Postmodernism takes a severe blow

Everybody on this board is either sucking Peterson's dick or getting rammed by the big black cock of poststructuralism. Enough with the whining from everybody for fucks sake.

go poopy then you loser

Post your porn elsewhere

It's funny how you lack self awareness. The image fags described you.

Yeah read Foucault

It's not completely worthless, but if your goal is to obtain knowledge that is useful and/or gives you a more nuanced view of reality then there are probably several hundred books that you would be better off reading instead.

I recommend the Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rabinow. It is a good introductory work that does not require much prior philosophical knowledge.

this is a blue board fagtron

Foucault is genuinely insightful. Derrida and Lacan are hacks with nothing worthwhile to offer. Can't speak for Deleuze.

pleb.
postmodernism is a conspiracy theory meme

Are there any other Paglia videos like this? She's really fucking smart, and has that same passionate style as JP.

They're mostly a rehash of what she already said with a consistently manic stumbling over her words.

Claimed George Lucas is the greatest artist of our time.

>when you're so dedicated to triggering libs that you defend the prequel trilogy

The only reason Peterson harps about "postmodernists" is because he wants to create a red-herring that will distract people from the real culprits. Jews are to blame for the contemporary nonsense after the 1960s? Ah, no, no: it's those damn French intellectuals man!
Neoreactionaries attempted something similar by trying to shift blame from Jews to Calvinists.
Peterson peddles neoconservative drivel, in essence. As to this video: did anyone catch on that Peterson stopped the dialogue as soon as Paglia started to point the finger at Jews?

Really gets my marbles rolling.

is that mc ride?

>Peterson stopped the dialogue as soon as Paglia started to point the finger at Jews?
that didn't happen at all. wtf?

Watch the end of the video, the last 5 minutes, again. Now keep in mind what I pointed out. When you notice it, you'll shit bricks.

I think Peterson too often conflates postmodernism with neo-Marxism, and he's partially correct, but you could also call the alt right postmodern. Richard Rorty is a postmodernist but is a committed liberal and I think he shares Peterson's pragmatic definition of truth. Also, he predicted the 2016 election back in 1997.

Watch from 16:00-18:00
youtu.be/L1qEsGcQeqw?t=1079

How does Peterson reconcile his dislike of postmodernists with his raging boner for Nietzsche

That was Dilbertman on the Sam Harris podcast

How does Peterson reconcile his claim that he and his family deal with "severe depression" yet he has been extremely successful?

whoa
ess jay dabbleyoos btfo
karltural marxists on suicide watch
how will leftists ever recover

whoa
BITING satire from the intellectual elite!
conservatards ABSOLUTELY btfo

>tfw you will never save your father from the belly of the whale, roughly speaking
it's no joke

He's a fraud who has read neither

nothing wrong with that

>BLAH BLAH BLAH, These darn kids and their postmodernism, BLAH BLAH BLAH, random postmodernist strawman, BLAH BLAH BLAH, these darn SJWs

I sure hope so, I hope Anglos will finally stop attempting to understand European philosophy.

This
Americans discovering philosophy was a mistake

"European philosophy" is fucking dead, kid. Who was the last significant euro philosopher? Bourdieu?

Absolutely not, they will only make the world seem more complicated.

Dawkins.
Unironically.

You're right about the jews being the source of the problem but Peterson is a necessary stepping stone for newbies who can't wrap their head around the jewish problem ... yet. I wouldn't give him too much slack since he is disrupting their program. It would be massive if he were to come out and name the jew though. I have trouble believing he isn't aware but knows how hard the kikes would try to ruin his life if he came out and said it.

Jews are a scapegoat the problems Peterson addresses are embedded in our culture.
You're a shill trying to muddy the waters and distract people from the real problem by blaming jews.

Most postmodernist were Jews though. When you name the postmodernist you name the Jew, but it has a chance of reaching normies instead of being shut down as anti Semitic.

You have to let people know the truth indirectly, otherwise they won't listen. Let me give you an example

> see post on r/latestagecapitalism
> " deport the 1% " sign image
> decide to name the Jew indirectly
> comment " whoah, cool it with the anti Semitic remarks "

Ez

>Bourdieu
Bourdieu?! Don't make me laugh, he was a mediocre sociologist. The last living great ones are Badiou an Agamben.
But otherwise philosophy in general is dead. Nietzsche and Heidegger predicted it a long time ago.

