Frankfurt (also possibly Gramsci could be mentioned), and ask who influenced what, why and how, and how did it get to what we have today? Of course they wouldn't be able to answer that, best they could do is point to Gramsci's misattributed quote "the long march through the institutions" and cultural hegemony theory, reference how the French intellectuals "made" postmodernism and Marcuse or Adorno influenced the American universities, or if they reserve some sense of humbleness they'll just say that even though it isn't the direct philosophies of those thinkers, this was the result. What now needs to be demonstrated is not that these thinkers didn't influence the new left, because (1) they obviously have in some ways, which is a valid general presumption, and (2) it would be impossible to suddenly create a genealogy of their ideas, the old "it takes more effort to disprove bullshit than prove it." Instead, demonstrate the absurdity of this claim that their general influence somehow concluded in the present way things are, rather than any material and/or cultural tensions, and for no other reason than to subvert the West. The best example, ironically, is the Alt-Right (the following point could be made against the typical reactionary and not just Alt-Light). The Alt-Right didn't rise out of the KKK, nor out of the American Nazi party, nor was it young men influenced by the writing of Rockwell; the Alt-Right is a clear reaction to the present state of things surrounding cultural attitudes towards white people and material conditions as far as having a girlfriend is considered a material drive. It has no genealogy from any reactionary streams in the USA. It would be possible to illustrate the same point with BLM but it could be argued as being an "insincere movement" funded by Soros (which will be addressed later), the Alt-Right on the other hand couldn't be presented as anything but grassroots to the average Burger. Now ask your interlocutor, is it possible that the supposedly leftist movements - feminism, LGBT, etc - rouse out of sincere concerns in their time and not out of some Soviet conspiracy to weaken the West?


There is another angle to approach the Alt-Ligh (types like Peterson, Gavin McInnes, PJW). They often talk about how feminism isn't needed anymore, or how it isn't true feminism and point to the Middle East, or how much they love LGBT but for some reason it's gone too far now. Ask them at what point did these things stop being genuine movements and why, why did it suddenly become negative? They'll give you a random time period that looks most likely to them; the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, even the 2000s, they don't actually know what they're talking about, and then how it was almost magically infiltrated or subverted by those "haters of the West." You'll slowly see how they get detached from their original point about Soviet subversion and these rogue elements take a life of their own, aiming at the destruction of the West for no particular reason. This is the "leftist" that they love to talk about. Now you're at the mouth of madness, and should you press them to actually provide a reason for the alleged hatred of the West, they'll give you all sorts of nonsensical pop-psychology answers or just dig deeper into reactionary territory. Despite that their narrative is fragmented about why, how and who did Cultural Marxism, they'll still insist on the leftist thinkers and their influence, this is the time to introduce your trump card. Point out that a lot of those thinkers were in fact Jews, and not only that, but that the founder of Critical Theory - Max Horkheimer - said that Critical Theory is just "Judaism undercover." ( Regardless of what Horkheimer actually meant by that and whether it's a bad or good thing, this will corner your interlocutor to either rationalize and express more nuance or be drawn into antisemitism. It's actually an excellent litmus test for the intellectual capacity of whoever you're talking to, it essentially forces them to either reexamine their presuppositions about Cultural Marxism or merely build up on their bias. If they refuse to draw any antisemitic conclusions but still insist on "Cultural Marxism" they are still effectively conceding that at some point even Critical Theory had merit until subverted.

Now a small point on Derrida and Peterson. Peterson did claim to read Foucault and "some" Derrida, yet he talks like an authority on both of them, and it's clear that he doesn't understand neither because he fails to mention the greatest influence on their ideas. The guy who actually serves as the basis for deconstruction and for Foucault's various concepts isn't Marx or any other leftist theorist, it's Heidegger. By Derrida's own admission he didn't write anything that wasn't already present in Heidegger, Foucault admitted on his deathbed that Heidegger was a huge influence on him. "Postmodern hermeneutics" originate in the ideas of a literal Nazi. Peterson is either a brainlet or disingenuous whenever he mentions Derrida or Foucault and "neo-Marxism."

Lastly, there is this case about Soros being a "Socialist Millionaire." It's fairly easy to counter, just show he worked against the USSR and that his inspiration actually comes from Popper - a staunch opponent of Communism. It's good if someone brings it up because it offers an opening for class consciousness, if by their logic Soros - one of the richest but not even in the 10th most rich - is using his money to drive an agenda, why do they think the rest of the 1% isn't? And what could that agenda possibly be, hhhmm, a certain capital gain, perhaps?


There is also a 3rd "Cultural Marxist" narrative which we could actually use.

Given the fragmented and generic genealogy that the right presents of progressive and "leftist" trends, it could be offered as a counter argument to originate in alphabet soup agencies trying to subvert the left. And it makes sense too, instead of an organized working class or a potential vanguard in every state, the USA government would obviously rather have sedated hippies smoking drugs and trying to establish utopian communes away from civilization, only to fail and come back as vindication for capitalism. Half a century of Cold War propaganda, intelligence agencies gaslighting leftist groups into taking the bait of intersectionality, and likewise tricking reactionaries and conservatives into associating the left with liberals, resulted in a useless left, the general public being repulsed and alienated by them, and reactionaries having an illusory enemy to fight.

This, if presented after all that has been said to the interlocutor, could actually spark some sense in them.


He emboldens the people who want to kill you dense motherfucker.

t. idpoller

bump because I want feedback for my effortpost ;_;

Fuck off you literal retard.

You should watch Peterson talking to Camille Paglia or something from Erin Pizzey if you're interested in how these folks picked the 60s as the turning point for feminism.

This is more or less correct, though the funding sources are varied and it's difficult to figure out who is pulling what strings. Leftist organizations that threatened the power structure were systematically attacked and dismantled. Leftist organizations that had objectives that were nonthreatening or beneficial to the power structure were left alone or directly aided. Gloria Steinem for instance received money from and worked extensively for a CIA front group.

I got you buddy.

