THE LEFTS ANSWER TO JORDAN PETERSON

All sides are wrong user.

Attached: adorno.jpg (263x350, 12K)

My sides are in orbit, though. Rightfully so.

anyone not in favor of moderation and compromise should be castrated

compromise with whom though? the russians? the chinese? mexico? canada? antigua and barbuda?

the italians

Attached: a-borgo-dio-dd-dali-dd-9833281.png (500x466, 60K)

compromise in moderation

With ur mum feggit

Attached: 1521215355527.gif (268x142, 1.81M)

with god.

>no arguments only greentext quote your post with pic

Attached: 1521620888917.png (426x510, 152K)

compromise with the casapound fellows?

Attached: 1_WpFxuBpMV9Qki4399SEV4A.jpg (1920x1075, 542K)

casapound are a jewish psyop

Not like Peterson needs either a left or right answer.

His good side is his consistent self-help (for those hard cases who actually need it) and pulling semi-forgotten concepts back to life.
His bad side is his strawmanning of postmodernism and his dishonest handling of Science+Christian apologetic (the Truth issue).
But what does Peterson even say that's politically controversial? Blind ideology being dangerous is almost a tautology. There's good reason to be scared of censoring student movements. Or isn't there?

>There's good reason to be scared of censoring student movements.
I believe you meant: "There's a good reason to be scared of student movements preaching censorship."

>But what does Peterson even say that's politically controversial?
Opposes transsexualism. Opposes demonification of men. Both are pillars of the Left and make him an enemy to them. Even worse he didn't submit to their threats so he needs to be doubly destroyed as an enemy made an example of.

>censoring student movements
If that's not proper English grammar, I concur!
I meant it as in
>winning football team
without implying you're winning a football team.

But both are scary, actually :)

>Opposes transsexualism
Does he, though?
You might also take at face value that he doesn't accept speech coercion. Like you wouldn't want a law that sentences you to pay a bill if you don't say "boss" at every sentence to your boss at work.

everything is

>His bad side is his strawmanning of postmodernism
postmodernism is a strawman of itself, no need to add anything to it, it's just another grand narrative disguising as not a grand narrative for tactical reasons

>Opposes transsexualism.
He doesn't though. He's ok with trannies as long as they aren't annoying and as long as they fit into a binary gender

Attached: 92d.jpg (211x239, 5K)

>he doesn't accept speech coercion
Speech coercion is a central tenant of transsexualism. Others must be forced to take part in the transfiguration and can not dissent or offer anything but affirmation. To not partake and affirm is to be an enemy. This is the Left's friend/enemy distinction, it doesn't matter what you think of your position as "against speech coercion," they view you as an enemy for it.

>Speech coercion is a central tenant of transsexualism.
not if you can't tell if someone is a tranny retard

See. Failing to partake and affirm is opposition to transsexualism as defined by the Left and makes you their enemy. It doesn't matter what you think your position is, political groups define their own criteria for friend/enemy distinction. Peterson is their eneny for failing to partake and affirm transsexualism.

But he isn't against Transexualism. He's just annoyed at fake pronouns.

Repost your statement but coherently.

Yes, and that makes him an enemy of transsexualism as a political grouping.

Transsexualism is really one pillar under the transgender umbrella and consists of natal males and females who undergo a transition to their natal opposite, as much as physically possible with hormones and surgery. GID/dysphoria is usually experienced.

Transgender, more broadly, denotes someone's whose "gender" does not match their birth sex. Hence, we now have non-binary genders, agenders, and all of this other nonsense, and even people claiming one does not need dysphoria to transition (why would you transition otherwise?).

So transsexuals are transgender, but not all transgender people are transsexuals. This is just another example of the changing linguistic landscape we find ourselves in. A lot of people still identify with the former group, or simply "trans," because the whole issue has become muddled.

Peterson favors the former group, and we can see this with Theryn Meyer. But I'm kind of with him when people want to demand I recognize pronouns like bun, de, em, zhir, xir, etc.

