According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed). Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical. Derrida claimed that divisiveness and oppression were built right into language—built into the very categories we use to pragmatically simplify and negotiate the world. There are “women” only because men gain by excluding them. There are “males and females” only because members of that more heterogeneous group benefit by excluding the tiny minority of people whose biological sexuality is amorphous. Science only benefits the scientists. Politics only benefits the politicians. In Derrida’s view, hierarchies exist because they gain from oppressing those who are omitted. It is this ill-gotten gain that allows them to flourish.
According to Derrida...
ENOUGH PETERSON THREADS!!
MOMMY MOMMY WHERE MY TENDIES MOMMY MOMMY TENDIES TENDIES
he taught me to clean my room to be honest
CRASHING THIS BOARD WITH NO SURVIVORS
ACCELERATIONISM. BOARD WAR NOW!
u/acc be like
viewpointmag.com
Do you think if you sent Peterson this article and he read it that he'd have the good faith and intellectual humility to perhaps adjust his rhetoric and maybe even to admit some degree of rashness in his judgements? Do you think he'd put his head down to work things out more thoroughly, read more books, put pen to paper, engage more powerfully with the intellectual currents he wishes to understand and make accountable?
Obviously not, if he actually wanted to understand and engage intellectually with the postmodernists he would have already done so. But stopping being a demagogue isn't profitable.
haha /r/enoughpetersonspam amrite
yes unironically
I want peterson fags to get permabanned, there is like 10 threads daily about him
Another one
>be Jordan Memerson
>want to make a lot of $$$ and gain notoriety quickly
>perform the brave, heroic act of refusing to use someone's gender pronouns
>get worshiped as a hero by autists on the internet for whining about a letter he received from the school's faculty
>never receive any actual death threats, never have his life threatened, never actually get censored, never get imprisoned, never even get fired from his job
>simply whining about gender pronouns and being a professor of psychology is enough to be labelled a martyr for free speech by gullible anti-SJWs on the internet who desperately want an authority figure to affirm their whining
>whine about postmodernism and the cultural marxist boogeyman, even though postmodernism is a massive, broad subject never cite any actual literature or works or books by postmodernist authors or the Frankfurts, just say "they're all dumb guys trust me" like a true academic while occasionally namedropping Foucault or Derrida without actually addressing any of their arguments
>give the anti-SJWs you conned an imaginary enemy to blame all their problems on, while posing yourself as a hero when you've done jack shit and ironically whine about virtue signalling in academia while proposing no actual solutions to the postmodernist boogeyman
>fearmonger about a Canadian bill that you didn't even bother reading that was just a slight modification of a previous human rights bill that has already been in effect for decades, only it added "gender identity" to the list of criteria that you can't discriminate someone for and doesn't even affect universities because it only has federal jurisdiction
>virtue signal about how you would go on a hunger strike if you were arrested because of this bill, even though to this day no one has been arrested because of it and there isn't a single shred of evidence in the legislation or court records suggesting that would happen
>claim that a disgruntled twitter employee deleting trump's account is treason, then delete your tweet when everyone calls you out
>make 65k US dollars a month on Patreon from gullible morons who think you're brilliant for making glorified vlogs that spout Jungian purple prose, whine about children's movies being feminist propaganda and make vague, whiny criticisms of postmodernism that isn't backed by any actual evidence
Ah yes we have a true """intellectual""" on our hands.
>>perform the brave, heroic act of refusing to use someone's gender pronouns
In this day and age it's pretty courageous to not affirm the lunacy of these people.
He's never read Derrida
Lol I read this at the exact moment that he started tearing into Derrida on the podcast I'm listening to.
No one really has. Derrida is literally unreadable. People just pretend that his work has any meaning.
your first principle is that this sort of orwellian language twisting isn't actually worth fighting against, which is wrong. he's risked his career and public image at least, which is more than many have done. at least for this, it is worth taking notice of the man.
>No one really has.
>Here's my opinion anyway
Stop embarrassing yourself
i love derrida, but the reason i love him the most is because he's the ultimate bottleneck for Veeky Forums charlatans :)
Agree'd, it wasn't guarantee'd he would get 60k Patreon bucks or wouldn't lose his job.
Also while you may not get arrested for refusing to use someones pronouns(including things like xim/xee/xir) you can be arrested for refusing to pay the fine which is Petersons point.
Stop drinking the fluoride, buddy.
I have read it to categorize myself higher and others lower.
Me
>Genius
Others
>Brainlets
In this case, it's just as valid as anyone else's. I've eyeballed some of the words he wrote, and that's as close as anyone has come to reading them.
