Dr. Sadler BTFO's Jordan Peterson

>youtube link
>types out "5 min in."
Do you even know how youtube works?

Sadler is right tho 100%

>Peterson's political partisanship
? He's pretty critical of both parties in the US. Granted, I don't know much about Canada's system or his thoughts on that.

Why does Peterson trigger you guys so much? He's trying to preserve classical liberal values, you shouldn't have a problem with him unless you're some social justice commie faggot

Attached: BowedHotArgentineruddyduck-size_restricted.gif (332x359, 3.93M)

And he's afraid of calling out the Jew for the over 20 million Christians they murdered and for their blatant scheming and hypocrisies.;
youtube.com/watch?v=lAqcge10Mfc

Does he admit he's a christian now? Last video I saw he refused to answer and just said he lives as if god exists.

Why does he sidestep the question in such a theatrical way? Why not just say "I have no comment on the question sir" instead of pacing around with the word "kike" on the tip of his tongue knowing that if he says it he loses all of his joocy book deals and patreon moneys.

Girard's theories "BTFO" Peterson's quasi-gnostic bullshit while Peterson was still an alcoholic on anti-depressants.
Hell, a simple reading of Augustine would be enough to disprove his entire "bible lectures"
It's seriously getting old.

Attached: thstfotw.jpg (400x600, 20K)

Yeah, as far as I know he has always been Christian as far as his public persona is concerned.

Good question. I assume he is looking for a way to answer it and sees how his future will fail at each point. I don't suspect that he is saying something important about Jewish hegemony by not saying anything at all, but that's probably the result of this anyway.

Imagine thinking that these were our only two choices or something

>Hell, a simple reading of Augustine would be enough to disprove his entire "bible lectures"
What do you mean? I've read Augustine but I don't know what you could be referring to.

>
watch Peterson sidestep questions about the literal resurrection of jesus christ

Peterson is not a christian. He claims his biblical letures are "psychological interpretations of the bible" but really they are biblical interpretations of Jungian psychology.

>mfw

Attached: lsd.jpg (600x450, 59K)

That isn't what partisanship means dumbass. And techincally both parties are right wing

Because he attracts brainlets (like you), who now have an outlet to intellectualize their idiotic ideas. The SJWs might be idiotic and borderline mentally ill, but JP is only noteworthy as having the balls to try to shut them up. Everything else about him is garbage.

damn you really showed that guy who asked why peterson triggers retards like you by getting triggered

because he decries things he has no understanding of, hasn't read, and approaches as uncharitably as any tv media hack. i'm fine with conservatism, Christianity, classical liberalism etc but he has simply been totally intellectually dishonest in his scattershot philosophizing.

Sadler>Zizek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Peterson

>classical liberal values
No worker rights and 16 working hours?

This post says more about the rest of north American intellectuals than him.

I'm literally a social justice commie faggot. What are you going to do about it, you fucking baby?

Attached: 4a93556712c17.jpg (372x527, 39K)

Child labor builds character.

its also eugenic, efficient and entertaining

Not him but give me your address and you'll find out.

Classical liberalism is gay as hell.

Attached: Soy.png (1045x1010, 1.01M)

Because precariat and being dumped in the reserve army of labour-zone is so much better, amirite, nothing like papa's revolution from above to give worker rights to the unemployed. Oh, and planned obsolescence too, as robots don't get worker rights and work 24 hours instead of 8 or 16. Now those are real values.

> getting triggered
Or maybe I just explained why he triggers me. You seem to think that having a strong reaction to something is bad. I have a strong reaction to bullshit, and indeed, am "triggered" by it.

Yeah it does say more about the sad state of affairs there.

JP fans really take his "inherent threat of violence" stuff to heart huh, even on the internet.

1v1 me irl fagtard

Peterson's assertions about "evil" which he calls "something which is not good" and evil is "diametrically opposed to good"- i.e. evil is a "thing".

evil for augustine is insubstantial, or, in the words of St. Peter Damien it is "nothing" (no-thing, nihil).

Peterson's skirts the line between Pagan dualist and a really bad Gnostic.

