This is bait

>everything wrong with the book has nothing to do with the book

So you're saying he's wrong at any point in that video?

Come on guys, you can at least admit that was pretty savage. He's expertly fine tuned his rhetoric, it's quite admirable.

Embarrassing article. Did you write this?
Its like those "Ignore Psuedo-Intellectual Rhetoritians" shitposts were an actual person

I wish I was a fraction of the man peterson is

>implying Jordan Peterson isn't a CIA plant

autisticmercury.com/triptych-336.html

I wish I could be as justifiably smug as he is at times in that interview.

I feel sorry for Peterson. While I think he is pretty complicit with his base that bastardizes his own theories, it's insane how people like this interviewer can't understand at all what he is saying. I see no reason to accuse him of being anti gay/woman/trans or even left. He's just not radical left. Its refreshing to see a real centrist in the conversation. I know Veeky Forums thinks him a huge pseud but despite his non-criticism of the radical right (which I think is beneath him, but he may have done it in something I haven't read/seen), his theories make very clear points with clear evidence. I think that makes him a non-pseud. It's very logical, very non-emotional. All his critics I have seen have been emotional accounts of "lel he doesnt even get Marx man." His points aren't about communism or Marx, but the historical outcome of radical leftism provides context to his points.

t. center left fag who has only seen a couple of his lectures

desu I might buy his book. Ill get it from the library just in case I only stumbled across his good stuff and that was it.

The woman he was talking with was operating a few levels of logic below a dog. Its not impressive kicking the shit out of an infant.

hey whats up did you know Veeky Forums is short for literature

>While I think he is pretty complicit with his base that bastardizes his own theories

This is my biggest problem with him. I'd forgive his attempts to want to ignore the subtext of his following if he weren't explicitly stoking it himself

Jordan Peterson discussions belong on

Lol finally an outsider has put Peterson in his place

>He is far from “precise in his speech”, allowing his own foundational concepts (like “being” and “chaos”) to slide around until they lose any clear meaning. He is happy to dish out a stern injunction against straw-manning, but his “Postmodernists” and Marxists are the flimsiest of scarecrows, so his chest-thumping intellectual victories seem hollow. He appears sincere, and in some ways admirable in his fierce desire for truth, but he is much less far along his journey than he thinks, and one ends his oppressive, hectoring book relieved to be free of him

B T F O

is it possible he will ever recover?

>an outsider
>The Guardian

He means someone outside this elite enclave

He’s promoting his new book you idiot.

>implying she wouldn't have baited you by the 3rd ''so you're saying''

Again I havent read his books and I stay the fuck away from twitter, but it doesnt seem like he stokes it himself. I just think he has found that he is alone as far as educated rational criticizers of radical left-wing rhetoric go. Radical left rhetoric is IN, it's making changes in the world. Cut throat hierarchical institutions have realized this and pretend to be for it for the sake of positive publicity despite being exactly as cut throat as Peterson says. I think it's a no brainer that radical right wing rhetoric will lead to disaster, and I think Peterson knows this too. His target is the Radical left. The Radical right, alt-right included, believe the enemy of their enemy is their friend (mistake). It appears he doesnt mind the opportunity to be smug and condescending though.

Correct me if I'm out of the loop plz.

That's a really retarded use of the word, then. Of course The Guardian would criticize the shit out of Peterson. They've been doing it literally since the day he became a public figure.

oh does jordan peterson write literature now?

i swear to god i almost prefer the /pol/ nonsense because thats at least so absurd its funny. how many peterson threads is the average YT man supposed to endure?

>Kermit, the uh, pseud here

Yeah but the point is they did it without just saying "HE'S A NAZI!"

Now you're just being a faggot.

...

he mad

better a faggot than a pseud. now imagine me reading with my literature boyfriend. both of us are men and have better tastes than you. better than you even when we swallow cum. that's gonna feel bad.

Not an argument Jordan

All faggots are by definition pseuds, otherwise they wouldn't be faggots

Nothing you say or do makes me feel anything, really.

degenerate gays should be throw into a fire

>All faggots are by definition pseuds, otherwise they wouldn't be faggots
>saying this in a literature board

rip Veeky Forums so sorry to see you turn into another outpost for peterson posters who think posting memes from their chair will defeat the evil marxists

Go away already.

no

>I hate this thread so much, I will just continue to read and respond to every single post in it.
Peak pseudness.

Its true though. Choosing to be a homo shows a thin grasp on meaning and spirituality necessary to really appreciate art and philosophy

The only guy I know IRL who quotes Jordan Peterson is literally a paranoid schizophrenic who believes he's a reincarnated Lama and that the Chinese government routinely sends people to assassinate him that only fail because he has a slightly confusing mailing address so they can't track him.

That taints my judgement on all the guy's opinions

I am going to have to wash my brain after this.
Gosh darn these know-it-alls trying to sound all smart.

But seriously its sad when people don't know or want to know what an individual is.

IN-DIVIDUAL as in not divided: a human who's actions are a product of their own thoughts and emotions, not a 'person' whose actions are imposed by some external authority. People who are not individuals suffer an internal division where their thoughts and emotions are repressed by this parasitic layer, the PERSONA as in per sonare, to sound through a MASK.

nice reddit argument pseud

quote Hari Kunzru: “I'm not even going to start playing the authenticity game... I'm the least authentic person I know"

like K

What do I watch besides conservative youtube?

That shit was incredibly annoying, I found myself impressed at Peterson's patience and ability to not fall for that bullshit. I've never seen someone so unabashed and persistent in their gaslighting.