Peterson has been in the news far too much lately and Holla Forums isn't helping, this is the third thread about him in a week. I'm sick of listening to people talk about this dumbass snake oil selling peice of shit. I swear it made me have a dream about him the other day where I went to see him do one of his lectures in a church, halfway through he started stripping off and doing a buffalo bill routine complete with makeup and having his junk tucked between his legs. Fuck. Everyone stop giving him attention before I throw up.

he'll say something stupid enough to tank him, just like milo

I was just thinking that the other day, here's hoping.

muh 'cultural marxism' is actually just rational capitalist progress. Capitalism dissolves all traditional structures and forms of life to make way for a world of atomised utility maximisers. Peterson and liberal idpolers are not as different as they seem: they both promote an ideology based on self reliance and individualistic success. It wasn't always like this, 60s radical feminists, for example, did not want to be equal to unfree bourgeois men. Since then, the individualistic vision of pop feminism has become just another way to drill people into consumers and workers. Being liberated and successful becomes a duty in itself. The 'liberated' postmodern is insecure, adrift in an incomprehensible world, at once victim and guilty victimizer. The millennium of empathy and understanding is here, no one will be left behind, or so we are told, but in reality, our world is an atomised wasteland, between us a void of bureaucratic impersonality. Identities are ahistorical vending machine products. Right-wing ideology allows you to step in the role of the master, you are no longer powerless, you are someone. On one extreme, you have the delusional nonwhites and anime NEETs of Holla Forums LARPing as the master race, on the more normie side of the equation, earnest strivers who eat up Peterson's and Ben Shapiro's ideology.

if you don't see things for the shibboleths they are, you're an idiot.
"individual responsibility" never means individuals taking responsibility for their own failures, it means ignoring the collective or societal causes of problems. You're unemployed? It's because you didn't try hard enough, not because maintaining mass unemployment is economic orthodoxy.
this becomes semi dangerous when dealing with free speech, especially since it's motte-and-bailey'd between a defensible free-speech position and a series of indefensible stupidities ("i said 'niggers should go back to africa' and now people are calling me a racist! my free speech is being attacked!")

i'm reluctant to go into a long post since i've had my hands burned on imageboard use far too often and suspect that's basically what's at play here - you take the standard imageboard anti-SJW/anti-idpol stance, and are thus willing to countenance a reactionary-lite so long as he's attacking da SJeWs, or can be interpreted as having that narrow remit. Peterson could write a book about the sky is blue, and the first and last word on him would still be that he's a stupid, superfluous twat.

I think we should look into what makes Peterson popular. muh idpol and anti idpol in general is a product of internet media and the constant emotional engagement it demands from people. Peterson's self authoring(tm) meme is a genuinely clever idea, people who are obsessed with sjws or internet politics in general live in a sort of eternal present, always overwhelmed by stimuli and lacking a coherent sense of identity. Combine that with his considerable marketing abilities and you got yourself a cult paradoxically based around muh individualism. It's always a good idea to step away from the screen, read a book and make friends irl. twitter and other social media are a distinct hyperreal sphere based on highly monetisable libidinal engagement. For the first time in human history, everyone is able to observe everybody else while they themselves are being observed. This explains many of the paradoxes of identity in the internet era.

Daily reminder that "pro-western" demagogues like Peterson are not anti-idpol. They are idpol. Western identity is just as stupid as white identity. Stop humoring their spooks.

You should read Christopher Lasch on the culture of Narcissism instead of falling back on muh CIA conspiracies. The thorny history of the 60s New Left and identity politics is far more complicated, there's no easy answers, but it can help you better understand the current historical moment. Read Soul on Fire by black panther Eldridge Cleaver, Intercourse by radical feminist Andrea Dworkin,to get a feel of the intensity of those times. The real 60s radicals were often delusional middle class white kids who thought they were destined to lead black people in a world revolution, regardless of whether blacks were interested or not.

What's with all the cucks getting triggered earlier in the thread? Laughing at reactionaries is part of the point of this board.

I'm not saying it's necessarily true, just that it's a narrative we could use.

t. brainlet


If you don't have a very solid mediatic logistic to support it, lying can come bite you in the ass.

Leftypol and the left more generally has been so successful at repelling the invasion and subversion of post-structuralist liberals, hasn't it?

Cursed image

Pretty funny tbh.
I love how his followers think that his ideology must be correct because he told them to clean their rooms and get a schedule.

Good post

I have a female friend who was a Peterson fan because she is Christian but she was very much turned off by his recent comments about how Women shouldn't wear make-up at work because it's sexually provocative. This process is already started. All of these enlightened rational centrist people are at her reactionaries and it shows through eventually.

Of course - capitalist ideology! None other.

*at heart




A neo-Marxist is someone who has taken the ideas of Marx, revised the economics out of it and expanded the conflict groups, proletariat vs bourgeois and colonized vs colonizer is now oppressor vs oppressed.

adjective: neo-Marxist

relating to forms of political philosophy that arise from the adaptation of Marxist thought to accommodate or confront modern issues such as the global economy, the capitalist welfare state, and the stability of liberal democracies.


He said postmodernism had a point about infinite interpretations but doesn't really agree with anything else.

You have his claim backwars iirc, postmodernists created neo-marxists.

All marxists are neo-marxists according to Peterson because they "lost the economic argument" and had to reform. It's extremely idealist and retarded.

…Haven't they? Marx can be correct at critique and wrong on solutions.
Ah yes the Neomarxist-Postmodernist Alliance of 1967, I believe it was Lord Soros who signed the pact with Derrida the Great
Holy shit, is this guy for for real. He talks about de bostmodernists like an authority, how Derrida tried to destroy the West, how de margsist lost the argument in the 60s, but suddenly he gains some self-consciousness?

Jordan Peterson is from the Canadian petite bourgeoisie. He isn't critiquing marxism, he is justifying fascism. He needs to be stopped, though fortunately it looks like the mask is going to slip on its own.

She's insufferable, sure as hell talks like an art teacher. In the interview I hear them mention Lacan for the first time as a culprit to this, wasn't he barely influential outside of France and Latin America?

I wouldn't call Jordan a fascist but he definitely engages in fascist dogwhistling, even if he's too stupid to realize it himself.
99% of people who talk about "cultural marxism" are really talking about jews. Peterson is the 1% of people too ignorant to realize the implications of the term.

You're assuming that the term isn't being used to incite the far-right into attacking the enemies of the center-right. You'll note that liberal feminists then to treat the far-left in a similar manner: plaster the label fascist over anyone you don't like. Each side of the division recruits those with more radical ideas as their militant wing.


I actually like Paglia's art and film criticism, but she really doesn't understand shit about politics.

So I'm an hour and a few minutes in and surprisingly they say and acknowledge some materialist analysis, whether they're aware of it or not. Too bad their idealist faggotry and Jungian hocus pocus obfuscates it all.