Jews have always been the problem, idiot. Protip: you aren't allowed to label yourself a scapegoat when you've been kicked out of other people's countries 300 times, that means the issue lies with YOU.

Correct opinion coming though

t. postmoderist marxist

Foucault wasn't a postmodernist

>Jews have always been the problem, idiot.
>Earth would be a utopia if it weren't for Jews
>tfw you overdosed on ideology

No, he's right. Jews are the problem. The main question is why haven't you figured that out yet? Are you jewish or just dumb?

>Why haven't you figured that out yet?
Well for starters I'm aware that structuring society is a complex problem with many variables and if you propose a single-variable solution then you're simply not addressing the problem.
As our father Dr. Peterson says, the tell-tale sign of ideological possession is the proclivity to attribute all trouble to a single source, in this case, muh Jews.
To be honest you silly people better be thankful for Jews, without them you'd be like a ship without a sail.

Oh just shut the fuck up with your YouTube-inspired, half-baked contrarian nonsense.

> thankful for Jews

So you're a Jew then, no wonder you're so triggered

What user meant is that without Jews you have nothing to say.

You are in no position to chastise the supposed ideology of others since you aren't educated on the central issue. You can stop being a pleb at any time and start learning about the jewish problem, but until you're willing to do that don't blame others for your own lack of understanding.

Not peterson but my take is that neitsche was predicting postmodernism as well as a direction for how to overcome it towards a modernism that was individual rather than collective.

Please read Nietzsche again and read him more slowly. If anything (and this is also a stretch) he was an aristocrat, not some kind of "modernist". He hated the times he was writing in. For fucks sake.

>"that's how you know you're dealing with people who are ideologically possessed, they attribute everything to one cause"
>proceeds to bash pomo for everything wrong in the world
wew

What I mean by that is, the times would inevitably bring about a collective rejection of the axioms perceived as objective. This would bring about postmodernism, and neitsche would not have recommended that we stop there, but to explore within ourselves for a PERSONAL set of axioms that we could TREAT as objective. So I don't think neitsche was a postmodernist in that sense, he deconstructed but did not recommend a state of destruction.

He simply does not do this. He explains the personal tendencies towards ideology and the many valid reasons people reject the possibility of truth and goodness, and then urges them to GET OVER THEM. People act like he treats the pomos as a collective bogeyman but at the end of the day what he is discussing is the individuals who get caught in that state of mind and the individuals capacity to move past it. I think people misunderstand peterson the most here because he talks about widespread ideologies but always always always has the individual as his reference point. He is always speaking to the individual, not to the collective.

>He is always speaking to the individual, not to the collective
What is the meaning of this?

wtf are they talking about anyway? isn't "pomo" evil precisely because it denies one single cause?

of course not

That you can't evaluate what he is saying based on the spooky things you THINK it could be doing to other people. You evaluate it based on how it has the potential to change your own ego, because that it what he is trying to do.

Why can't I? He's a professor, after all.

automatically distrust the one on the right for looking like Janet Reno

Obviously you can do whatever the fuck you want, I'm just making a recommendation for what I think is the proper way to approach his work, based on my perception of his aims (informed by his disclosure).

I would argue the same of Nietzsche, that his writings were aiming to have a transformation impact on the individual reader, rather than be nattered about and evaded by focusing on their relation to the collective. That he why in my opinion he is still so powerful and relevant

Do you want to waste your life reading post structuralist jerkoffs?

Derrida being a hack is an unsubstantiated meme

>thinks (((Derrida))) is reputable.
Take it to reddit, kid.

Do you have some sort of brain issue?

It's called autism and we're unsure what exactly causes it although it's thought that vaccinations play an important role.

There's no known link between thimerosal and autism. The idea that there is is rooted in a falsified study from the 90s that based it's findings on a sample of 12 children with autism. Later studies conducted with literally 100,000s of children have been unable to reproduce such a causation.

>has internet in 2017
>still ignorant about the jewish question
And willingly showing off those room temperature IQs. Gotta love it.