This is a pretty good summary of why he's hated so much. He's not just dishonest in his philosophy, but he's also a coward in regards to taking a motte-and-bailey stance on almost everything, and avoiding refuting the actual points of his critics in regards to his psychological-mystical-philosophical mess of a framework.

He's pretty much the definition of pseudointellectual - confident about shit he doesn't know anything about.

Shadilay XDDD

Capitalism is cancer
Gender is a social construct
Race is a meme
There is nothing inherently anti-western about Jewish behaviour
The USSR were ultimately the good guys in the Cold War and people will continue paying the price for the tragic defeat of international socialism for a long time to come

Despite arguing with alt-right idiots for years on this shitty website I've found no reason to deviate from these views, if anything I've just come to realise what terrible, spiteful, bitter people they all are.

He also advocates Jungian psychology which is pseudoscientific garbage and which other psychological experts reject for use in psychoanalysis and therapy.

imagine actually believing this shit

Attached: 1505874131131.jpg (750x747, 88K)

I unironically agree with all of this except the USSR being the good guys. They were better than the US of course, but that does not excuse their actions for example in Afghanistan.

>Because precariat and being dumped in the reserve army of labour-zone is so much better, amirite
Actually, all things considered, yes. Not that the situation is bad as you're suggesting, you dumb commie faggot.

Psychology is all pseudoscience
Jungian psychology is at least philosophically interesting

>Pagan dualist and a really bad Gnostic.
Nah, he goes even further and claims that his cherrypicked set of myths and cultural tropes reflects the fundamental truth of the human psyche, and of the universe (or at least, the innate human perception of the universe - but being a Christian he probably thinks these are more or less the same).

Of course he picks out examples that fit exactly his narrative ("oh yeah, EVERY culture considers society to be male and chaos/nature to be female"). Then he essentializes these tropes as the fundamental truths of the "hero", "masculine", "feminine", "order", etc. Even Campbell was more honest about this stuff's non-universality.

We can't forget the second part of his framework, which is justifying these tropes with "biology", again cherrypicking from evopsych (which is otherwise an ok discipline).

And finally his critique of "postmodernism", which is so retarded that anyone can see he doesn't even know what the term even means. Yeah the guy probably read a little Nietzsche at some point but his knowledge of any philosophical topic (even restricting to the west) is just abysmal.

I'm not a huge fan of the USSR but I just think realistically they mounted the only threat to western capitalism that meant anything. I'm ex-Yugoslav and sympathise with our unique form of socialism but it was unsustainable, depended on IMF gibs and degenerated to exploitation quite easily. You need to remove markets in the long run, they corrupt everything.

Well it's not that it's pseudoscience which is the issue - maybe JP admits that, idk, he should at least. He basically applies the Jungian archetype to literally every myth ever (of course omitting those that don't adhere), completely ignoring their historical and cultural significance in order to paint this nice, clean picture that his "universal symbols" are unquestionable.

It's philosophically interesting, and the principle of finding archetypes isn't bad. JP just has way too much faith in not only the method, but his own knowledge of the myths, religions and cultures of the world. The stuff he ends up saying either:
- Has been said before and isn't really much of a statement at all
- Is complete nonsesnse born of either ignorance of intellectual dishonesty, and pushed as some revealing of some hidden essence.
And of course in either case, he then makes the implication that behavior adhering to his universal essences is good, and behavior against it is bad, because "muh nature, as intended". No, can't be that humans develop culture to provide social structure that biology doesn't, nope.

>Jungian psychology is at least philosophically interesting
dude magic lmao

>which is otherwise an ok discipline
i mean it's fine as a concept and might be useful once neuroscience gets anywhere interesting, but as a discipline it seems to mostly be exercises in massive speculation supported by cherry picked evidence.

what parts don't you find believable??

>gender is social construct
i'm as socialist as it could get but to say that gender is a social construct is pretty dumb desu
human as part of mammal group (with the like of cat and dog, etc) clearly was born with either a dong, or vagene.

of course there is also a few case where people born with both reproductive organs, but it is very very rarely happened.

bone structure in males and females body aren't similar desu.
males and females DNA, chromosomal number aren't similar.