>Despite that their narrative is fragmented about why, how and who did Cultural Marxism, they'll still insist on the leftist thinkers and their influence, this is the time to introduce your trump card. Point out that a lot of those thinkers were in fact Jews, and not only that, but that the founder of Critical Theory - Max Horkheimer - said that Critical Theory is just "Judaism undercover." ( Regardless of what Horkheimer actually meant by that and whether it's a bad or good thing, this will corner your interlocutor to either rationalize and express more nuance or be drawn into antisemitism. It's actually an excellent litmus test for the intellectual capacity of whoever you're talking to, it essentially forces them to either reexamine their presuppositions about Cultural Marxism or merely build up on their bias. If they refuse to draw any antisemitic conclusions but still insist on "Cultural Marxism" they are still effectively conceding that at some point even Critical Theory had merit until subverted.

No. Objecting to ideas is not the same as objecting to the existence of people. You can hate someones religion without hating someones existence as a human being. Furthermore, the links of many of those writers you mention to Marxist canon isn't a secret.

Nope he's a fascist.

Christ I hate Rowling so much.

He attacks the core indivisible ideals of Communism, Fascism, National-Socialism and totalitarian collectivism in general. He seems to be a Traditionalist Libertarian.

the point of antisemitism isn't religion and you've missed the point as a whole about what I was saying. I'm too tired to explain right now

I'd applaud, but then why would I?

Soo… a fascist, who hasn't been scratched yet.

Yes, the point of antisemitism isn't religion, but people. That's why accusing people of antisemitism for disliking critical theory inspired bollocks is utterly unpersuasive.


I see you're displaying the usual levels of brain damage typical to your identitarian movement. Peterson isn't agitating to exterminate a certain type of person from society. Whenever the social justice movement are allowed to demonstrate their worldview in fiction, the "straight, cis male" is killed off, while other characters in the """diverse""" cast are left untouched. The Wonder Woman movie is a good example of this, but it's not an isolated example. For an ideology that specifically insists that people MUST be represented in art by people similar to themselves to consistently kill off the symbolic representation of one specific demographic is revealing; if it was about equality, then that wouldn't happen.

Of course, it is entirely unreasonable for anyone to notice that "social justice" would want to harm people for their race or sex. Anyone who thinks that a rather banal Thatcherite like Peterson looks rather less dangerous than the social justice people openly demanding Nazi masturbation fantasy and exterminations is just a bigot.

You missed the point


>your identitarian movement
oh dear, he's Braindead.
Banality is the worst trait a person can posses.

They always turn out that way, don't they? They start with these unorthodox but sane opinions, but inevitably they slip and slide their way to "well if you ask me, sex segregation has some statistically proven benefits" Anita Sarkeesian said this too kek. They simply can't stay within the bounds of human decency.

I remember the Hot Parts Guy, that Christian movie reviewer who, beside the reviews, provided a list of the immoral things present in each movie. I thought he was just some run-of-the-mill churchgoer. But then 12 Years a Slave came out, and he sperged out because it didn't feature any happy slaves, saying something like "surely somewhere in the old South there was a slave family who was treated benevolently by their owner".

Well these are postmodern neo-Marxists, like duh.

Chaos is akin to a certain kind of darkness, sowing confusion amongst the unsorted.

Nice bot thread op this place truly is worse off than POL… but not by much, we should have a cross board race to see who's the worst/most btfo by shills and bots


Possibly the most influential cryptofash around these days?

it depends on how you define "crypto"
a loose definition would make pic related the culprit.
by the way, has Holla Forums seen his new viral video?

it's a good thing he wasn't wrong at all then


Damn he is inconsistent.

name one.
the irony of you replying to a post where i call out (free space!) the fact your brain has been rotted by imageboard shibboleths is palpable.

or it would be if you weren't just Holla Forums.

No. Link it

The absolute fucking state of liberal media

Mass murder isn't a trait somebody possesses, you dumbass.

Do you seriously not know the difference between a trait and an action

t. hasn't actually read the many articles explaining precisely why he's full of shit

Right, this just happens to be one of the dozen I've read that doesn't. Guess I'm just unlucky.

Usage of the term SJeWs. Indicative of a belief that any disagreement with social justice indicative of nazism or some other highly bigoted position. A social justice shibboleth.

How persuasive. Lenin, step aside, a superior exponent of forceful argument appears!

So you're illiterate? Good to know m8

Activating my trap card? Tsk.

Seriously, why do you guys constantly claim this while you also simultaneously shill for all the SJW stuff? Is this some sort of attempt to trick people, or are you so brainwashed by ideology that you dont even recognize this cognitive dissonance


no one claims this, and theres a reason you guys can only ever respond with bad attempts at humor+strawmanning

*puts feet up*
examples? don't rush.

>socialists and SJWs are the same just because they think I'm full of shit when it comes to brown people

Confirmation bias at work, gentlemen

Also, what would happen if you went into any marxist meeting and said focusing on black trannies is retarded user?


t. brainlet

So in other words, you have nothing after youre question is answered? Again, is this some sort of le 4D chess move, or are you guys just that brainwashed?

No, I'm just mocking you for being a confirmation bias-driven brainlet.

using buzzwords wrongly doesnt change the fact that I have already given you 2 clear examples that you asked for, which you are now ignoring. Im trying to engage in conversation here, but am met only with shitpost. How can you claim this is all "liberal" bullshit, while you yourself believe in all of it?

1. The article repeatedly makes an empirically false claim. Straight, white men are not banned. A straight, white man can attend the conference so long as he's disabled, or willing to lie about self-identifying as something else. You'd think a remotely competent editor would've caught that.
2. (Note that strategically I put the point that mispronounces shibboleth first.) I'm not sure what the internal policies of the sub-Keynesian Labour party have to do with a leftist board populated mostly by American marxists.

My guess would be they'd ask me the relevance of that question to The German Ideology which was the tome we were assigned to read that month.

So buddy, are you blind or just stupid?
we have flags for a reason.

lol lame excuse. Why would a white male have to lie in order to attend user? How does this in ANY WAY prove the point wrong that they are discriminating against straight white men?

Again, why are you defending this sort of stuff while also holding the belief that it was created and promoted by the evil neo-liberal capitalist system? Do you not see the problem with this?

You failed college english, didn't you

Lame excuse only cowards use. Again, you all believe in this stuff, so why do you constantly bitch about it being liberal? Do you honestly believe the far left isnt plagued with identity politics bullshit?

Which is why in any higher ed course you take professors will flat out flunk your paper for citing wikipedia

Now that's what I call confirmation bias

He wouldn't, provided he was disabled.
If you ask Labour nicely, I'm sure they'll let you include your illiteracy as a disability. With your poor eye-sight it should be a shoe-in.
I have my doubts the caucus will elect a dickhead, though.

