Curiosity got the better of me

>Watching 8 hours of his lectures
Dear God, how can you do this to yourself? He rambles and rambles and rambles, an hour of his stuff is enough to practically put me to sleep!

Sure.

So what I think he gets wrong is that he uses far too many of the "triggering" examples of dumb people that take equality to ridiculous extremes rather than engaging with the actual body of postmodern thought and the concerns it has about the nature of human rationality, motivated reasoning, and internal biases.

Probably, but I'm not going to abandon it and hope to give it more structure.

He may be a positive influence in the same way that religion is (and I believe it is), but ultimately I also think he's perhaps unintentionally perpetuating a tendency toward ideological stubbornness that doesn't overall help the already fractured common discourse.

autism

I will define postmodernism for you but first we need to talk about modernism.

Modernism is a rejection of the traditions of classicism but with a reverence for the goals of classicism. It attempts to take those core themes which were primarily explored only by and for members of the upper class (because they were the only ones with the time to enjoy art, read philosophy, etc.) and repackage them for the general public. This involves stripping away anything that played to effete sensibilities of the upper class and focused on developing new techniques that more accurately reflect the common person's experience with the modern world. Overall, I'd say modernism's defining characteristic is a belief in the power of human rationality and ingenuity. When I think of Modernism, I think of the type of 1950s sci-fi optimism about the future.

Postmodernism is a reaction to that optimism. Its proponents look at WWI and WWII ( along with the incomprehensibly complex, accelerating, fluctuating world where there is no longer a church everybody goes to or a democracy that anybody really believes in) and they question that belief in human rationality because of the abuses and horrors that they view as being caused by that modernist belief in the power and innate good of rationality. The line of thinking is, if a panel of the most well informed and technically proficient scientists in history willingly got together to work on a bomb capable of killing millions of people in minutes, then what good is their contribution anyway? The postmodernists essentially say that the modernists were wrong to keep even the goals of the classicists and that there is something inherently wrong in those goals and worldviews if the abuses we see daily are still possible in modernism. The defining characteristic of postmodernism in my mind is a pessimism about the ability of humans to overcome their animalistic nature, it questions the very assumptions and goals that people say they have using as proof for their skepticism the long list of abuses in the modern world.

The problem is that he isn't all that good. I do agree though that he has this effect on people because they are so lost.

That's not a rebuttal. That's a mischaracterization. The brunt of his work as a research psychologist has been trying to untangle postmodernist thinking from an individual/analytical perspective. He quite bluntly states, many times over, that postmodernism is a heap of jargon clouding an intense nihilism that is plaguing, in particular, the minds of men across our culture. He refutes the culture of critque and rejects pluralism. He even does so by directly calling out the founding philosophers and central tenets of the most popular and influential houses of post-modernist thought. The use of anecdotes is not meant to demonstrate that he's right, but rather that the problem is already worse than most people recognize. The "ridiculous extreme" is not the fringe, they are the fanatical. If you can't recognize that, than you're deeply ideological.

there seems to be a kind of contradiction in postmodernism where it builds its pessimism off of the failure of modernism to live up to a certain ethical standard but also violently rejects any attempt to clarify this standard
put another way, postmodernism doubts the efforts of the modernists, but those same arguments cut the branch out from under the postmodernists and they send themselves plummeting to the earth.
Granted, I'm not well-read on the subject or anything, but I'd like some clarification on this point.

But wait, we can't talk about modernism until we talk about classicism. And we can't talk about classicism until we talk about Christianity. And we can't talk about Christianity until we talk about the Jews. And we can't talk about the Jews until we talk about the ancients. And we can't talk about the ancients until we talk about primordial man. And we can't talk about primordial man until we talk about the nature of being. And we can't talk about the nature of being until we talk about the nature of perspective. And, but, now, uh oh--we're back to post-modernism.

shitty post
>Hegel is postmodern
stop it

You're right. No one else ever talks about perspective. The dialectic has nothing to do with framing. Foucalt doesn't matter. Derrida doesn't matter. Eco doesn't matter. How silly of me.