>The only guy I know IRL who quotes Jordan Peterson is an interesting person therefore I have no reason to listen to Jordan Peterson
What a gay lol

I see so many people say Peterson's fighting a strawman and doesn't understand postmodernism, but no one ever explains what postmodernism really is and how it manifests in society today. Makes me think they're just attacking his use of the word instead of making a real argument.

Not even a Peterson fan but you'd think someone would wreck him on that point since he's been in the spotlight for over a year now

It's like how people say, "Well that wasn't *real* communism."

No shit. Just like that strawman meme posted above. Its always "he doesn't know what he's talking about" but its never followed up with what exactly they mean by it.

He's dealing with radicals who think that if you correctly understand their position then you will agree with it; he disagrees with their position therefore he doesn't understand it.

No it's not.

I agree. He's overdo a walloping.

Postmodernism is extremely complicated blah blah blah It is often said that it cannot be reduced to a single satisfactory definition blah blah blah But the good news is if you live in a democratic liberal society, where there are no restrictions on information, you can read all you want about it.

However, while I'm no expert on the subject, I know Peterson's beef with postmodernism comes from the dismantling of traditional social organizations that were the norm during the modern period. Where men were in positions of power, and this was justified by the fact that it was the norm. It is not hostile or violent to the white man, although that is how it is portrayed by speakers like Peterson, but it does say that the sanctified claim of white men being the only people cut out for such positions is baseless and pretty much just the result of power exercised in a prejudicial way for the sake of maintaining power in the hands of those who have it. Nothing we didn't already know. You know this. You have some vague idea of postmodern thought within your mind, I know. You know why it threatens your mythos as a white man. No big deal user.

As a follow up to People call him a pseud because an academic should know this (in much better detail than my shit explanation). If youre gonna publicly equate something the Mao regime you should have done your homework. Peterson is political. His misrepresentation of the subject and the fact that he, as the one making the allegation, avoids specifics is inexcusable.

Now if you're a white guy and feel that the world is gonna come crashing down because of a dinndu CEO and want to devote your life to Peterson's cause, go ahead. But the point is that where the truth is concerned Peterson is only willing to pursue what makes his message fly. That's all. No big deal user.

And if you're not a white guy?

kek exactly

Haha, he literally left her speechless as he drove her own foot into her own mouth. The man is a master of his art.

>The woman he was talking with was operating a few levels of logic below a dog.
I think they just call that a woman, user.

>If youre gonna publicly equate something the Mao regime you should have done your homework. Peterson is political. His misrepresentation of the subject and the fact that he, as the one making the allegation, avoids specifics is inexcusable.
>Now if you're a white guy and feel that the world is gonna come crashing down because of a dinndu CEO and want to devote your life to Peterson's cause, go ahead.
You sound a lot like that interviewer. You're so ready to be offended by Peterson you just lie and lie about what he's actually saying and insist he is saying your lies.

i've heard none of his colleagues/academics take him serious

Can you imagine how he'd get destroyed when talking to a real philosopher just based on his lack of knowledge /understanding

i came here to post this

You do want you want. The world is yours man.

Nothing about Peterson offends me but his attempt to remove an entire field of study from the curriculum and historical record based on lies.
>lie and lie
What is he actually saying. Protip: people in the public eye rarely state their true intentions, so they resort to various ways of avoiding telling the whole truth. The truth is not going to be pasted on the headlines and people are not going to incriminate themselves on live TV. So we often compare what someone is claiming to the consequences of their claims, and we don't do this in a thoughtless vacuum. Instead we look to the entire written and historical record to compare behaviors, arguments, ideas.

Please tell me where my lies distort his argument.

>the world is gonna come crashing down because of a dinndu CEO and want to devote your life to Peterson's cause, go ahead.
>the world is gonna come crashing down because of a dinndu CEO and want to devote your life to Peterson's cause, go ahead.
it's such a hollow and unrealistic lie one wonders why you even bothered
I understand you want to slander the man because of some subconscious ideology or something, but at least try and make it believable

Peterson isn't wrong to equate the modern left with Mao's China. Fundamentally they both operate on the same principle, the truth isn't the truth, and it is to be redefined for your political needs. Redefined to ensure no-one can recognize the truth from your politics.

I also notice how, in a similar vein, Memerson is always apparently much deeper and more nuanced in the eyes of his defenders, even though his actual statements are often vague and confused. Peterson could never use "postmodernists" as a convenient substitute for "the enemy", oh no, he is much more intelligent & conscious of the language he is using. If someone criticizes him on account of this vagueness, they simply aren't dealing with his "arguments", which are clearly much more than the moralizing drivel which they appear to be on the surface. Overall very similar to the pomo defenders who will claim that any negative reading is a "misreading" etc

Every response to this post I will put in a letter and post it to Peterson.

He doesn't echo their leftist talking points, so of course they're unable to take him seriously.

Maoism was in fact very popular in Paris leading up to the '68er movement

>i've heard none of his colleagues/academics take him serious

Who takes any psychologist seriously

i thought it was a shit book for simpletons too.

Its not often that i agree with the grundian

>people who disagree with Peterson's conception of postmodernism and his utilitarian worldview won't concede that he's right when it comes to gender differences
half of this thread still hasn't grow out of the "if he's wrong about one thing he's wrong about everything" binary mindset

>"Well qit depends on what they want, you know? It's it's it's exactly how I laid it out uh. Women want, deeply want men who are competent and powerful. And, and I dont mean power in the in the in the in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That's not power. That's just corruption."

This is my problem with Jordan Peterson. He stammers entirely too much, finally getting around to answering a question and then going ahead and answering a question nobody asked.

Who gives shit. Most people here believe women are inferior, that's not an interesting debate