Am I? Ponder that as you rush off to buy tickets to Young Labour conference.

you regularly have sex with dogs
source: i have my sources.

Its all those liberals guys, I swear! Never mind the fact that all leftist support it!

Are you too stupid to realize that you are proving my point, but are just agreeing with their idea of banning white people by justifying it? Remember when I was talking about how you blame this all on liberals, but support it?

Seriously, how do you hold this cognitive dissonance?

Yes, the biggest organization on the US Left!

Oooohhh okay. I see what you're doing here. You're one of those idiots who thinks that even the most cursory evocation of intersectional jargon means that somebody's a flaming deeply triggering and problematic bigot, right? Read a book, kiddo

Hmm really makes you think

Roses are red, Violets are blue
You're a bit thick, so I'll give you a clue:
If it's the position if leftypol you want to prove
Perhaps posts from the board would help, you poove.

But absolutely nobody has suggested that, which you'd realise if you read your own sources beyond the headline.

again, Im trying to understand this cognative dissoance. Its it some trick, or are you guys just that brainwashed by ideology?

Im also waiting for someone to give me a real answer as to what would happen if you went into any marxist sort of meeting and called that sort of shit out as being stupid.

Point to me where he said he agreed with banning white people. Go ahead, I'll wait. Oh, you can't, because you're a dumbass who cherry picks and puts words in other people's mouths.

yes they did. Remember how you said a white person would have to lie in order to get into the meeting? That was you agreeing with their identity politics and also admitting that they were in fact engaging in it. All you did was justify their actions, which proved my point that leftist all support these ideas.

Youre not doing a good job of arguing user. I think you are becoming angry because you are starting to realize your ideological cognitive dissonance. Are you ready to admit that you support it all and it is NOT created and shilled by the evil liberals/capitalist?

Mmmm the confirmation bias, it's so thick

confirmed for illiterate

I didn't say that at all. Go back and read it again.
Even if I had said that, explaining process does not agreement make.
Small mercies that you don't think, and thus don't follow that very incorrect idea to her conclusion.
I'll go one step further: I support it all because I'm on the payroll of George Soros. All the Black Wednesday money? Bah, that was just my finder's fee. This thing goes all the way to the top.

not an argument. You also didnt answer my question about marxist meeting. No one is because we all, including you, know exactly what would happen.

Also you have yet to refute this claim

Instead, all you've basically done is stamp your feet and scream "Yes, it is true!!!11" without offering any additional evidence, and then basically scream "Yes, you do agree with all of it, admit it!!!" without offering any evidence except for a random sentence from CPUSA, which is generally regarded as a crank organization and not even taken seriously to begin with.

You throwing a tantrum and screaming "Admit it! Admit it!" after somebody tells you that your research skills suck and that your arguments are shoddy isn't a good look, kiddo.

You really are batshit insane or just really stupid if you cant even keep track of your own argument like this user. You should probably take a little 10 second break, take a deep breath, and collect yourself, because youre posting like a deranged crazy person.

you did.

Again, all you did was agree with labour and justify their actions. Now that you realize this proved my point, you are trying to back track, which is failing horribly. You also closed with the typical over exaggerated strawman shitposting because you are incapable of having a real discussion or examining your own ideas critically.

I dunno, what if unicorns existed? What if pigs could talk and built laser cannons? We're talking about the facts, not some fanciful hypothetical scenario you've built up in your head.

Putting words in his mouth again, kiddo. Pretty sure you're the butthurt one here.

That's a wonderful little fanfiction you've got there.
If I wanted a serious one-sided discussion, I've the luxury of a pet dog.

Think carefully before replying again: Is what you're going to say more valuable than tilting your head and occasionally glancing at the door to indicate you'd like to go for a walk now?

Show me where the articles I posted say that them banning straight white men is empiraccly false. How does this change the fact that this brillaint person here

has already defended that action? Doesnt that just mean hes THAT brainwashed and will defend anything his betters say?

based on what? That article from their own website proving your point wrong and making it really inconvenient for you when you try to blame all of this on the liberal boogeyman? I've posted three examples of leftist shilling for this shit, and all you guys have done is insult me, or desperately try to deflect

here, I'll point the the exact post where you said that.


Your haste belays the fact you haven't taken my request for careful consideration of your following posts to heart.
I will display no such haste. I'm going to make you wait.
Have fun.

not an argument.

This doesnt change the fact that you defended the idea of banning straight white males, which proved my point, then you realized this and tried to cover your tracks in mid argument, making you look like an even bigger deranged crazy person with an ideological cognitive dissonance.

This is why you need to take a step back and really examine your beliefs user. Being in an echo chamber for too long is not good for anyone. This is why Im on leftypol of all places, to get out of mine.

1. The point is that the articles themselves are false, you idiot. You haven't given any sources that indicate that the articles you posted are in fact accurate.

2. You spelled "empirically" wrong, you jackass.


Okay, my bad. I mistook it for the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is headed by Bob Avakian, who to my knowledge is regarded as a crank.

But even so, your entire argument hinges on regarding the left as a monolithic ideological whole, which is retarded. You know how upset neocons and ancaps get when you lump them in with nazis? That's how idiotic you sound to us right now.

Here, you're conflating two different things by claiming that it supports the notion that straight white men are banned. Try again.

First they ignore Peterson,
then they laugh at Peterson,
then they fight Peterson,
then Peterson wins.

You guys have watched too many movies.

based on what exactly? It proving your point wrong?

pic related

Thats not at all my argument though, you are deliebratly ignoring the point because you dont want to confront it. Which is that all this identity politics shit comes from the left, and you guys look like crazy people when you promote something while also claiming its really from your enemies, the liberal capitalist.

Youre also not helping your arugment when I posted two examples of two different leftist groups who support this idenity politics shit, and it also doesnt help that someone in this thread already defended their actions.

because thats what that is. You are being forced to recognize this cognitive dissonance, so youre anger at me is totally understandable.

So basically, your argument amounts to "I believe that the sources I posted are accurate, therefore they are and I don't have to put any work into proving it, therefore you don't have any valid criticisms of my point and you're just butthurt"

Not a valid argument, kiddo

Even if you explicitly claim that you're not saying that, it's what follows from how you're treating the issue, by cherry picking random shit from people who uphold identity politics and claiming "you see!? you do believe in it" by assuming they speak for all of us just because they call themselves left. And not only that, the way you frame these things betrays a basic misunderstanding of the ideological positions you think you're addressing.

