Why are neo-reactionaries like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro so concerned with asserting hard "meanings" and...

because many of the issues they percieve in the modern world stem from a decontextualization of the values that shaped it

You have to explain what these values are.

>Ben "Americans exist to die for the Chosen People" Shapiro
>Jordan "form community but not with people similar to you or you're a Nazi" Peterson
>neoreactionary
Good post.

They are liberals. Liberals think there are hard social values which people must abide, inevitably. They’d like to reduce these in number and kind, but they can’t do it with everything, nor do they want to eliminate them totally. Liberalism, that long, vast project of the Western world, has always been distinct from anarchism. Hence the “tolerance problem” which I’ve seen a lot of smug fucks reference recently.

>They are, perhaps not entirely wrongly, incensed by the perceived suffering wrought by people who have worked off this conclusion. They see their work as mainly destructive and harmful to society.
It empirically is
Fascism, Communism, and Islam (which are the main 3 concepts anyone OP considers a 'neoreactionary' address) are demonstrably damaging society and the individuals that comprise it.
Hell, even do away with the Islam question and the point remains valid.

>ideological frameworks that are not liberalism are harmful to society
Please stop posting user.

Fascism and Communism are related, but what the fuck does Islam have to do with it. I’m not sure how Islam is the result of this except that, like all other things (including muh Catholicism etc) it approaches to fill the void.

One thing is I wish Jordan Peterson approached his opponents with a similar level of grace as he might Nietzsche. I’m guessing there are some attributes he perceives in Nietzsche that he doesn’t in “the postmodernists” that make his project more redeemable or something. Perhaps, but I feel like he is treating perceived intellectual deficiencies as moral ones.

In that user's defense, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise. Every other ideology either has a seriously flawed vision for society or arbitrarily favors some group of people over others.

OP here, this was actually somewhat helpful, user.

Do you think their assumption that moral relativists operate in bad faith is based on their rather conspiratorial view of "Cultural Marxism"?

My main, more general problem with Teleology is that it has always seemed to me tautological.

Literally what ideologue group doesn't assert meaning and principles?

>One thing is I wish Jordan Peterson approached his opponents with a similar level of grace as he might Nietzsche. I’m guessing there are some attributes he perceives in Nietzsche that he doesn’t in “the postmodernists” that make his project more redeemable or something. Perhaps, but I feel like he is treating perceived intellectual deficiencies as moral ones.

Peterson has stated that he agrees with the postmodernists in certain respects. His beef with them is that they reject truth, which he claims can be saved by a pragmatic theory of truth, and that they see the Western world as governed basically by power when it's really run by competence.

Post Structuralists

Liberalism's fatal flaw is literally egalitarianism though. What you're describing as a bug, having in-groups and out-groups, is actually a feature of those ideologies.

>Liberalism's fatal flaw is literally egalitarianism though.

Explain

>His beef with them is that they reject truth, which he claims can be saved by a pragmatic theory of truth, and that they see the Western world as governed basically by power when it's really run by competence.
So he agrees with everything they have to say, but doesn't like their conclusion? Whew.

He agrees with them that the world is chaotic and that you can interpret it in infinite ways, but he claims that you can determine the right way of interpreting things through a pragmatic theory of truth. There is an interpretation that best helps you live.

>There is an interpretation that best helps you live.

Does he not realize how absurd it is to think that he knows which interpretation that is, or that it would be a universal interpretation for all people?

Well, you're saying that treating different groups in different fashions is a failure of certain non-liberal ideologies. Probably all the ones that aren't communism, because commies do tend to go out for egalitarianism. Thing is if you ask a fascist or a Muslim or a Christian who isn't a universalist heretic, they'll tell you treating the outsider differently is a feature of the ideology, because it protects the society that the ideology creates. Meanwhile liberal societies are open to subversion and factionalism that can tear whatever order existed prior to liberalism's inception apart.

Communism just falls apart as soon as its adherents try to move from description to action, so let's leave that alone.

>neo-reactionaries
lmao what?

So, just, like, make a claim on absolute truth. It sounds like a cowardly roundabout way of saying "wellll, you're wrong and you're objectively wrong, but God won't literally strike you down, the world He created to incentivize certain behaviors will just fuck your shit up."

>want to assert hard social values by which people must abide?
They don't want to force anyone. I can't speak for Peterson since I've never listened to him, but Shapiro is very consistent in saying that he wants the government out of things, and wouldn't want to ban things just because he doesn't like it.