I don't think it's incredibly cohesive and certainly less so than actual philosophers.

Mostly I think that people that watch don't actually understand (or critically think about) most of what he's saying in the philosophical parts so they just nod along and then the part they really like and engage with is when he just tells them the self-help advice.

I just committed to it. I wanted to make sure I gave him a fair shake before writing him off. It definitely was a slog at certain parts.

>He quite bluntly states, many times over, that postmodernism is a heap of jargon clouding an intense nihilism that is plaguing, in particular, the minds of men across our culture.
I think that characterization of postmodernism is fundamentally incorrect. Postmodernism is concerned with truth and what to do in an increasingly abstract and alienating world in precisely the same way as Peterson. The problem I think is that Peterson lacks the perspective to see this and instead truly believes in his mischaracterization of it as just dumb jargon.

Postmodernism is about the crisis of truth. The problem is that it doesn't build anything out of it. This is precisely the problem that Nietzsche thought would happen after the death of God and the reign of nihilism. Nietzsche was more optimistic about the ability of man to overcome this though than postmodernists.

This is why people like Peterson, he gives them hope in a hopeless world but I think his hope is a false hope because he falls into the same traps as previous schemes. I don't think Peterson's return to classicism is the answer though.

You know, I don't like Post Modernism that much because it makes me feel bad, and I want to feel that optimistic spirit from modernism but when you look at the state of the world right now, I find it very difficult not to agree with that pessimism of the postmodern.

The time it took you to write this you could have actually made an attempt to think critically about what we're discussing.

>You're right.
thanks
>No one else ever talks about perspective.
no one important
>The dialectic has nothing to do with framing.
"the" dialectic frames itself, and exists independent of human thought
>Foucalt doesn't matter. Derrida doesn't matter. Eco doesn't matter.
yes, and?
>How silly of me.
we all make mistakes

>lacks the perspective
Ad hominem.

Demonstrate. All you're giving is exposition. Where is the action? Stop describing your thoughts, and provide an argument. Give premises, show evidence. Stop with the summary. You have no authority.

In what universe is a Jungian exegeses of the Bible considered classicism?

he just got it wrong, doesn't matter how

>you could have actually made an attempt to think critically
no u

If you can't prove it, why am I to believe that you have it right?

easy there drax.

yes, he just has "common sense" advice, but "common sense" is good enough for the current degenerate state we live in

Too bad he is not reactionary enough and he is just a meme liberal that wants everyone to go back living like the baby boomers, which will never happen and things will get way more "interesting" than that, now that the left has opened the can of worms of defining equality as 50/50 outcomes, they have singlehandedly dynamited the concept of equality, so that's not going to work anymore as a principle to symbolically structure society

based hyperbole poster

>Peterson is 80% self-help and 20% philosopher
He's a psychologist wat u expect

i dont give a shit about how he mischaracterizes the french postmodernists or whoever it only matters how he characterizes the present day left.
He has more naunced ideas than most pop conservaties.

believe me man, i know exactly what postmodernism is, i'm an expert, but that's not the point, he got it wrong

what nuanced ideas might those be

doesn't matter what they are, just that they are nuanced

I like him because his self-help advice is specific and useful, and he does a good job explaining why you should follow it. And he's been a clinical psychologist for most of his life, so it's not just empty Tony Robbins platitudes. I see it as free counseling. I don't listen to his philosophical arguments.

i would dearly appreciate an example or two

you wouldn't understand

An argument about what? I've explained what postmodernism means to me, how I think Peterson misconstrues it and that I think they both are actually approaching the same problem.

Tell me where you want me to elaborate.

I don't know too much about Jung. I would image it would be modernist though.

Once again, I think this is a mischaracterization of what postmodernism is actually concerned with. The "left" isn't synonymous with postmodernism and in general is not thinking critically about the value of truth any less than the modern rightists are.

>He has more nuanced ideas than most pop conservatives.
That isn't saying much.

Well, at least your honest about it. I wish more people were willing to admit that he's mainly a self-help person. The real problem comes when people start talking about Cultural Marxism and how Peterson is a defender of western thought, which is just plainly ridiculous.