>source: i study genetics, biochem, animal physiology, and taxonomy in college

I agree. I meant "it's fine as a concept", not implying that it's produced consistently good results.
That said, there's a decent amount of evopsych which is ok if the claims aren't pushed to ridiculous strength. It just seems like a discipline where people aren't afraid to make pretty baseless conclusions and cherrypick, as you say. Probably because otherwise, they can't really make strong statements for an exciting paper.

Of evopsych in general? Well the common issues tend to be claims to universality (again, going back to this ignorance or dismissal of the role of culture and history), a tendency to be overly reductionist (often claiming a single ultimate cause of a behavior/social structure). It's pretty similar to the issues with JP's work - but he ties in mysticism and mythology into this mix - but both can definitely be criticized for an output of simple "just-so" arguments without much foundation.

The issue isn't that it isn't "believable", it's that if it wants to be a science instead of speculation, it needs to adhere to the rigor of science. It's pretty damn easy to take any social phenomenon and conjecture a biological basis for it, or a purely sociological one. Proving it is another matter. I think another issue is the frequency at which evopsych gets politicized. And this holds for both sides of the American political spectrum.

Clearly you're not as intelligent as you pretend to be.
To say that gender is a social construct in no way denies that sex exists and is biological. This is obvious but people don't actually engage with the arguments so they portray social constructionist as crazy people who are delusional and believe that people don't have genitals.
To say that gender is a social construct is simply to say that the social norms and expectations attached to "being masculine" and "being feminine" aren't essential qualities of sex, but cultural and historical contigencies, which usually amass a huge narrative of what males and females are "really like" that doesn't hold at all. Transsexual people are gendered differently while being of a specific biological sex, thus proving this point sufficiently.
The ultimate point is to question whether these norms and expectations hold any relevance outside of traditional pre-industrial societies, and whether they are coercive and damaging to individuals. This is a political end and I won't get into it here.

Gender is not a social construct, but the qualities, tropes, characterizations and roles for them, certainly are. There's definitely some universals, and definitely biology at work. But there's also plenty of stuff associated with gender which has nothing to do with it, like "Venus is inherently feminine" (which is obviously ridiculous, but people make far stronger claims). Males and females differ quite a bit, but that doesn't mean society has evolved to reflect those differences perfectly.

So yeah, biological gender is not at all a construct, but the "idea" or "essence" of gender which appears in the work of JP (which I assume is what we're talking about here) is mostly constructed and done so with pseudoscience and mythology - which isn't even universal. Even a child could prove that "gender is a construct" in this sense - just find a culture which views things differently - QED.

If someone claims that gender is a construct in terms of biology, they are a complete retard - I doubt this is a mainstream view. But see , he's basically saying the same shit as me - the general usage of this phrase is to refer to the "idea" of gender.

Is this guy's introduction to philosophy video lectures on YouTube good enough to get me a grasp of philosophy? My goal is to understand Nietzsche and the other Germans.

>traditional pre-industrial societies
They differ among these societies too, even among patriarchal, agricultural ones. Don't even need to consider hunter-gatherers or pastoral nomads. The Sumerians and Egyptians (and probably the Dravidians - given the non-Indo-European stuff in Hinduism that came from it), the OG civilization builders, had way different conceptions of gender, it's essences, the myths around it, and it's role in society. Why people can't understand how subtle this stuff is, or why it's subtleties tell us far more about the nature of humanity than making baseless claims of universality, is beyond me. But I guess plebs like simple stories.

Jungian psychology is straight up magic LMAO bullshit lad. Everything Jung said was already better said by Freud.

>They think biological gender isn't a social construct
Oh boi

Attached: butler-.png (743x446, 270K)

I said interesting, not 'true'

>Veeky Forums didn't change my views
duh
>Capitalism is cancer
Uncontrolled capitalism is, well regulated, like the one in Scandinavia, isn't.
>Gender is a social construct
It is. What lefties don't see is that something that is a social construct should not be written off as changeable and engineerable. Our social constructions are deeply rooted in basic human nature and also, some them are very useful (like valuing others' life, or the construct of private property)
>Race is a meme
yes
>There is nothing inherently anti-western about Jewish behaviour
yes
>The USSR were ultimately the good guys in the Cold War and people will continue paying the price for the tragic defeat of international socialism for a long time to come
You make yourself look very dumb, you know? I mean in a country where basic socialist stuff has never been implemented, like universal healthcare, I can see how socialism can seem good. But believe me, it's only good in moderation. (Just like capitalism). The USSR was not moderate in any way. Fuck commies. Also read Solzhenitsin.
>inb4 some fascist faggot wrote an anti-commie fantasy novel as if that proves anything
It's full of citations. It's not fantasy. It also tells you how the system works from a citizens perspective.