There's a difference between knowing what you believe in and forcing others to do the same.

He has a criteria, which interestingly enough is the same criteria he has for meaning. Peterson sees meaning, truth, and goodness as all relating to behavior that roughly speaking maximizes utility for yourself and your community as far into the future as possible. What you do has to work at multiple levels. The experience of having all the levels working in harmony is the experience of meaning.

>but Shapiro is very consistent in saying that he wants the government out of things
Except, of course, Middle Eastern wars.

>neo-reactionaries like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro

lmao

...

If we draw on Peterson though, it is the ability to go against one's culture that is a necessary condition for its preservation. A culture that can't adapt to change will die.

That seems pretty banal. Why does he think there are some boogeymen out there stopping people from doing this?

It's not about God. Peterson is not even a theist.

Ignorance or malevolence

I think the “cultural Marxism” narrative, even framed in a much more reasonable and educated sense probably has something to do with it. And I don’t mean to say that condescendingly, really. If we are someone who has come to a certain conclusion about Communism, Marxism and so on and then we look at say, French post-structuralists and postmodernists, and we see *their* partiality to Marxist thought and certain left-wing ideals from which we have become estranged - AND then, to add fuel to fire, we consider the social and intellectual (remember Peterson is in academia) results of these thinkers to be broadly detrimental - we are going to be put in a fairly bad starting place to view their work amiably at all.

Then again, there are plenty of conservative thinkers who engage with left-wing intellectuals - and vice versa - with a much less hostile hand; who are able to enter into conversation, engage with their ideas and criticise them at the same time. To entertain, and not to prematurely accept or reject.

Jordan Peterson seems like someone who is very emotionally invested, not just in the world but in his own system of thought. Interestingly enough, contra Nietzsche, he is kind of a systematiser. You know personally I am with Nietzsche in his rejection of moralism and yet, I cannot really justify it. It comes from a benevolent place, which I share. The suffering of the world is too much to bear. But as much as Peterson has a moral responsibility he also has an intellectual responsibility. Shouldn’t he be keener and calmer in his judgements and always try as come as close to truth as he can before taking action? I think his focus on pragmatism is not wholly disagreeable, but perhaps his emphasis is too strong that he negates the value of careful, disinterested thinking.

I find Peterson’s definition of truth rather deceptive and delusional really. He has a point, but why must he act like Moses about it? He makes a noble lie but doesn’t even admit it to himself, he must dress it up as truth, rather than admit - as he should have learned from St. Paul - that truth will always elude is in this life. Well, Peterson is contributing to the darkness of the glass in his own way.

Aren't reactionaries supposed to be trying to restore a previously existing societal order? Like feudalism?
Shapiro and Peterson are just conservative e-celebs that exist to keep edgy teenagers satisfied without moving them further right. Not that I think it works.

>Peterson is not even a theist.
Holy shit, that's gay. Here I thought he was actually Christian.

>Here I thought he was actually Christian.
Well, he calls himself a christian, but he really doesn't act like one.

Which wars are you talking about? From what I've seen, he hasn't supported all wars, and isn't as much of a hawk as Hillary was, for example.

With that said, I'd have no problems with having USA bomb all the countries surrounding Israel, considering they're utter shit.

>If we draw on Peterson though, it is the ability to go against one's culture that is a necessary condition for its preservation. A culture that can't adapt to change will die.
Adaptation from internal dialogue isn't the same as allowing hostile outsiders to subvert or destroy the existing order.

>With that said, I'd have no problems with having USA bomb all the countries surrounding Israel, considering they're utter shit.
Oy vey. Also, I'm fairly sure he was shilling for intervention in both Syria and Iran.

>Holy shit, that's gay. Here I thought he was actually Christian.

No, he has a Jungian/phenomenological/psychological sort of interpretation of religion. He refuses to claim to know whether there is some sort of metaphysical reality behind it.

Why?

Pretty sure he's been extremely critical of how Syria was handled and the toppling of Assad.

Iran is a shit country (my gf is from Teheran), everyone knows that. It used to be on a good path until fanatics took over in the 70's.

>Adaptation from internal dialogue isn't the same as allowing hostile outsiders to subvert or destroy the existing order.