>Once again, I think this is a mischaracterization of what postmodernism is actually concerned with. The "left" isn't synonymous with postmodernism and in general is not thinking critically about the value of truth any less than the modern rightists are.
my post said nothing about postmodernism, so not sure what kind of response is this

Do you subscribe to any "cultural marxism" conspiracy theories?

do you subscribe to any 'capitalism' conspiracy theories

I think capitalism is a criminally underrated system that has done some immensely good things for the world, I also think that there are many people that like to ignore the more negative and coercive elements of capitalism because this duality makes them uncomfortable.

i don't think there's any conspiracy, a conspiracy requires secrecy, there are plenty of leftist teachers and degrees on the university and leftist authors that will openly claim to be subversive

whether you want to take them seriously on their own word or not, is your choice

...

...

Look, I think the problem with this assumption is that you think they are actively and maliciously doing things without actually considering the arguments thy put forward for their belief system.

This is something I believe Peterson is guilty of too. There is a claim that the only thing wanted is to "protect free speech" from censoring liberals but this too I believe is a mischaracterization since I don't think you are actually willing to engage in any kind of discourse with a liberal and to actually attempt to see things from their perspective.

If you think you are, why don't we try? What is something, anything really, that you think liberals do or believe that you hate?

You know the argument in the Authoritarian personality? That antisemitism, for example, is the result of derangement on the part of the antisemite and has nothing to do with Jews.

That is exactly the same argument being made about the guy who wrote the book. That his hatred of Western culture is due to him, not the culture.

'but he doesn't say he hates western culture'. Most antisemities don't just say they hate Jews either

Also most of us used to be liberals, so it's ridiculous to say that we don't understand the perspective

Do you think that liberals hate western culture?

Depends how you define Western culture obviously. I think liberals refuse to coherently define Western culture.

There is an element of it that they absolutely despise though, I mean seething contempt and hatred. It is the poor, Christian, white, patriarchal family.

Yeah, I definitely disagree with this characterization.

The contempt is not for the White Christian Patriarchial Family, it is that the so many people in positions of power are White Christian Men and that they collectively do not consider the ways in which their being White Christian Men may in many ways negatively affect the lives of people that aren't White Christian Men.

Now, I will not deny that there are people that do actually "hate" western culture for this reason but I do think that it is far less common than you and Peterson would imply from your readings of clickbait articles about how a kindergarten in California said that the kids weren't allowed to have best friends or whatever nonsense stories come up.

I don't know anything about Peterson, he doesn't have much to do with the actual extreme right.
But this is not based on clickbait articles about kindergartens. It,s based on academia, journalism, and the actual laws of western countries.

Many people in power are Jewish men, but I somehow think you wouldn't want to consider the ways in which they negatively impact the lives of people that aren't Jewish men. Might I be right about that particular assumption?

In any case I am not some championer of Western culture, but as I see it, the Leftist project in general is defined by antipathy to Western tradition. I don't think I have ever seen a leftist praise the traditions of the West except in some Orwellian 'diversity is our tradition' sense

Not Veeky Forums. People on this board need to stop discussing public speakers and start actually reading. If you want to know what a philosophy entails or what a proper assault on one is like, you have to read.

weak

>censoring liberals

makes about as much sense as anarcho-fascist. what a time to be alive.

>Many people in power are Jewish men
Many fewer than people on the right think, especially in western countries. Overwhelmingly the people in positions of power here are White Christian Men.

>I somehow think you wouldn't want to consider the ways in which they negatively impact the lives of people that aren't Jewish men
I think you're implying something altogether different here than you think you are. No one has a problem with criticizing abuses of power for any reason. Liberals are extremely critical of Israel because it constantly abuses the power it has over Muslim minorities and the Palestinian state. This conflict and criticisms are explicitly tied to their religions, yet we are still able as a society to parse the difference between an anti-semite and someone that dislikes the overreach of the Israeli state.