>Uncontrolled capitalism is, well regulated, like the one in Scandinavia, isn't.
>he thinks you can control global capital

cats, dogs, penises, vaginas, DNA, numbers, logic, and gender are all social constructs. there isn't a thing that isn't a social construct. they are all social constructs by nature of us being able to think about them and communicate with each other using them. come up with something you can't think or speak and then we can talk about stuff not being social constructs.

why do people always use Scandinavia as an example of good capitalism while Germany is much better

>nietzsche
>german
he was 100% pure sarmatian polish aristocratic blood. do not insult him by claiming he shared any blood with degenerated g*rmanic savages.

>social construct should not be written off as changeable and engineerable
Why can't it be changed? Other societies did and do things differently, and things change over time. A lot of social constructs aren't even that old, or that deep, people just believe them because the memes are saturated in our society.
> Our social constructions are deeply rooted in basic human nature
Not all of them, that's the key. And even the ones that do - that's naturalistic fallacy at it's best. There's nothing wrong with overriding nature for the sake of better society, and this itself is a common trope in societies. I agree that society must reflect human nature and biology though - we can't go against it too much. But the key is to find which parts of society are this fundamental, and which are not. And it's far too often that people who have an agenda in preserving their traditions (which again, aren't even that traditional in many cases) jump to one conclusion, while people who have an agenda to change the status quo to benefit themselves jump to the other.
> some them are very useful
Well yes, nobody is arguing here that society itself is bad, lmao.

Don't think you got the point of those posts, or are just trolling.

> Polish
> Sarmatian
> not Germanic
oh boy. besides, Sarmatians were violent with less art talent than Scythians, and were matriarchal cucks and Iranian shitskins by right-wing standards, don't know why any westerner would want to idolize them.

Yes, in a stupid sense everything is a social construct, the fact that I can't murder you without consequences is a social construct etc. But you are straight up being disingenuous if you ignore what people are getting at by talking about gender. Occuppying a gender is occupying a social space, a complex web of relations, expectations, limits and coercive institutions. These are important facets of living in a society that are worth talking about unless you're a retard. First world western countries are pretty decent when it comes to defying gender norms, but outside of those they present very serious obstacles to personal freedom and development.

Personally, coming from a family where my mother was constantly bellitled and abused, I can't even consider them human beings when people claim that women have nothing to complain about. It's wilfull ignorance of the shit that happens every day in most countries.

That's what I said

it's nietzsche's own OC meme you dip
>matriarchal cucks and Iranian shitskins by right-wing standards
uh maybe if /pol/ and MPC are how you've acquainted yourself with right wing thought

It's not the flow of the capital that should be controlled. It's the effects. That's why civilized countries have social nets and anti-monopoly laws.
fair enough
>naturalistic fallacy
Okay, yes, the shadow of that fallacy seems to be lurking here. BUT! The fallacy would be: certain behaviours appear in nature, therefore it's good. That's wrong. The truth is: stuff is happening because of biology, and it's no matter if it's good or bad, you can't do much about it.

Did he actually buy into the Sarmatian stuff? Thought he just liked the mustache.
And I suppose I should have said alt-right, because it's not just /pol/ (or MPC lul).

> and it's no matter if it's good or bad, you can't do much about it.
Alright, well you've replaced the naturalistic issue with that of reductionism: that human behavior is destined to follow it's biology completely. I addressed this already - society needs to reflect biology to a degree, but not all of biology is good for modern society, we aren't hunter-gatherers any more. The reality of biology cannot be changed, but that doesn't mean the social structures which evolved from are are:
1. Unique
2. Beneficial
Behavior in animals and humans is heavily shaped by environment and socialization. There's not "one thing" we were meant to be. There's often many social structures which would be equally valid in representing biology. And as mentioned, we also need to factor in if they are valuable in modern society.