That's where you're wrong kiddo.

youtube.com/watch?v=SKzpj0Ev8Xs

Assad hasn't been toppled, retard. He won the war, no thanks to us.
And Iran would be significantly shittier with a Western-backed government. Yeah, some Persian thots can't use Snapchat, that's a real great reason to shed American blood in yet another war for Israel.

IMO whenever he talks about religion he comes off as someone who has a mainly pragmatic interest in it, like he sees it mainly as a way of bringing some sense of order to people. He does't seem to have turned to theism because he saw truth in christianity's message of love, mercy and charity, which are really what christianity is about in its core, at least how I see it.
For example, the guy makes 60k from his patreon alone every month. There's absolutely no way he needs that much money just to have someone record his lectures. He could be giving most of it to charity, but it doesn't seem to me that he even thinks about it.

Your favorite e-celeb isn't even willing to admit that his own religion is real, why would I spend two and a half hours listening to him talk?
Liberalism is uniquely vulnerable to subversion face it bud

My bad, didn't mean that Assad was toppled, meant to say how people want him toppled.

And Iran has been backed up by Obama for two consecutive terms, allowing them to go nuclear. I don't care if some 'Persian thot' (you sound like a jackass) can use snapchat or not, but I am concerned about the amount of terrorism Iran sponsors each year, and how they want to destabilize the Middle East.

If it takes bombing Iran back to the stone age to get a more stabile ME, I'm all for it.

I know another country with a much smaller land area that would also help stabilize the Middle East if it were bombed into the Stone Age.

>With that said, I'd have no problems with having USA bomb all the countries surrounding Israel,
This, with the exception of Beirut

Yeah, and it just so happens to be the only good country in the ME, where people actually don't fuck goats and camels while beheading little children after raping them.

No fun allowed

>And Iran would be significantly shittier with a Western-backed government.
Maybe if you're an Islamic fundamentalist, I sort of get it culturally, but being a secular far right westerner it's hard to see strict Islamic law as a good thing. I think an American backed government would have been a mix of hardline morality without legal repurcussion. Also not keen on what Islamic culture did to Persia, much more tragic than Christianity snuffing out shitstained pagans in Europe

No, it just bombs random Arabs with American munitions, steals our nuclear technology, gets our soldiers killed in wars that otherwise wouldn't matter to us, acts as a safe haven for international criminals, and generally acts like a shitty "ally" that not only we but the world as a whole would be better off without.

Oh, and also promotes terrorism and associates with countries that promote terrorism, like Saudi fucking Arabia.

>With that said, I'd have no problems with having USA bomb all the countries surrounding Israel, considering they're utter shit.
Deliberately causing more turmoil in the middle east means more sandniggers in Europe. Thanks fatso.

I see.

Israel is western

You're the ones deciding to let them in

>Also not keen on what Islamic culture did to Persia
I do get that angle, but I have to ask myself if I'd rather be live under a semi-democratic Catholic theocracy or modern liberal clownworld. Obviously a fascist government is better than both, but one is still clearly better. On another level I just don't care enough to send American soldiers there to die for Israel's security.

I don't give a fuck how "western" it is, it's a shitty ally and if we had any sense we would sit back and let the Arabs zergrush them.

He's a Jew, he's okay with that.

>Obviously a fascist government is better than both

I respect people who would go for the theocracy option. I'm just saying, it's not my first choice if I could pick between the three.

>our
You goat-huggers deserve all the shit and bombs you're gonna get.

That's not Americas fault, that's the fault of some governments in Europe (mainly Germany and Sweden) who lured everyone there. If these two countries didn't have such idiots for leaders, they wouldn't have taken in a ridiculous amount of 'refugees' (that all the nearby muslim countries didn't want, because 'they're too culturally different' lol).

I'm an American, you stupid faggot. I really hope you're a fucking Jew, because the alternative is that you're a braindead boomer who's allowed all his natural xenophobia to be channeled against a bunch of irrelevant goatherders that would be completely irrelevant to your life but for the pseudo-Crusader state that Britain decided to plant in the Holy Land. Newsflash: the blood of every American that dies in the Middle East is on Israel's hands.

>sit back and let the Arabs zergrush them.

You know they tried that, right? Twice. They got fucking raped.

And Israel has nukes and the arabs don't.

>And Israel has nukes and the arabs don't.
Stolen American nukes, yes. Maybe we should let Iran """"steal"""" some of our nukes next.

>you are NOT allowed to identify as something other than male or female

Neither American, a boomer nor a jew (thought it's sweet how you capitalize jew). And having been close to two terrorist attacks by islamists, I fail to see how they're irrelevant.