Similarly, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between the people that hate all white people and the people that hate the ways in which a state run almost entirely by White Christian Men might, even just through carelessness, negatively impact the lives of people in that country that aren't White Christian Men.

the media is run by jews to a surprisingly disproportionate degree. that should give one pause.

I've been reading JR lately, want to talk about a book?

People on the left and right constantly criticize the media. It seems like what you want is for them to criticize them because they are jewish and not based on any merits (or lack thereof) in their reporting.

It worked guys, we actually got him

I agree that White Christian men have more power than Jews do in the West. On the other hand academia spends inordinate amounts of time criticizing white christian men, whereas criticizing Jews as a group is just not even allowed. I don't mean Israel, I mean criticizing American Jews as a group, for example. You're not even supposed to notice that they're so successful.

Also the numbers are not really that debatable, Jewish overrepresentation is just kind of a fact.

Btw this is not leading into me saying the Jew control the world, I dont think that. Im just illustrating the discrepancy in how Jews and Christians are treated. This treatment comes from academia, journalism, the civil service, etc. and it is entirely from Leftists.

The conclusion I draw is that this is not a dispassionate neutral criticism of power, it is specifically targeted against white Christians. For another example of this double standard, patriarchy in Islam is rarely denigrated, but the merest hint of it in the West is the subject of unendign witch hunts.

Peterson is perhaps the biggest joke in history.

Make a thread for it.

>ecause they are jewish and not based on any merits (or lack thereof
Well then why focus on white christian men being white christian men? WHy not focus on their merits or lack thereof?

You don't see the double standard?

We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes. Why? Because like you stated, White Christian men have more power in the west. Same with patriarchy in Islam. It is simply not generally their fault in western countries if things are fucked up. Usually it is generally the fault of White Christian Men.

In Saudi Arabia? It's generally the fault of Arab Muslim Men.
In China? It's the fault of Chinese (Atheist?) Men.

White Christian Men also face the most criticism internationally because of the benefits the west received during colonialism as well as the tendency for both the US and the USSR to intervene in other countries around the world since the end of WWII. China of course also gets a huge amount of international criticism for doing the same thing today in much of southeast asia.

I think the difference is, We (And I'm talking about myself and you) are White Christian Men and so we notice more when it is us that is criticized. It is our choice wether we take that criticism as a personal attack. And I'm not saying it always isn't, I'm just saying that it would be good to deploy a little discretion every now and then about this issue rather than assuming that it is only you and the people like you receiving criticism.

>We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes
Asians are discriminated against in university applications and various quotas. Nothing comparable exists for Jews evne though they are even more overrepresented(it did exist in the early 20th century).

I take your point about it being mostly the fault of white Christian men in western countries. But it is reductionist to say that it is just white men against everyone. If jewish men control 20% of teh positions of power why is that not relevant?
Colonialism is a different discussion that you and I would probably find pointless to engage each other with.

Finally though, I disagree that we are just being sensitive. White christian men are the only ones subjected to constant overt criticism. You can argue that this is fair because we,re in power, which you have done, but you can't seriously pretend any other demographic gets anything like the public criticism we do.

I am not saying we have it worse than other demographics, obviously we don't. I am purely talking about public discourse here

Turthfully, I don't think that discussing it in terms of the White Chrisitan Maleness of those in power is very useful outside of cases where it does actually manifest in some ways that disadvantage others as the result of those people in power being White Christian Men.

Right now, I think society is going through catharsis and really reckoning with our past and the ways that power has been abused or disproportionately administered. The are some exaggerations by the people doing the criticizing, the rhetoric has reached a fever pitch for sure but there is always backlash when appropriate. We are working out, as a society the new limits and that process can be painful especially for the group that benefitted the most from the previous status quo.

Overall, I think things will calm down after Trump leaves office, not simply because he's in office and such a polarizing figure but also because these changes take time.

I don't see it that way honestly. I have a much more pessimistic view of history. You could probably sum it up as 'oppressive power is conserved'. There is always a little minority, or several in uneasy alliance, just exploiting everyone else. Up until the society just collapses for whatever reason of course.