How many leftist groups do you think there actually are?

No, this is basically just masturbation on your part. You can't see the holes in your argument, so that's what you're telling yourself.

Hes in a movie now?
That guy gets everywhere.

Whats interesting is that hes not even saying anything controversial. Hes saying what most people believe in private, but doing so very eloquently in public.
Whether you think his core beliefs are right or wrong, he definitely offers a masterclass in how to debate.

The channel 4 interview sort of proved that point. Also the fact that leftypol and other similar left wing get togethers have an obsessive hatred of Peterson based on nothing more than having no real idea how to silence him, since all attempts just blow up in their faces.

Theres also the fact that hes been on really popular normie tier podcast, like Joe Rogan and H3H3, which he is received well, which just makes you guys look like even crazier ideologues when you screech about that.

I also have a feeling most people here have never actually listened to or read anything by him.



now kys

this is you projecting a mirror version of your own god awful argument onto me user. Not the other way around.

more projection. You seem to be obsessed with sophistry since you are in a corner and know it. Its really hard to have the Labour party, the CPUSA, and most of leftypol promote something while also claiming that thing is created by capitalist.

How much cleaner is your room now? (be honest)

That's the core issue with you people. Every time you people talk about cultural issues and these little e-celebs, it always boils down to discourse and subjective beliefs and on occasion appeals to popularity. It's always about rhetoric, the rules of debate, and how the presentation of an ideology makes you subjectively feel. This is for lack of a better term pants on head retarded

thanks for proving my point, yet again, leftypol

So you can't address any of the points I made, and are basically just shouting "no u"? Cool.

Err… racism much?

you didnt make any, you just posted sophistry and made lame excuses of how no one is doing that (with no reasoning at all).

Uh huh.

Just shouting that something is sophistry doesn't make it so, kiddo.



Sort of like just shouting that labour isnt doing that at all and those sources are just making it up doesnt make it so either.

Except the burden of proof is on you, because you're the one trying to claim that, and now you're basically claiming "sophistry" and "projection" against anybody who pokes holes in your reasoning.

I did based on the fact that I came alone into this thread and not one of you have been able to actually engage in conversation with me, let alone argue a counter point. Also the fact that the user proved my point by agreeing with the banning of white people.

Again, being in an echo chamber rots your brain. It ruins your ability to think

Its bigoted either way.

People are individual snowflakes not some homogeneous group that you can judge all at once.

You would know this if you read petersons book BTW.

I posted sources, you dont like what they said, so you claimed they were made up (based on nothing)

Its pretty clear youre too far down the rabbit hole of ideology and are incapable of having a discussion, so Im done with you for now. Feel free to actually post an argument anytime though

No, the other user claimed they were false, and explained why. You couldn't find anything that corroborated what these sources said, so you're doubling down.

I'll humor you. Explain in detail how his statement agrees with this.

we're having a discussion right now. You don't get to re-define what words mean just because it suits you.

Are you being retarded?
user wasn't referring to "le ebil white people", was referring to people who follow Peterson (like you I assume).

yeah because he didnt like what they said, so he just assumed they were all made up. This is because hes a stupid person, whos more than likely really young, and incapable of having a discussion like an adult.

youre precious.

The part where they state you require only self-identification with one of these traits:
black, Asian and minority ethnic (Bame), a woman, disabled, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT)
Which, as you'll note again, allow for straight white men who self-identify as
(A) Disabled
(B) minority-ethnic (For which a case could be made for the Irish, or for eastern-europeans.)
To attend. There is therefore no ban purely on the basis of being straight, white, or male.

I request a quotation demonstrating any emotive position - support or objection on my own part, which arises from simply explaining the actual position set out in the article itself.

You're failing horribly. Your first mistake was making (or partaking in) a shallow bait thread rather than reading something serious and shutting up until you knew what was going on.
My mildly eugenic advice is that you should fuck off because you're stupid and won't learn anything no matter how hard you try.

Irony thick enough it could be mistaken for your skull.

If Islam can be a race then people who follow Jordan Peterson can be a race cant they?

btw, I posted that same link in another thread and an user also defended it. Im still waiting for someone to just finally say if this is some sort of 4D chess move, or just a classic case of cognitive dissonance

also, how stupid are you to claim Im the one guilty of being in an echo chamber when Im on leftypol arguing against left wing politics in a thread all by myself? Seriously, are you capable of thought or are you just some robot programmed to spout out party lines an rhetoric?

Also, as he said:

As for whether or not I myself agree with this? No, I don't. I think it's unnecessarily exclusionary.

btw, I posted that same link in another thread and an user also defended it. Im still waiting for someone to just finally say if this is some sort of 4D chess move, or just a classic case of cognitive dissonance

Motherfucker, you literally just ignored his point.

1. Being allowed in if you're a disabled straight, white male is not a ban on straight white males, unless you somehow think being a straight white male is somehow categorically dependent on not being disabled, which I think we can both agree is a ludicrous notion

2. Describing a factual state of affairs does not mean you're supporting it.

Islam is not a race and neither are Jordan Peterson fans.

But can we ensure Jordan Peterson has the same protections as the prophet mohammed?
Like nobody is allowed to criticise him and certainly not draw pictures of him.

Like why does your right to criticise Jordan Peterson trump by right to not be offended by the mean things you say?

I explained the position of the Labour party.
There's a £1000 cheque in it for you if you can demonstrate that I've taken an emotive view on that position.

You aren't arguing, you're babbling. I doubt you're capable of arguing, instead of simply repeating claims without any evidence, offering things you clearly haven't actually read in lieu of an argument.

yeah, you defended their position, which proved my point. The problem is that you arent a smart person and didnt realize you proved my point until I pointed it out to you. Your brain is rotten and has atrophied from being in a retarded echo chamber for too long. How are you guys going to establish yourself as the mirror image of fucking Holla Forums and think you wont become the same sort of autistic and retarded shitposters?

Holy shit, you've just lost the right to say anything negative about Holla Forums again.

I don't know what you're talking about. But all I know is that Islam is a religion and not a fucking race. Also, people who follow someone isn't a race, that's for sure.
You're just strawmaning at this point.

Neither should be protected tbh

leftist let their xenophilia/oikophobia overide their reason, and claim that anyone that doesnt like islam is a racist. typical "white left" bullshit that this thread is all about. The sort of retarded identity politics people on the left believe, while also blaming it on the people who call them out on it.

Do you not understand the difference between describing and condoning?