And all this is actually a side point. My main point in the post was that there are constructs which don't have biological basis. There's a huge number of associations, ideas and roles assigned to genders which aren't rooted in biology at all. The subtle thing is, often they are somewhat biological in origin, but are shaped by culture for so long that it's hard to tell if they are fundamental. Again, looking at historical/other cultures as well as an unbiased look at biology and psychology, can help us find the answers, but the answer isn't always "well isn't biology so it's natural and you can't change it".

no i got it and am not trolling. i basically agree with the last two in spirit but i disagree with the notion that anything isn't a social construct. there is nothing we can think or speak that isn't subject to the same socio-evolutionary forces that the fact that we have hands or brains of a certain physical/chemical conformation are too. natural selection essentially says that genetic change is plastic to the environment (and so is sexual selection as a consequence in a roundabout manner). our ancestors have been living in social groups for millions of years and we never stopped. society is our environment.
human beings are socially constructed creatures and what we produce is therefore socially constructed. we can't step outside of ourselves and think with something other than our socially constructed brains. everything is socially constructed BECAUSE everything is biological; the distinction between social construction and biology is false.

>My main point in the post was that there are constructs which don't have biological basis
all constructs have a biological basis. if they didn't, we wouldn't even be able to conceive of them.
>The subtle thing is, often they are somewhat biological in origin, but are shaped by culture for so long that it's hard to tell if they are fundamental
culture is biological d00d. i'm not saying culture is static or any past or currently extant cultures are "right" and should be maintained or anything though. changing culture is evolution in action.

like i said he was memeing but he did claim to be of polish noble blood (which reads as aristocratic romantic sarmatism).

>all constructs have a biological basis.
At some level, yes. But the very existence of non-uniqueness undermines their universality is the point. That is to say, there are more than one social construct which adheres to biology. The differences between them then, are indeed due to construction, not the underlying biology. The might be due to environment, history, or just chance of how a culture developed. But implying that biology and culture have some one-to-one relationship is an absurd degree of reductionism.

> culture is biological d00d.
Look, I think we agree on other points here. But no, culture is not biological. It's biology, history, and (very importantly) environment. They all play off each other. A behavior or idea might evolve due to certain conditions, but when society changes, it's no longer ideal. And people in the past often came up with all sorts of irrelevant shit in culture, which has no biological basis. Are you implying that the structure of families, or of hierarchies, or of the way people see the roles of female and male gods for example, is biological? Please, humans don't differ enough in biology for genetic differences to explain the vast variance of these things between cultures. They CAN be explained through a combination of many pressures, like environment, lifestyle, history, but biology isn't the only one. Even animals change their sexual strategy in different environments, humans are no different.

>anything isn't a social construct
As said by the other guy, yeah this is true but it's somewhat irrelevant to the discussion - which was on specifically gender being a social construct. It's like if two people were arguing about what time a bus arrives, and you just show up to lecture them on the relativity of simultaneity or something. You're missing the point as to why we're saying what we're saying.

You make an interesting and very valid point though, yes there's things which we can't separate between biology and culture, but there's plenty of things that can. Humans' social groups have changed in nature and structure heavily through the ages, and there's not one way of life we're evolved for - we're pretty adaptable. The idea that there's a single type of society, a single set of gender roles, a single way of viewing the world and the natures of various elements in it, a single social structure for a given type of organization, etc. is all totally false. Biology is part of what forms these, but it's not the only thing. And yes, it's quite possible to step outside to analyse it just like any other sociological phenomenon, because we now have a wealth of information on other cultures and histories, and more importantly, logical frameworks (and maybe in the future, biology) to talk about this in.

If someone only sees black cows, and develops a complex set of ideas and myths explaining why cows are black, then sees a white cow, maybe even though the fact all cows he saw were black has some basis in biology (their ancestor was black or something), his myths are bullshit.

>saying that u think the fame might go to his head
>dont like him being conservative
he didnt say that at all...