If white men are losing power(elite white men that is, WASP aristocracy in the US), then some other group or groups are gaining it.

We could go on discussing who these are, but I think fundamentally we disagree here on how history progresses. That is you think it progresses, in the sense of injustices being lessened over time by the distribution of power, and I don't.

>as I see it, the Leftist project in general is defined by antipathy to Western tradition
I would say any tradition, really.

>but I think fundamentally we disagree here on how history progresses. That is you think it progresses, in the sense of injustices being lessened over time by the distribution of power, and I don't.

Actually, I'm very pessimistic about human nature. I think the The History of the Peloponnesian War is the greatest book ever written precisely because it depicts man's inhumanity to man but I am optimistic about the United States as a project and I don't believe that we need to perpetrate injustices in order to keep some minority in check. Besides, White people in the US are too entrenched to actually loose their power in the US. At most I think you'll see tokenism which people will probably accept as grand and progressive.

waaaah leftists are satanists postmoderism is marxism and whatever else people tell me not to like I just got here from /pol/ let's have the 208th peterson thread of the week to keep drawing other brainwashed teenage cultists to this board

>I don't believe that we need to perpetrate injustices in order to keep some minority in check.
I don't believe that either. I think you might be surprised by what happens when whites become a minority though.

Only time will tell of course, so that's just an opinion with no weight.

Why is your understanding of postmodernism better than his. Why should I believe you?

And if Jung is modernist, and Peterson is following after him, how is he "reviving classicism"?

>Peterson styles himself as a maestro of introducing to uneducated into higher learning
>Wait a minute, I read his books and they are all intro level more centered around encouraging people to learn more than giving his own thoughts
WHY does this guy trigger people so much? Holy shit I'm so tired of seeing his face everywhere where the same people make the same obvious conclusions

>leftists are satanists postmoderism is marxism
>This is what liberals believe /pol/ believes
Worse than /pol/

You've been Peterspun!

We are trying. We've been trying for decades. But then we get censored, called racist, called fascist, and so on and so on. Your language gives you away: "There is a claim that the only thing wanted". Why do you depersonalize it so much. It is you who are actively avoiding conversation right now. This claim does not exist out there in the void. That is our argument. You deny us our argument, because if you actually heard it, you could no longer justify your treatment of us.

>the contempt is not for White Christian Patriarchial Family
>It is that they collectively do not consider the ways in which their being White Christian Men is a bad thing
This is a great example of what people are talking about when they bring up the indoctrination of cultural marxism. You used obfuscicating language to make it seem like your position was something other than what it is. You are only comfortable with white men in any position of wealth or power so long as they are so deferential to other people on the basis of gender and race that they effectively no longer have power even over themselves. You directly attribute the harm these people cause in society to their race and gender, but phrase it in a way that makes it seem like it is erased simply by their awareness of it. But for you to consider them truly aware of it, they would need to vacate themselves from any position of real authority and live their life according to the rules of other people who only have power on the basis of their historically "under-privelaged" race or gender. This new heirarchy, though, is just as baseless and inhumane as all the old systems were. No new injustice can bring justice to the past. You are trying to correct something that cannot be changed.

>We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes. Why? Because like you stated, White Christian men have more power in the west.
I always thought the reason that Asians are never mentioned is that they tend to ruin the oppressed minority narrative. It's impossible to reconcile the way Asians manage to be the highest performing ethnic group while also suffering from the same "non-white" discrimination and structural racism that Latinos and Blacks are exposed to without conceding that race itself plays only a minor role in success. Moreover, Asians are discriminated against in universities and some companies/fields, while other minorities receive positive discrimination in the form of affirmative action and diversity quotas.

Fortunately, ignoring Asians is actually surprisingly easy. Asians are quite small population-wise, tend to be quite insular and associate only with other Asians, and are very underrepresented in politics and activism.

The general consensus is that Peterson's view of postmodernism is terrible and inaccurate. This should hardly be a surprise. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher, and only spends perhaps ~5% of the book talking about postmodernism and Neo-Marxism (and he frequently conflates the two together). Nonetheless, Peterson is always attacked on these points because it is the lowest hanging fruit.