I await evidence of this.
I'd ask you to estimate which of these two scenarios is more probable, but I don't believe you could actually do it.
Nonetheless, which requires the fewest assumptions?
(a) I don't understand my own point, which was made in the full knowledge of how you'd respond to it, which was noted in the second part of that post.
(b) You don't understand my point, but worse (as Dunning–Kruger taught us) lack the tools to assess your own lack of understanding by merit of that lack of understanding.

If you knew what my flag meant, you'd know why that's such an amusing statement. But you don't, so you won't.

Don't bother. Any time somebody points out holes in his logic, he screams "SOPHISTRY"

I genuinely wonder if he can actually define sophistry.

You cant defend the position, just as other anons have done, by saying "JUST LIE!" while claiming the left doesnt do this.

Lets take this slow for you. The Labour party does some retarded identity politics shit, leftypol fag defends it, this means that you cant blame it on the liberal boogeyman.

Even by you "just explaining their reasoning" or whatever excuse you are making now, it doesnt change the fact that you acknowledge that they are doing it, proving the point that its just capitalist wrong. Also, we all know you do agree with it anyway.

The pro-Peterson poster is far more persuasive than his opponents. The heavy use of insults and denigration betray an obvious weakness in the anti-Peterson argument.

You arent using logic though, youre using emotions and saying the times is a stupid tabloid just because they report something you dont like.

Huh so this is the power of the right huh? Sophistry runs deep there I guess.

I think you are replying to the wrong poster.

OK well dont come crying to me when Jordan Peterson supporters strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a crowded area beacuse you insulted their prophet.

so this…is the power…of leftypol

Made up bullshit.
This is an anti-identity politics board.

Playing sisyphean games is always odd, isn't it?

You're bordering on incoherent.
Nonetheless, nobody defended the position by saying "just lie" (certainly not with that capitalisation or the presence of punctuation for emphasis), I implore you to re-read the post and look at what the words say. Not what you think the words mean, but what they say.
You won't do it, so let's move on.
There's the little issue of the Labour party being a fundamentally capitalist party, committed to successful management of a capitalist economy. But y'know…

Unless you're counting yourself and your braincell as separate individuals, I think you're in a very lonely minority of one on that position.

Is that why you agree with the side that promotes identity politics while also shilling it yourself? Do you really think this fools anyone on the outside? Do you believe this isnt just transparent optics bullshit after every normie sees the left as batshit crazy over their identity politics?

Not any more.

Top lel m8.

Peterson is an idpoler.



Correct. But he doesnt like people who identify primarily as their group.

He said that taking idpol to its ultimate conclusion, everyone is part of their own 1 person victim group. We all have our own challenges and advantages in life and the smartest thing to do is judge people as individuals.


Sticky when??

If the side (that you mentioned) promotes idpol, then I'm not with the side anymore. Simple as that.

I wasn't attacking him.
Those anons who were attacking him was a different reason, not because of his hatred of idpol.

Embrace the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism-Petersonism

bullshit lol. Peterson is now seen as the biggest threat to the last bastion the far left has now, which is western academia.

So why would you continue to be with the antifa/neo-marxist/far left types who promote that. Youre not stupid, you realize they are the ones who promote that shit.

No, the people posting up the constant attack threads on Peterson have fairly clearly been idpols.

MFW All of leftypols rooms get mysteriously tidy.

Nah he's already tripping up over himself due to his surprisingly reactionsry attitudes towards women.

remember when all you guys would do is laugh him of as "le kermit man"? lol

You do realize that posting memes are arguing with teenagers online doesn't actually have any effect on the real world right? Posting is not warfare.

This is why you lose every single meme war.



yeah, like you cant do that with this place, or anything really.

hello epic department id like to file a claim

The difference is that most of this place have the sense to know that the future isn't going to be decided by who gets the most upvotes on /r/cringeanarchy.

waaah people are having fun online and I'm not included in it

If you honestly think ANYONE is actually jealous of not being included in that "fun" then you are beyond hope user lol.

I like how Holla Forums can go from Nazi to full on boomer within a single meme.

sieze the le memes of production, right?

I'm sorry user, should he have spelled out loud
"That picture is complete bullshit" so you would understand?

it's funny because the 1960s are actually about the time the universities stopped supporting the left

…but >we are still doing that.

so now you are going to pretend that leftypol did NOT engage in a pathetic attempt at "meme warfare" in the aftermath of the Trump win? okay user.

MFW someone would rather draw that picture than tidy up their room.

Also most boomers weren't activists or hippies. A vast majority were huge bootlickers and still are today (thus why they enjoy hanging out of Holla Forums.)

Imagine being so sheltered that you actually believe that your shitty memes are the driving force behind politics

Now, more than ever, we need the Rafiq memes screencap.

He didn't, you fucking imbecile. He explained what was happening. That doesn't mean approving of it.

No we don't. Rafiq doesn't understand the difference between memes as acitivsm and memes as propaganda.

I don't.
You can be a leftist and anti-idpol, you know? Most ☭TANKIE☭s for example.

PS, Half of the board dislike antifa because of that.



haha upvoted!

let me take it slow for you

1. The distinction made by the socdem poster categorically means that people were not excluded purely on the basis of being white and straight.

2. Even if they were, there is no logical reason to assume that acknowledging such a thing is happening means agreeing with such a course of action


no one did that though. They just said the times is a tabloid shit rag because they reported something that directly contradicted leftypol lies.

Keep not understanding the world user. I dont mind.

You honestly thought this was a credible response? I feel bad for you.

I don't get what you are doing here. Holla Forums is way more Reddit than Holla Forums.

Labour did it. What part of this is your little bird brain not grasping? also, anons have already defended and justified this. You cant shill ID politics, then blame it all on the liberal boogeyman.

Because normies got sick of the socio-economic status quo, got desperate and voted for a man who said he would "drain the swamp."

Do you seriously think normies give a shit about pepe memes

Retired boomers and kids who are too young to vote do though.

I don't see the relevance of this to his point or indeed to anyone's point, unless you're making one completely unwarranted and rather silly assumption.

That's not the point, you fucking idiot. The left is not a monolithic whole where they all agree with each other.

yeah, thats because youre really really stupid. The entire point is that the left promotes this ID bullshit, not liberals, and as proof, the labour party banned fucking white males from their little get together, which you and other defended.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

That user has conclusively shown this isn't an anti-idpol board any more.


A lot of what that article brings up could have been said about the right 20 years ago.
Its strange how ideologies can sawp places almost without noticing.

Come on.
Im prepared to enterain a lot of wacky ideas but everyone knows that isnt true.