>refusing to use someone's gender pronouns
Except that's not what happened. You're only 3 lines in and already lying. Sad.
so how many times has he (or anyone, for that matter) been arrested since the bill passed
Oh right, he said that on that youtube video that only true intellectuals watch. What was it, "JBP ANNIHILATES IDIOT SJW reporter on channel 4 news MUST WATCH"?
He only hypothetically refused to use someone's pronouns, making him an even bigger hypothetical hero.
>Derrida is literally unreadable.
How solidly are you grounded in Heidegger? Which of his works have you read?
What an impressive piece of writing. Thank you.
Honestly no, Jordan wouldn't even finish it, least of all admit his folly. He is not a bad man or a cash-grabbing con, but he is old and very proud.
I'm hoping his work will open the door for some people to some more advanced philosophy.
SEETHING
Nobody because there was no enforcement mechanism in the bill. It didn’t make anything ‘illegal’, it was just the government of Canada declaring they officially Frown Upon people discriminating against trans people. It’s a very British remnant, a royal ‘tut-tut’ against uncouthness. Peterson can go on to be an international celebrity professor, becoming rich and famous and nothing happens.
> He rose to fame when he was captured on video at a protest on the University of Toronto campus, telling transgender students he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns. He has since joined the ranks of Logan Paul and PewDiePie as a YouTube star. He mostly eschews writing, instead posting videos of lectures online for his primarily young, white, and male audience.
fittingly snarky beginning
My own prejudices were a little rocked by having enjoyed that article and then seeing it was written by someone whose other articles included "Interracial Love Songs in American Country Music", "The Safety Pin and the Swastika" and "A Butterfly Reads History" and whose name is Shuja Haider - "a writer and musician based in Brooklyn." I'd ignore it all as not worth my time. I'd dismiss the author as someone I'd certainly not get along with in real life: perhaps I still wouldn't. Nevertheless, there is something of value. Not like most of the shit I sink my time into would give anyone positive illusions about my intellect.
Then again, doing a brief Google search turns up articles on other websites like Jacobin that are a little more interesting, like "Liberal Anti-Politics", even if it still revolves around relatively obvious college left canards.
The Logan Paul and Pewdiepie association is terribly polemic and rather pathetic.
Based JBP keeps on triggering salty cultural marxists. Are you also donating to the cause?
It gets worse.
>This strange conspiracy theory has increasingly gained traction among the far right, famously appearing in 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, the manifesto Anders Brevik distributed before he murdered 77 people in Norway.
and
>Like all the classic conspiracy theories, the antisemitism here is barely concealed. One proponent of the theory, psychologist Kevin MacDonald, has argued that cultural Marxism is an expression of what he calls a “group evolutionary strategy” characteristic of Jewish people. MacDonald acknowledges that not all Jews are radical leftists, but, argues that regardless, these movements are “Jewishly motivated. This repellent association hasn’t stopped the theory from being taken up by mainstream political pundits even today"
It's a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination underpinned by some pretty standard "in-the-know" discourse about left postmodernism.
Go back to /r/ChapoTrapHouse
Peterson's rhetoric about postmodernism is deceptively simple and does appear to have inherited quite a lot of its heft from the 'cultural Marxist' (read: bloody neo-marxist) narrative disseminated by paleocons and dull journalists like Bill Whittle.
For me it's not so much the alleged latent anti-Semitism in Peterson's doctrine than it is the fact it so heavily resembles the rhetoric of paleocon and white nationalist intellectual lightweights.
I don't have the impression that it resembles that at all. Can you show me any examples?
i want /pol/ to leave
Buchanan:
youtube.com
Whittle:
youtube.com
youtube.com
Of course, there's reason to be skeptical of the association. Two people describing a cultural phenomena are going to have literary similarities. At the same time, the simplicity and the indignant force of the accusation seems borrowed.
>there are women only because men benefit by excluding them
This is inherently sexist, denying the existence of women, and it makes women rely entirely on men for their existence. Into the trash it goes.
I see what you mean. Either way, I would hope Peterson's "insights" (there aren't many, but at least he is championing some of their ideas, or his interpretation of them) on Jung, Nietzsche, Eliada etc., that make up his psychological view of religion and his political activism can be disconnected.
>According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed).
>Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical.
That isn't a radical claim at all, though. It's basically self-evident.
they emergerd ONLY to include and exclude? are you certain about that?
You didn't answer my question. Guess you're one of them. Never respond to any of my posts again, BUCKO.