Dismissing the "self-help" in the book because of his view of postmodernism is absolutely idiotic. If you actually bothered to read the book rather than skimming it to reaffirm your preexisting biases, you would realize that almost of all of his arguments are based not on philosophy but rather either on modern psychology, personal anecdotes and clinical experience, or his interpretations of the Bible, the latter of which is as much philosophy as your average literary analysis is. But indeed, keep pointing to his interpretation of postmodernism as if it actually matters.

>We've been trying for decades
This is how I know you're full of shit, man. You haven't been around for decades. You're probably like 24 at most.

What do you think your argument is?

This is decidedly not what I am saying. I am making a point about how when you are a White Christian Male and the only people you talk to are other White Christian Males, You aren't going to be very aware when policies that you implement negatively affect people outside of your socioeconomic-ethnic-racial-religious group.

I do not want a Justin Trudeau who goes around correcting women that instead of "Mankind" they should say "Peoplekind" but I do think that people having more awareness of the experiences of others (and I mean this as the sociological "other") would only positively benefit society.

>Asians
You are missing the more important point which is that most Asians that come to the United States have money/education because the barrier to entry from say China or Vietnam is a literal ocean that requires all immigrants to have at least the means to get a trip here. Latino countries, however, share a land border with the US so anyone with the means to walk can make an attempt to enter the US.

Take India for instance. Currently the highest income by ancestry in the US are Indians, but India is an extremely poor country. If the US shared a land border with India, I would expect that we would see extremely disproportionately poorer indians in a similar way to Latinos.

>Peterson
If you want to contend that Peterson pretty good at self-help but not at much of anything else, I can't disagree but I just wish someone would tell some of his more rabid followers.

Peterson's not so bad. He's honestly the only voice in the corner of young men that seems to be genuinely individualistic. It's true he is lacking in solid grounding but he's excellent for fanning out the herd mentalities of 'male oppression' or 'patriarchy' that has spiraled into nonsense. Personally I don't like his ideas as much as the methods he uses to convey them. He talks rationally, confidently, and usually has decent practical advice.

Study Postmodernism, Feminism, Marxism and so on on your own. These terms don't have clear correspondences whatsoever and the most relevant of these will take years to clarify, plus they'll be codified into the philosophical movements of the future.

What do ya thinks after the Information Era? Authoritative-military states? Postmodern mass depression and cultist shenanigans? Philosophical/Transcendental enlightenment? Nuked to the stone age? Emu sovereignty of all civilization?

What do ya thinks after the Information Era?
Probably the second dark ages at the behest of folks like Trump.

I get the feeling that you felt dismissive towards him even before you started watching his lectures.

>it's a memerson thread episode

Join the FB group: Jordan Peterson Party Boat

>It's one of those episodes where you can turn it off and read a book instead

>actively engages in conversation
>"It is you who are actively avoiding conversation right now."

He literally asked you for your argument in :

>I believe is a mischaracterization since I don't think you are actually willing to engage in any kind of discourse with a liberal and to actually attempt to see things from their perspective.
If you think you are, why don't we try? What is something, anything really, that you think liberals do or believe that you hate?

And you start rambling about how he wont hear it. Present it. He asked you. I'm interested. Go for it. No one is censoring you.

I read through about half of his post and I feel I can finally pronounce the following.

OP is 80% homo lust and 20% shitposter.

>You know, I don't like Post Modernism that much because it makes me feel bad, and I want to feel that optimistic spirit from modernism but when you look at the state of the world right now, I find it very difficult not to agree with that pessimism of the postmodern.

I feel similarly. I admire Peterson for being able to explain and articulate the causes of this hopelessness in ways that make sense to lots of young males in Western society. But the more I try to understand his philosophy the less I see any unique answer to the pessimism and hopelessness.

I certainly did, but I'll admit he has more substance than I thought. I thought he was literally just a huckster. He's definitely read and understood Nietzsche though which is more than can be said for 90% of people that refer to Nietzsche.