Sure is """logical""" in here


I don't get this Labour thing, doesn't the article say that the goal of the conference is to elect equalities representatives. So why would you have non-minorities voting for a representative for minorities?

Why do you believe you are some sort of logic arbiter when you are incapable of using it?

You could make this case more effectively if you hadn't inserted your apostrophe key into one of your bulging nostrils.



Youre still so stupid that you have defended the actions of the labour party, which proved my point, and are also so stupid that you said the key issue that this entire thread has been about has no relevance to the discussion.

youre hardly even a person anymore, youre just a trained animal who barks rhetoric on command. Are you even capable of thinking?


If you got non minorities to vote they would be less likely to vote along the lines of race / ethnicity.



The offer of a thousand pounds to the man who can prove that claim still stands.

That's like saying:

Im pretty sure Hillary is a type of meme.

Like you've got £1000 to give anyone, idpol.

Get help


Not an argument.

Peepee the le epic facebook frog has been mentionend on CNN many times.
Has Holla Forums ever been mentioned on CNN?

Fuckin' is.

Are you seriously implying that pepe getting exposure on CNN was a factor in getting people to vote for Trump

Still not an argument.

imagine still engaging in childish reification of the old media

Offering a prize for someone to do something without the means to provide that prize shows you never had any intention of honoring the prize, cabbage.

I was implying they care about pepe. Enough to feature him on their idiot box.

Why does that need a conference all to itself? Just organize committees to the general party conferences. Hosting a whole no-cis-white-males-allowed event is imbecilic. This is not the image you want your party to project at full force.

That's not the main issue. You claimed that memes are what got Trump into power.

You cannot be this literal-minded.

Oh i get it "memes" is now a word that means "anything people or the media talk about"

Not an argument

Also, here's an example right here of what you're claiming doesn't happen.

You're taking a figure of speech literally and claiming it's an argument.

Merely by stating I have the means to provide - and I do so now - I place myself in the position of being legally bound to undertake the contract should the other party demonstrate acceptance by furnishing the proof I have requested.
I can reassure you (and even if this is false, may I voluntarily accept that I am to be bound to furnish the money through other means such as the sale of assets.) the money is available. What is of course open to question, and perhaps the obvious reason I would so freely enter into such an offer with a stranger on the internet, is that you aren't going to find such proof.


Post a picture of the money.


this is technically sort of correct according to the original definition

people don't make poopoopeepee frogs and wojacks about non-meme people, user. She's a meme in the same way Alex Jones is.

Kinda like how Nazi means 'any person who even slightly disagrees with someone on leftypol'.

But seriously, Hillary's persona became a fictional construct of her marketting team.

Shes a meme in a very broad sense which I guess doesnt fit perfectly with the way I was using the word initially. But so what we are on the internet. Fuck you.

It's in my bank account. I won't patronize you with a screenshot because any idiot could inspect-element up a million pound account for that purpose.
This is of course of limited relevance, given you should find the task of furnishing proof of events that did not occur quite impossible.

But that would include all of Holla Forums

/r/socialism was right

Well nazism is left wing.
Pic related.

This. Anyone who thinks Holla Forums agrees on anything has never been here before. Except for opposing imperialism of course, we all agree on that.

I disagree with that statement fascist


What the literal fuckballs is this shit!?

At the risk of arguing against my own point, some of leftypol supports muslim imperialism and some doesnt.

See, I have been lurking here for a while.

Either meta post 4d irony or result of American education, or both

I love these, post more please

Fuck of reactionary virtue signaler. There's nothing wrong with post-modern neo-marxism or idpol that exists to expose racism/sexism/transphobia in society.

I fucking hate idiots who think by copying fascist propagander and making fun of people they think are Liberals hardcore racist Holla Forumslacks are going to go "durr they hate da libs and trans people too, I'm a communist now!". Just because you're a communist doesn't mean you can act like a Holla Forumskiddie and credence to them. You're basically acting like Sargon or Zizek.

The potholes of trying to false flag.

go home to reddit


you mean Holla Forums right? Not even reddit is this fucking dumb.


That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without evidence. You've got no cash.


Odd that you continue to assert - with no evidence - that I have defended the policy of the Labour party. Isn't it?

I used to have loads but I cant find them.

Usually I get banned after posting just 1

Yeah, so calling out literal Holla Forums propaganda techniques aimed at strawmanning your own side is "false flagging" or "being reddit" now. Like I said, you look at images like that and think "yeah, that's going to make Holla Forums kids see how cool we are! Now we've got a common enemy, they'll join"! What they really see in that image is what they think neo-marxists are and a strawman of themselves, so they dismiss the neo-nazi caricature and the neomarxist caricature is re-affirmed. Basically, you're just damaging the left by sinking to their level.

My point is that Zizek gives reactionaries legitimacy just like Sargon does. Focsing on a few university students who've misunderstood intersectionalism and ignoring the fucking millions of people getting exposed to hardcore racist fascism through Holla Forums and YouTube is fucking pathetic.

Where did I assert that, idpol?

oh man, do these give me a juicy juicy erection

Legitimizing reactionaries? Talk about a strawman. Soberly assessing the place we find ourselves in with plain language does nothing of the sort, it in fact mobilizes people that have been left behind by your brand of obscurantist call-out culture.

I have my sources


Not that user but it also doesn't accomplish much that reactionaries don't want, either. It can be liberal.

Jesus, imagine believing this.
No peterson is not a threat to western "leftists", he just irritates some due to his poor understanding of our positions, and he pisses off some fags here and there.

No, I think not.

Holla Forumsyps believe this because that is literally how small their world is

Peterson deserves to be mocked.


I don't understand your post. Reactionaries would properly oppose things that are liberal. I would say that it is exactly where Zizek treads into the areas that reactionaries have all to themselves right now he is in fact doing the opposite of being liberal.

Name four threats to post modern leftism that are bigger than Jordan Peterson.

I disagree. They very well could support them. Reactionaries can turn a liberal much faster than we ever could.

but he honestly just explained what was going on in the thread. How is this a credible response to that?

1. an angry dog
2. reading a book
3. boredom
4. me

How does Zizek use plain language? And no-one has been left behind by considering the place minorities find themselves in society. The problem is, cis white people, especially men, just knee jerk because they think considering ways minorities are still disadvantaged is equal to saying you want to gas all white people, which is ridiculous.

People who honestly believe "post-modern leftist, neo-marxists" even exist. I'm not joking, if you want to swat at shadows on the wall here, be my guest, it's no skin off my nose.