This is not what Derrida says. This is a popular misreading of Derrida. All big D says about hierarchies is that they're usually arbitrary. A thing is only better or worse than another thing when you establish a framework that says so.
Let's do an example with cars.
>I think the fastest car is the best
>Therefore, I say my ferarri is the best
>You think the most durable car is the best
>Therefore, you say your hummer is the best
>We reach an impasse because we're judging based on different criteria
>Unless we argue over the criteria rather than the cars, we won't get anywhere
"Best" doesn't have meaning on its own. It only has meaning in relation to another, more specific superlative. This is a point that's been made by many philosophers, including Stirner, Nietzche, and many folks in the analytic canon. Derrida just applies it a bit further than usual — specifically, to gender, race, and truth hierarchies. It's not a moral claim, and it has nothing to do with "oppression." It just points out that we're assuming certain criteria make for the best things.
what are they going to do? huff at you and bar you from their facebook farm? if you're scared of one of them, i suggest taking self defense classes and stopping being a girl
you don't understand this highly intellectual way of thinking user
trannies = liberals = globalists = postmodernists = neomarxists = communists = jews
if we don't stop trannies now they're going to ruin western civilization and white people forever
fact of the matter is, he got on TV and was literally accused by a transgender studies professor of transphobia, abusing students, hate speech, and it was suggested that he should pay for his misgendering 'crime' with jail time. That was exactly what he said could happen by approving that legislation.
Derrida is partially correct but where it sounds like he fucks up is when he starts to lament these things, as if they are wrong. They're not. Men will divisiveness because they want to, and only women and fags have a problem with that.
you know you can't get trannies pregnant right? she's lying to you about having a dick before if she's not pregnant with the antichrist.
>Derrida is partially correct but where it sounds like he fucks up is when he starts to lament these things, as if they are wrong. They're not.
He doesn't say they're wrong, he says they're inevitable. Though he'd probably say we were both right in other ways and something about Greek.
this is an excellent point that i haven't thought of before, thank you for bringing it up. made me think really hard
it's cool bro, if it is the antichrist he's probs okay with you skipping out on child support anyways
>what are they going to do?
In Canada? Literally take you to court, as it's now illegal to not use people's personal made-up pronouns.
You mean in Canada where they're trying to get even Superior court cases heard in under 3 years? They'll be back to their original gender by the time I sue them for costs and damages.
all this post is false
>implying truth
>on Veeky Forums's second fiction board
no wonder these people think they have an argument with those other crazies. would you like to invest in my pyramid scheme?
You can almost HEAR the goalposts shifting...
>haha just don't worry about the fact that the state is on their side it's just a joke lol
I'm hearing money in damages and I say bring it on. Do you think the SJW tranny is going to get a better lawyer from the government? Kek, which province do you live in?
It's blatantly obvious you've never dealt with the justice system in any way, shape or form, so just stop littering the thread with your delusions. You're like a kid trying out Kung Fu moves in front of the TV while watching Bruce Lee explaining how you would totally beat anyone's ass in a fight.
>the State is on their side
It's not though. That law protects my right to call everyone he, she, or whatever the fuck I want, and they would lose in front of any judge, most of which are conservative around here. If anyone bothered to try to sue me, it probably wouldn't even make it to court by the time they'd need to show up in drag, and most judges would kick it and charge them with at least their costs, which means no money for tittieskittles for months and I win the countersuit that says they've stopped taking their medication for six months after the trial.
You're so scared of going to court when the law and most judges would award you money for putting up with their bullshit, and probably award it by how many years you had to wait around for the court. It's a better money maker than bitcoin and that's why not a one of them will sue.
Which province are you in that your judges are cucked? Are you a drunken crackhead native that you've ever lost an argument with a policeman?
>Viewpoint Magazine aims to understand the struggles that define our conjuncture, critically reconstruct radical history, and reinvent Marxism for our time. Viewpoint is therefore neither a socialist news source nor an academic journal. It is a militant research collective.
Nobody whose literary or philosophical tradition stretches back to John Locke (and by extension, Marx) is worth reading.
Discuss.
Children calling other children children
>Veeky Forums: the post
No, but their very core rely on integrating / excluding people from the common law, and the clearest act of that is the separation of certain classes of non/sub-citizens thorough the history of law and the state.
I thought we had been through this already
Doesn't Peterson prove this wrong with his whole lobster meme?
who's that guy?
>It's not though. That law protects my right to call everyone he, she, or whatever the fuck I want
lol, except they literally made canadian lawyers sign a paper where they agree to be progressive to be able to exercise their job
To say that hierarchical structures rely on exclusion seems incorrect.