Stop hating jews simply because they're more successfull than you, take charge of your own life and stop being a loser.

And each subversion a unique opportunity to capitalise on and therefore subdue it. A pattern inherent in human organisation.

>I'm not American
Oh, that explains it. You just see the results of our masters' foreign policy, you don't have to have your relatives come back in boxes to support it.
I wanna be a pan-Europeanist, but people like you make it hard.

Yes, unlike you I don't hate America and I would rather keep you guys as world power #1, instead of Russia, China or any other shit country.

>pan-European
Disgusting.

You want to keep the people actively fueling the flow of the Muslims you so despise into your country in power?
Huh.

No, I'd rather have a serious government over here who didn't actively try to catch every single 'refugee' that lands in Europe. If you think the only way to keep muslims out of Europe is to stop bombing them, you're a major retard.

Iran was (until 70s clusterfuck) unironically the most predisposed for a Western alliance throughout history, even after Shia. Idk whether that's because of the Indo-European meme

You know, we can do both.
Maybe if we stopped fighting endless wars for a hostile foreign ethnic group and then sent every invader back, they'd not only get the message but be able to build something approximating civilization.

Also, I understand that AfD has an image to maintain since we made saying mean things about our greatest ally illegal, but this is Veeky Forums, not Facebook. You don't have to hold the party line.

>having moral convictions is unlibertarian
this is why libertarians get nowhere.

Hey, in an ideal world, if islamists would just chill the fuck down and not commit acts of terrorism everywhere, I'd be all down for just letting them be in their sand countries. Keep spreading hate, keep spreading terrorism, keep trying to take over Europe and they should be bombed to hell and back.

>AfD
lol Germany can go fuck themselves.

Or whatever your local civnat "Islam is bad because it's bad for Jews and faggots" party is. You get the point, I know how fucked your speech laws are.
And it's hard to chill out when ZOG is constantly starting wars in the region, which also gives them a pretext for shipping brown people into Europe.

>just bomp them lol
So this is the power of the most intellectual board of Veeky Forums

I don't know (and I only slightly care) about Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson's views, but I really want to shitpost in this thread anyway.

Obviously the solution to wars and unrest being used as a pretext to import foreigners is MORE wars and unrest.
And more dead Europeans, of course. Can't forget that, goy.

It really is terrible, isn't it? The mods should just ban me and afd-kun. Put us out of our misery.

The party I'm going to vote for (MED) barely mentions islam. But yeah, freedom of speech doesn't exist here, which is a true shame. Muslim leaders wanting to take over by sending 'refugees' here wouldn't be a problem if our governments would just grow a spine and say go to hell.

Lmao

So it's the fault of European idealism and not American cynicism. Spoken like a true asshole.

Why are some Americans so obsessed with Israel? I can't just be religion since you replaced it with narcissism.

just because we live in the age of dissolution doesn't mean everybody should fall for the same memes, just the majority

Islam:
>collectivist doctrines
>responsible for extreme amounts of contemporary violence
>prone to neurotic bouts of sectarian faction violence
>built on a self-contradicting virtue system
Islam is just what happens when you introduce divine sponsorship to Fascism/Communism

So you're telling me Europe has to take in all the 'refugees' that want to come here? How utterly stupid.

It's not like there weren't already 50 million refugees in the world before the war in Syria started, you retard.

not in the immediate European neighborhoud you fucktard

Anyone who takes 10 minutes answering "does god exist" and writes retarded shit mentioning proof, god and godel in the same instance is a cryptotheologian at best, lying obscrurantist fundamentalist at worst.

Shapiro has never advocated American troops go to fight on behalf on Israel. Not once. He advocates the American state department stop interfering with Israel's ability to do that for themselves, which is what bullshit like pretending Israel's capital is somewhere other than Jerusalem is. He wants us to stop to stop coddling the fragile sensibilities of the Arab Islamic world. There's nothing he would say about the Israeli-Arab situation that he wouldn't say about the Ukraine dealing with Putinist guerillas.

Out of curiousity since I don't really watch his stuff, what would say about dealing with Saudi Arabia?

And these fuckers walking across 20 different countries before arriving here didn't start off at our doorstep either, you fucking retard.

Do you know what the Geneva convention is? You're supposed to seek asylum in the FIRST country you arrive in. Now, go hug another goat.