1. Literally any other left-wing ideology that doesn't have its roots in structuralism/post-structuralism

2 - 4. see above

You're talking to a wall. Any sentence that even vaguely resembles the strawman this guy has built up in his head he's going to pounce on and yell "YOU SEE, YOU'RE ALL TEH SAME!!!111"

The fact you think some guy making a self help book and then a bunch of kids following it on the internet is a threat to academic post-modernism shows little you know about academia. Most of the Republican party don't believe in Climate Change and not a small minority believe evolution is a religion, but scientists aren't going to re-write the text books because of it.

They don't have to be left behind, it is enough that they are turned off. You turn off more militants than you deliver with your self-sucking.

If JP is a threat to you you deserve to lose.

And you know what, I'll go even further. This is why people like Peterson irritate me - because grifters like him and people like him appeal to brainlets who know just enough to be able to parrot rhetoric concerning rational thinking and argumentation etc, but they either don't have the mental capacity or mental work ethic to fucking follow through on actually making rational arguments and engaging your opponents in good faith. Sloppy thinkers like Peterson egg on pseuds and brainlets with inflated egos who think they're smart just because they can parrot the talking points of somebody who's "in" and has street cred within their circles. THAT'S why Peterson is so irritating, because he's a fucking exemplar of how stupid and vapid the status quo has made us.

He literally claimed just that in one of his talks. Why do you fucks cling to this charlatan?

The only people we're losing are idiots who read the right wing gutter press who are usually right wing anyway. Left wingers aren't going to leave the movement because someone pointed out BAME actors in Britain are often forced to move to the US for roles because there's so many period dramas about a time when there were very few BAME people in Britain. Of course, when right wingers read articles, they skip over that part and just read a tabloid headline that says "WHITE PEOPLE IN HISTORIC SHOWS TO BE REPLACED BY BLACKS!!!!"

Do me a solid and link to the exact time in one of his talks that he does that. I wanna see the Peterson fanboy shitting up the thread react to it.

Won't somebody please think of the BAME actors.


What we need to do is alienate and reject everyone that has a slightly different viewpoint.

The goal is to end up with less than 10 people in our movement so we will be the purest most perfect left wing group ever. We will never even glance at a non leftwing piece of literature or think a non left wing thought.



Ah yes, lets use a nice soft tone to the Nazi LARPers spamming racist propaganda everywhere and helpfully ask please may they stop and be more considerate. After all, we don't want to hurt their feelings.

And lets post caricatures and stawman the fuck out of intersectionalist marxists who get told face to face on livestreams to sincerely hang themselves with a cable by said nazis, becaus efuck those guys right! They're going to stick around us real ☭TANKIE☭ alpahs join in with the nazis bullying and making fun of them!

Humourless dolt. The point is not that people's feelings are hurt, but that the the cause of the poor BAME actors will motivate exactly no-one. Except maybe themselves, but apparently they would rather leave to the US, so really, fuck them.

If you care to look at the diagram nazis arent that far away from commies.

Sounds really scary.

Are you fucking retarded?

Sure, okay kid.

That meme diagram has got me banned on Holla Forums more times than here.

That is a pointless question because most retarded people will answer no.


gee I guess it must be right then

I cant fault your logic.

Lol Peterson’s grasp of “Post-Structuralist” philosophy is laughably bad to the point it doesn’t even appear he’s read the Wikipedia articles for these thinkers. Then again, a lot of Marxist I’ve met misrepresent them on similar levels so it’s no surprise I’ve seen threads like these where they say Peterson isn’t that bad.

He’s a charlantan through and through.

Your laughably bad.

I don't even understand what your point is here. You can do more than one thing at once you know.

Ah yes, capitalism is very sustainable.

Not an argument.

Are you sure it was the diagram, or you being an obnoxious pseud?


I know you don't. Building a political movement is not about creating a smorgasbord of giveaways to tiny interest groups. It's about mobilizing the masses behind broad programs and ultimately the total transformation of society.

Honstly, Both.
I put a lot of effort in to being obnoxious but that image just does a lot of the work by itself.

I think hes suggesting that rich successful TV actors dont produce the best optics when it comes to portraying victimhood.

the far left
the far left
the far left
the far left

But no-one just focuses on BAME TV actors. Even when we focus on things like Grenfell or refugees, right wingers and *some* liberals still moan that everyone is ignoring cis white people. Its like, there's 65 million people in Britain, can we not spare some to worry about the people fleeing horrific circumstances for a minute?

SHOTS FIRED>>2393685

If communist societies still existed they would use the same amount of plastic to make one ginormous fidget spinner for the party leaders private summer palace.


The put all their fidget spinner productive forces into hurricane preparedness, so people can better enjoy nature's fidget spinner.

They should put a fidget spinner on the back of cuba so they can make it into the world's' biggest boat and be pirates

I hadnt read the rest of your conversation I was just giving you my interpretation of what he said about TV actors. I know its not your fault that these are the people who get all the attention, but it does look really bad.

In my view if you're focusing on people in specific tragic circumstances, then you dont have to bring race or sexual orinetation in to it. So it would not be logical to respond 'what about cis white people?'
Thats a way of completely avoiding that response.

I've heard people say that what he is advocating is just bourgeois morality. I've never thought about this before, so I was wondering do you define it and what would be a decent subtitute for it (none? maybe it is irrelevant in a different setting).

Ill suck cock

Yes, Not Socialism is left wing. I don't fit in with the larpers on pol. They just do it to troll us, they're not real NutSac, not at all..
At 2:55

Might want to watch before that point to see Jordan Peterson demonstrate his inability to google "left critiques of the Soviet Union" and claim that the Black Book of Communism "100 million dead" claim was an "underestimate". The man is such a blatant fraud.

yeah if anything the only consistent ideology that Disney shills is that of the importance of family and that your father has to die for you to realize your potential.

I seriously can't believe that a guy who thinks Frozen is marxist propaganda is getting mainstream attention. Liberals are fucking useless. It was better than 90% of all the male power fantasy shit disney puts out as well.

I'm amazed Peterson isnt shitting his righty whities over Disney films such as Bugs Life. Which is literally about the proletariat rising up and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

He's just so laiden with idpol that he needs to appease his permavirgin following by griping about a film with a girl as a protagonist.

you have to go back

You could argue A Bugs Life is anti-communist. The bees go back to work when it's shown that the world needs them pollinating plants.

Are lobsters victims of the kyriarchy?

Do you mean Antz?


this is like looking at content made by aliens