If anything I'd say they have the intent of eliminating exclusion whenever possible as its not conducive to their function.
Exclusion will always exist in practice but really that's regardless of the presence of hierarchy.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of sensible judges, but there are plenty of radical leftists judges too. And it's only going to get worse the longer these people have a strangle hold on government. They're not losing political power, they're gaining it and there's no real organized opposition to them.
>In this day and age it's pretty courageous to not affirm the lunacy of these people.
no it's fucking not, half of the internet is now dedicated to this hobby
Organic / spontaneous or temporary hierarchical structures might not, but that is definitely the case with law and the state.
>da interweb is reel life
that is a poorly written,idiotic text
>lol, except they literally made canadian lawyers sign a paper where they agree to be progressive to be able to exercise their job
Yeah and that would be the kind of thinking that lets me say it's my religious belief that's a goddamn tranny.
The radical leftists don't tend to swing that way though. They do retarded shit sure, but normally it's retarded shit like That guy innawoods claiming to be Jesus/Allah and hacking his wives to death and disfigurement is just getting back to nature and being free. Conservative judges do retarded shit too like that guy who started slutwalk, but normally their principle isn't as harmful and generally rewards the person who says This is fucking nonsense and a waste of money.
We are upset that he reflects our very essence back at us through a dark mirror. When we see Peterson taling about a book he's clearly only pretended to have read with due consideration. When he keeps cycling through the same 5 thinkers, indicating he hasn't familiarized himself with a diverse range of philosophical perspectives. When he sticks his neck out and continuously misuses complex and nuanced terms like "postmodernism" hoping that it will stick and he'll continue to have a seat at the table. When he does these things the average Veeky Forumsizen, being on average neurotic and overly self-aware, is left to think "my god, that's me!" and this is very unsettling for us when we are trying to play at being bonafide intellectuals on this Laotian escort service.
Dreadfully written article, how could anyone take this seriously with such loaded language?
I always imagined we sounded more like Miss Piggy than Kermit. What does this mean, Herr Doctor?
>Dreadfully written article, how could anyone take this seriously with such loaded language?
>on Veeky Forums
rebbit's calling out for you to come home, doublenigger
we're takng Peterson's retractable big one
>implying Kermit is on top in that relationship
I see you're getting your children's programmes' analysis from that pseudoJungian hack.
>article full of character assassination
>hyperbole and loaded language
>obviously pushing an agenda
Yes I should really trust what this article is telling me. Definitely pursuing the truth.
>but they said MEAN THINGS in a critical article
>ZOMG THEY MIGHT EVEN OVER STATE THINGS FOR EFFECT
>I like my agendas to be subtly massaged into my brain Manchurian Candidate style
>also in a pleasant tone to read like sparkle pens :33
I wouldn't trust you with yourself to be honest, petal.
You convinced me 2+2=5
did you know all your french lit heroes, derrida, foucault, althusser, sartre, deleuze, guatarri and so forth signed a petition against laws of consent in 1977? that adulthood is just a social construct anyways? that they are effectively pedo-enablers? this is 100x worse than anything Peterson has ever done.
*age of consent
Yes, Did you know Veeky Forumss favourite books are about abducting loli and fart and shit porn? And you're wrong about that list, and left off Beauvoir, in favour of Sartre who is widely considered to have butchered Heidegger. You're also assuming they're the ones who wrote the loli porn we like, when that was written by a nobleman from Russia who was ousted by the Communists and argued to bomb them back to the primordial slime they are to the New Yorker. You're left here.
what's exactly wrong with the article? It doesn't even mention Peterson that much, it just mentions his insane jump to conclusions and ridiculous oversimplification of Derrida, Foucault etc
When you consider the power disparity between those who do this and those who oppose then, it is very courageous.
Ulysses is about Jews getting cucked and suffering from premature ejaculation. You're thinking of Joyce's love letters, not his novels.
What about Chamber Music?
also reminder that Peterson's only experience with postmodernism is some meme book by Stephen Hicks which 1) almost no one heard of and 2) was widely discredited by everyone who did read it. it's a joke
see
It's possible to write a composed, neutrally worded criticism but the author seems more interested in writing an article that dogwhistles to far left readers and shows an excess of ridiculous hyperbole
>Butchered Heidegger
>Placed in top three of "worst philosophers" poll
doubtful
have you never read a critique before? you're just getting triggered that the author threw some jabs at Peterson in 3 sentences out of a 4750 words article. Grow up.
>grow up.
But user.. Do you know where we are?