Yeah, I mean truthfully there isn't an absolute answer and that scares many people.

Nietzsche's point, I believe, is that the real solution comes from within and can only be obtained on a individual scale as the result of deep personal contemplation.

That's my reading at least.

Oh shit, I missed this one.

I think Peterson's view of postmodernists is cartoon version of them. He doesn't really ascribe to them any sort of coherent motivation, he just talks about them as adherents to jargon or people acting maliciously to undermine social structures.

This is a dead giveaway that someone hasn't put much time into understanding an opponent. There is almost no one that acts actively maliciously and if your operating understanding of someone relies on that sort of reading it is almost certainly wrong.

Jung never makes the kinds of assertions that Peterson does about the I'll of society or the pathways to meaning. Peterson also never says that he does, he just uses Jung's work on personality types as an example of the type of organizing mental constructions that he believes are successful in describing reality which he is attempting to apply to the creation of a coherent moral philosophy.

The reason why I say he's a classicist is that he literally attempts to get the examples for his moral system from the classic myths and stories of Western Civilization. The fundamental problem that I would point out with this methodology is that it is hopelessly tautological since it seeks to validate the values of the past by looking at stories which exhibit the values of the past.

fixed. Couldn't even make out who it was supposed to be.

Instead of reading his self-help book, and realizing it was/labeling it as a self-help book, why didn't you read his magnum opus, Maps of Meaning? It's far more representative of what he says in his interviews which is naturally piecemeal and disallows for fuller articulation given the limited nature of the interviewing platform. I mean, let's say an audio version of the book was 80 hours long. Who is going to do an 80 hour interview? And never ask any questions? You're only getting a piece of his pie when you base your interpretation of him on such fragmentary slivers of stop-pause ruminations without proper contextual pretense or supplementary elucidation.

>This is decidedly not what I am saying. I am making a point about how when you are a White Christian Male and the only people you talk to are other White Christian Males, You aren't going to be very aware when policies that you implement negatively affect people outside of your socioeconomic-ethnic-racial-religious group.
Help me understand your view by pointing out any current or recent policies that did this?

>This is a dead giveaway that someone hasn't put much time into understanding an opponent. There is almost no one that acts actively maliciously and if your operating understanding of someone relies on that sort of reading it is almost certainly wrong.
It's almost like there is no such thing as foreign interests that could benefit from domestic problems or any kind of interest benefitting from someone's misfortune.
>The fundamental problem that I would point out with this methodology is that it is hopelessly tautological since it seeks to validate the values of the past by looking at stories which exhibit the values of the past.
He's a psychologist, he looks to why the stories and myths were created in the first place. He believes the reason to why is a glimpse into the human psyche.
>phone posting
>

>postmodern thinkers are russian bots!!!!

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

>!!!!
>reddit spacing
>first reaction being russia and not jewish strawman
My spider senses are tingling.

you're trying to reason with a person who unironically thinks the ebil jews control the world. What the fuck are you doing nigga

atleast this user has seemingly been in a thread before

It's pretty pathetic to see someone stave off a solid argument with accusations of "phone posting" and "reddit spacing"

>>postmodern thinkers are russian bots!!!!

>Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?
solid argument you got there
>so you're saying all postmodern thinkers are russian bots?

a bad thing I can say about Peterson is that he makes false statements. A good thing I can say is that he is not a nazi.

There is a left v right ongoing culture war.

The left finds a general in the likes of Hillary Clinton, narcissistic, hypocritical, man-hating...but ultimately benign. The alt right finds a general in trump, the same as Hillary + a little naziesque.

Both sides are vying for a feeling of superiority, dignity, anything to snuff out the feelings of insecurity, inferiority, loss, loserishness etc. Ideally, we could have a mental health awakening, address the underlying pathologies of left and right, and dispense with their respective hostile ideologies and tribalism...but that's just not in the cards. In lieu of that, the best we can hope for is that each side finds relatively benign leaders, that is, not nazis.

So do not begrudge them their Peterson, he is not a nazi, and those are pretty much your options at this point.