...your point???
I said that it is thought that vaccinations play an important role.
That is certainly thought.

It's thought that you're a cum-guzzling pony-loving faggot who likes to go into the city on the weekends to get your boipussi filled.

Paglia is interesting and she pretty much exposes Peterson's rendering of postmodernism as the flabby baby it actually is.

No I just don't care about the jew. Worrying about the jew is for talentless, non-competitive people who think doing anything to alter the status quo will increase their mating success

>if I talk in circles maybe I will convince these goys

I'm shocked how much you wrote and how little you actually said.

And what, pray tell, have you said, sir?

Just because you can't follow an argument and need your discussions to be delivered in one-liner Twitter posts about THE ONE TRUE BAD THING doesn't mean that user made a bad point. It just means you are a brainlet. He made three good points you fucking dummy.

No, it's for people who care about the truth and are willing to fight for it in order to improve the long-term interests of their people, but is in direct conflict with their individual mating success, obviously, since jews go all out in their attempts to destroy anyone who questions or even points out the harm they cause white societies. If you're going to use nature as an excuse for why you are ignorant of the jewish problem, try to at least make yourself aware of how nature works.

Disagreement =/= ignorance.

You're willing to fight for it... by posting shit like ? If you were really concerned with the truth you wouldn't just be trying to bully your way through a Carribean numismatics meet and greet trying to be 'right' and instead would stop to think before taking such stupid logical shortcuts in your reasoning. What causes harm in white societies is the average white's refusal to read or engage with the world around him, like you, and thus fall into mystical thinking and neglect of the systems of determining truth we have set up. Naming the jew will do nothing if there aren't any capable whites to fill the vacuum after they're gone. You owe it to yourself not to limit your world to the jew

All I'm saying is that ignorance is the only result, and will decrease accordingly as one's knowledge increases with regard to how jews differ from whites, how jews negatively impact white societies, and why jews are indeed the main reason for those societies' decline.

>English professors shouldn't get all of their theories from the French

sounds reasonable

>all of world literature should be taught in the same department

???

There should be no lack of capable whites and there hasn't been in the past; whites are responsible for nearly all innovation and cultural advancement. The jewish problem is what stands in the way of that, which is why it is central here.

What the fuck is postmoderosm supposed to even mean anymore

It's like a filler word where you fit in some contrived strawman ideology you disagree with in today's academia

>misconstruing this bad

She said English professors shouldn't larp as French philosophers because the French philosophers were engaging with their own language in a way that was unique to the history of the French language and not applicable to English.

Your second green text just sounds like a total strawman. My best guess is that you're talking about when she said that professors should be required to teach historical-scale narratives instead of structuring their classes on microscopic specializations because this approach adds more overall perspective.

Well there has to be some dearth of capable whites if white culture can be considered 'poisoned'. Probably has something to do with people being slaves to the electronic jew

>the individual reader
What other kind of reader is there? I can't think of any.

From the video it seems like it's primarily the 'theorists' in academia but it seems to be a NA problem.

The mechanisms jews use to poison our society are very recent and thus only now being diagnosed and understood. A natural action and reaction that even in times with far less information proliferation regarding their habits, and a result soon to repeat itself, caused them to be expelled time and time again.

>The mechanisms jews use to poison our society are very recent
last time you said they were ancient, pal

There should be a JBP drinking game like whenever you see him defer to an established thinker like a child about his personal theories worded in exactly the same way (15:30) you finish your drink

Ancient in that they're embedded in their nature, recent in them actually infiltrating and obtaining power.

what the fuck are you talking about

Ignorance is the only result of what? Not know enough? No shit, that's literally the definition you fucking idiot.

I'm saying that you can't infer ignorance because someone disagrees with you.

It's like, sitting down and impotently assessing a writer or speaker based on the impact you think they might be having on other people or collectives, rather than engaging and assessing their impact on yourself. If you focus on the former, you will often miss out on the latter.

In context of this discussion, looking at Petersons input in a large scale debate about postmodernism is bizarre, because he's trying to push and pull and move you as an individual to change your life for the better, not contribute overall to how the collective understands the term postmodernism.

you're not consistent desu