>we're pretty adaptable

And specialist/narrow improvements can often be accompanied by corresponding detrimental impositions.

>there's not one way of life we're evolved for

life needs an environment for evolution though.

>And specialist/narrow improvements can often be accompanied by corresponding detrimental impositions.
You seem to think these things are minor deviations. They aren't. Human society is incredibly variable in some aspects, and it is those aspects that need to be analyzed. I'm not saying we should change things like "children are now raised by other children", because we know for a fact that parental roles are important, and all societies agree on this, though they might vary on whether it's the biological parents who do it or not.
Yes, society can impose bad things too, we have to work that out. I don't see the problem here.

You have not responded to the fact that different cultures view things such as gender roles and myths surrounding them very differently. This is the most convincing evidence that while biology is certain, how it manifests in culture is not unique.

> life needs an environment for evolution though.
Yes, so? We've evolved for more than one environment. Tell me, are you implying that there's a single social structure, family structure, gender role structure, and set of worldviews relating to these on an essentialist basis, which is "correct" biologically? As in, is there one we are evolved for? Because I think you don't realize how recent most of our societies and traditions are, compared to the time evolution takes. We didn't even evolve for agriculture yet agricultural societies are the overwhelming norm.

you agree with me but dont realize you do because you've got moral righteousness blinders on. btw i dont have anti moral blinders on and basically agree with you on the implicit shit about being nice to trannies and stay at home cucks- i mean dads.
like all this shit:
>Are you implying that the structure of families, or of hierarchies, or of the way people see the roles of female and male gods for example, is biological? Please, humans don't differ enough in biology for genetic differences to explain the vast variance of these things between cultures. They CAN be explained through a combination of many pressures, like environment, lifestyle, history, but biology isn't the only one.
is basically just agreeing with me except you're not understanding that biology isn't this discrete thing that you can separate from the others. biology isn't one of the pressures, it's what is BEING pressured .

>It's like if two people were arguing about what time a bus arrives, and you just show up to lecture them on the relativity of simultaneity or something.
yeah i kinda just wanted to derail things to something i was thinking about.

>The idea that there's a single type of society, a single set of gender roles, a single way of viewing the world and the natures of various elements in it, a single social structure for a given type of organization, etc. is all totally false.
i dont think i said otherwise. i just said all that stuff in all their disparate forms are both socially constructed and biological because the two aren't actually in opposition, rather they are inextricably linked (or the former is just part of the latter). biology under innumerably variables will have innumerably different results. btw history is one of those variables. i agree there isn't a single way of life we're evolved for; i think maybe you think im getting at some defense of normative capitalist patriarchy or whatever when im not.

I wasn't that user

this board needs IDs
would help discourage all the samefagging /pol/tards too

>implicit shit about being nice to trannies and stay at home cucks- i mean dads.
the fuck? i'm not implying this at all. and what morals, exactly, do you think I'm associating with any of this? In fact, I don't even believe in the necessary good of "being nice" to anyone. Societies often need a degree of conformity and I have nothing against enforcing this. That would be besides the point here, but I honestly take offence at your implication that i'm some progressive, when in fact i'm not even a westerner (far from it), and could care less about western identity politics. I'm far closer to a traditionalist in my culture. I just realize that cultures vary, and many aspects of them are not fully biological.
>biology isn't one of the pressures, it's what is BEING pressured .
No I understand your implication. And no, biology IS a pressure on the evolution of society. It in turn, does get pressured, but I think you seem to imply that biology and society have evolved together? They haven't - society has changed far more rapidly than biology has. And no, I never said biology is some discrete thing, though I suppose I could have clarified that - all I was saying is that there isn't a 1-1 mapping between biology and culture.

> kinda just wanted to derail things to something i was thinking about.
fair, but the reason you got flak for it was that. i understand, it's chill.

> biology under innumerably variables will have innumerably different results. btw history is one of those variables. i agree there isn't a single way of life we're evolved for;
honestly I can't see any disagreement with my position here. You are basically saying the same thing, but you are emphasizing the interconnectedness of biology and culture. So yeah, I agree with all that. My original post was a refutation of a guy saying "gender isn't a social construct" (or it seemed like this), as well as a ramble on how JP does exactly what you should agree is bad - only consider the biology and the myths, without taking into account the culture, history, etc. So I was trying to emphasize the culture-based aspects of things.

