Besides a cringy fanbase of redditors and kids, and his meme nuances of speech...

>a lost child make an actually good sarcastic comment in defense of his internet daddy
I'm impressed.

Anything Peterson says is either
1. making shit up about thinkers he hasn't read, like Derrida, Foucault and Marx
2. name-dropping third-rate thinkers, like Jung and Solzhenitsyn
3. regurgitating philosophical ideas to such a dumbed-down extent that he muddles the point the original thinker was making, such as James
4. presumptive/improvised theories about whatever - usually gender related
5. self-help 101 that you could find better said in the front window of any bookstore in America

'teachings?'

wft, is he John the Baptist or the actual Christ?!?!?

Why does NEETS trying to improve themselves trigger you so much?

pretty much sums it up. His 'success' is a pretty smart business move - there are a lot of al-righters with no 'canon' /Messiah figure - fill that space, make money

Exactly...self help is the modern religion. There isnt much difference other than tone between his stuff and eat pray love.

Disagree slightly on one thing: he's not alt-right, and they have messiah figures in people like Richard Spencer. Peterson appeals much more to the mainstream le rational skeptic classical liberal define-your-whole-worldview-on-hatred-of-SJWs Dave Rubin crowd

It doesn't at all. Peterson isn't just a self help guru, though, is he? He touches onto political and philosophical topics and not just in passing. I think it's fair to say he has amassed a certain cult of personality around him and while there's plenty of rational sane people among his fans that are capable to think for themselves and filter out what's relevant to them and what's not, there's also a majority of morons idolizing him and worshipping every word of his simply because they didn't have a father around to tell them to clean their room and stop fucking around or because it's their first contact with a non-retarded person that could coherently voice his own views.

Peterson new though in that hes an actual professor at a real college - the 'populist' right have never had such an ally. I mean of course his stuff about philosophy and history is amteurish, but thats just fine print. its important that this wing of politics see's itself now with a respectable face.

>falling for actual factual KGB propoganda

Tell me, who do you believe in? What makes them better, other than a patina of historicity?

how is he a non-correspondentist? wtf

>who do you believe in

>whats wrong in jordan petersons teachings?
Fundamentally none if you can close eyes on his very strong Jungian commitment. Thankfully he's probably the only psychoanalysts out there that views oneself as a scientist.

Forget 'who' - you have to be well read in a topic. Looking for heroes is just silly. If you are well read in history you can instantly and easily see the shallowness of what he says (notice its 'says' and not 'writes'...)

I don't buy this. He's a public intellectual. In what way is that new? How is he more connected to the 'populist' right than any of the past conservative public intellectuals were?

This is completely wrong, sorry. One of the main criticisms of contemporary psychology as a discipline is the excessive scientism; it just completely hamstrings the field when the only way to get the high grades is reference to statistical analysis and 'metastudies'. Freud and Jung were untrinsically unscientific, which allows them to venture into more interesting areas. The 'science' of psychology is just giving surveys about social attitudes to undergraduates and then throwing tenuously relevant data crunching at it.

>How is he more connected to the 'populist' right than any of the past conservative public intellectuals were?
being this new

he triggers the fuck out of Veeky Forums, that's really all you need to know. just listen to his videos and get to your own conclusions

If you can't see the qualitiative diference between Peterson and say, an old Tory Oxford don there's no way to explicate it...you just have to have a little awareness beyond the last three years of twitter news.

So you believe in yourself as the wisest in all history. Only you are able to grasp the full view of things and glean the proper meaning of our existence. Bold.

Being popular with a bunch of right-wing geeks on the internet doesn't make you a 'populist'

>literally inventing a strawman out of a single reaction picture
Just how insecure and pathetic can one get.

Being well read in a topic means reading authors. Who do you agree with? I.e. Who do you believe in?

What part of public intellectual do you not understand?

Not a strawman. Reducto Ad Absurdum.

I understand it plenty well, I just don't understand how it's 'new'

You're probably not aware of Memerson's popularity. He currently has about half a million subscribers on his Youtube channel and receives over $60,000 *per month* through Patreon crowdfunding platform.

Popular=/=populist

Its not about agreeing or disagreeing, you just have to do the reading. Academic history isn't really 'my opinion' type stuff, its extreme Rabbinic style learning. There are Marxist historians who are absolutely canonical and essential to everybody including conservatives. Then someone like David Irving is an actual Holocaust denier who has done important scholarly research thats relevant to all 20th century scholars. His opinions are extraneous.

>literally spewing quasirelevant terms he doesn't understand at random
So it does get more pathetic.

It's not a new phenomenon, user asked how new you were because being a public intellectual implies they are popular.

self-help philosophy is populist

Your picture was an argument. Argument A. In my post I said that your Argument A was equivelant to the argument I sketched out, Argument B. You hold Argumetn A. Argument A is Argument B, therefore you hold Argument B. Argument B is clearly ridiculous. Therefore your opinion is clearly ridiculous. Instead of Ad Hominems, maybe you try and show how your position isn't Argument B?

>pandering precisely to a large group of individuals and tailoring your words to their views
>not a populist
He undoubtedly is. As someone rightfully pointed out in another thread he seems to deliberately be as vague and indecisive about hot topics like race and immigration, while still constantly mentioning them as rather important ones. He may have started out sincerely and intellectually honest (how much that is worth though is another question, considering even some polacks make fun of his Disney cartoon analysis), but right now he's cashing in on the unexpectedly large audience.

This place sucks Zizek and Chomsky's dick, try again memer.

I was initially responding to who claimed that Peterson represented something new in politics. As though there have never been conservative professors or public intellectuals.

Popular=/=populist.
Also self-help psychology (it's not philosophy per se), is literally just psychology that's presented for self-guided therapy, instead of therapist-guided therapy. Still not necessarily populist.

>Still not necessarily populist
whatever you say, bucko

>the picture of a man shocked by what he's reading
>an argument
>equivalent to your ex nihilo strawman assumptions
Jesus Christ, stop spending so much time on /pol/. You seem capable of coherent thought, yet utterly crippled by poltardian "discourse methods".

you lads need to look up the word populist

Populism is a political view far more specific than simple pandering and speaking to an audience. Also "precisely to a large group" is an oxymoron in writing. The resonate with a wider audience, you need to be more general. The more specific and tailored your writing becomes, the smaller your audience will be. Furthermore, I don't see how giving a Jungian-type psychoanalysis of the Bible falls into "selling out". Something like that is a pretty bold idea to the average person, even if it's not that new to more literary types. The fact that he brings in contemporary neuro- and behaviorl research instead of just doing typical exegisis is particularly interesting. The fact that he doesn't do inline citations in his speeches is not meaningful.