I'd be down for thread-specific IDs.

>completely ignoring their historical and cultural significance in order to paint this
I didn't believe it, but it seems that projection really is a phenomenon in human psyche. Unless you are something else, of course.

>samefagging x
It begins. Nice knowing this place before the fall.

You can blame it on me, my name is Jonah and this is my storm.

>society has changed far more rapidly than biology has
we dont know enough about our own biology to prove or disprove that in the framework you are working with. and its not like there's some objective method to correlate them either where X bio change is somehow commensurate (or not) with X social change.
>I think you seem to imply that biology and society have evolved together
i'm saying that society is a biological function (so of course biology affects society which affects biology which affects society and so on). societal change IS biological change. our instrumentation not being refined enough to say "oh well after we invented the cotton gin, X, Y, and Z happened on the ol' DNA there" does not change that fact.

>I'm far closer to a traditionalist in my culture
lol gay

> society is a biological function
But you admit that it's also a function of other factors, right? Namely, history and the environmental context of the culture (which of course, are functions of biology and influence biology, before you pick on that). If so, I agree with you.
> societal change IS biological change.
When you say "IS", you are implying equivalence. These two things are not equivalent. They are related and intertwined, but they are not the same thing.
> we dont know enough about our own biology to prove or disprove that in the framework you are working with.
I mean I do agree, and honestly I do think biology has changed somewhat due to culture too. But the shift into agricultural and urban life is extremely recent comparatively, and only in the last centuries for some places. It'd be fascinating to see how exactly our society has impacted us.
>lol gay
eh, you don't really know the context. point was, i'm only bitching about universalism, and mostly in the context of JP (the focus of the thread), who talks largely about myths and hero narratives and such, to which this issue of other factors than biology influencing culture (especially complex aspects of culture like myth) shows up. I'm not a commie who wants to change anything, rather just advocating caution when asserting (not you, but other people do this) that various cultural constructions are universal and based completely on biology, and are hence good/unavoidable. The only reason we ended up talking (which btw, I have enjoyed doing) is the gender thing. My culture doesn't see gender roles and myth the same way the west does, and that is likely my reason for asserting this point so heavily.

>ITT: MUH BIOLOGY

>need to be analyzed.
spooky
I bet you want the guy to be paid for this too

>To say that gender is a social construct is simply to say that the social norms and expectations attached to "being masculine" and "being feminine" aren't essential qualities of sex, but cultural and historical contigencies
Not being "essentail qualities of sex" doesn't mean they're cultural and historical contingencies. I love how you guys complain about people only supposedly criticizing strawmen of your positions but then you turn around and do the same thing.

>doesn't mean they're cultural and historical contingencies.
but they are

Attached: hegel.jpg (720x391, 47K)

But that's not an argument.

Read the phenomenology

So is Veeky Forums unironically composed of twenty year old communists now, or are these just leftypol invasions?

>muh safespace

Attached: Ariosto.jpg (1230x1600, 261K)

>read this book that isn't relevant at all to what I'm saying in any sense but the most vague one
Not an argument, yet again.
They come out of the woods every single time there's a thread like this. They make the same really trite bad arguments that show that they've never engaged at all with people on the other side and then the thread dies.
It used to be some people tried to explain what the opposite side was actually saying but it gets tiresome after the nth time.

While that isn't AN argument, it's a commonly accepted position. If they were not at least partially cultural and historical, then what, are they universal? If so, why are they not uniform in time and place? I'm not arguing that they are purely cultural or historical though, read the thread for details.

Sadler ANNIHILATES Peterson with FACTS and LOGIC

>They come out of the woods every single time there's a thread like this. They make the same really trite bad arguments that show that they've never engaged at all with people on the other side and then the thread dies.
It used to be some people tried to explain what the opposite side was actually saying but it gets tiresome after the nth time.

But are you certain they're not trolls? Because the level of discourse here really does remind me of my first-year colleagues in University from almost a decade ago, or disgruntled high-schoolers. So they might just be fucking with people.