Personally I feel most people did not give a shit about transsexuals or were indifferent, but now you must recognize an overweight, purple-haired, Maoist bunself as equally deserving rights and attention as someone like Bailey Jay.

On top of this gender non-conforming people are now being influence to claim a transgender identity. You're a man who wears makeup a la David Bowie? No, you're non-binary now. Like skinny jeans? Must be another Xir.

But I see a lot of this is coming as purely political. Transsexuals experience a psychological, social, and bodily discomfort. Now their experience is being broadened and politicized, and it cheapens it. All because some university kids want to feel unique, too.

>dont pick a team and try to enact change just stay on youtube comments

>His bad side is his strawmanning of postmodernism
explain the strawman

Sadler is a treasure. Truly a beacon of light in an age of crazy feminist and illiterate right wing demagogues.

Attached: based greg.png (854x420, 54K)

>But what does Peterson even say that's politically controversial?
being a bare minimum amount conservative is haram now with all the harpies running the media

Peterson is a leftist though.

>The sacred cows are few, much fewer than they would be if we had a Marxist hegemony instead of a slightly overlapping progressive one. But they are very sacred, and even a casual display of impiety triggers a memetic immune response.

jacobitemag.com/2018/02/09/the-jordan-peterson-emergency/

>tfw you realize transgenderism or sexual amorphism is essentially mysticism (mind-body duality, pure pseudoscience) since they believe a woman was born in a man despite 0 physical evidence
>tfw you realize this is the one area where the left breaks with its materialist dialectic (muh PoC bodies etc)
>tfw you realize this is how the left demonstrates itself to be so intellectually bankrupt, that they're willing to trade the pretense of being scientific materialists (something prominent atheists cling to desperately) just so they can appear compassionate for a group of people LESS COMMON than schizoids and therefore in all likelihood just mentally ill

>let me just paint a huge strawman real quick

:(

Attached: A0BC6234-F767-4B3C-8F42-7805C02A311E.jpg (750x460, 185K)

>hasn't been on a university campus in 10 years

either underage or retard boomer

Attached: handshake.webm (540x304, 343K)

Yeah. His conception of the thing he is arguing against is so outdated it is funny.

>10895553
"Postmodernism is just the idea that everything is relative."
A lot of current culture and freedoms resulted from the postmodernism, it's not just "a terrible perspective".
It's as if you'd argue the internet is bad on the basis that today everybody spends hours and hours every day being addicted to it and procrastinating. Yes, that's completely true, but the internet also had a lot of helpful effects and imagining a world without it, but different than how it was before, isn't possible. If there hadn't been postmodernism, then yes - as Peterson argues - the "fascistic left" as today wouldn't exist in that form, but that doesn't mean that postmodernism is equal to that result. Just as internet isn't equal to internet addition.

I'm in line with Peterson in that the people he fights are dangerous. But his rhetoric - once he found the words that the counterculture that already existed when he entered the stage did suck up - became stale.
Now he's regularly pointing out the problem with losing yourself to an ideology and uses this as his argumented, as opposed to identity politics - a move that just abstracts the grouping away from genetics to mindset. And here's I'm not the first to point out the irony that "we must fight/help the people who were persuaded by postmodernism". What stark simplification is that!

The second problem is his Truth cop-out. Peterson uses statistics and science research whenever he can and thus makes strong arguments. But at the same time, whenever he'd have to insult Christians, he resorts to his consequential Truth. So you have interviews where when people ask "Do you believe Jesus existed as a real person and was reborn at Eastern" then he will talk around it with Jungian archetypes as long as he can, and then when forced explicitly to a Yes/No answer, he will say Yes "because my moral Truth precedes scientific truth", and thus never insult the real Christian conservatives. It's an ass move.

But still, I like him.

Attached: 1488588378282.jpg (543x474, 31K)

...

Hey I had that

COLLAB WHEN

Attached: kYBdiUh.png (2560x1600, 3.35M)

>"gender" does not match their birth sex

Why is this distinction between gender and sex a thing?

Everything beling relative is the part of postmodernism that I have seen Peterson go after.

Also, back to the guy this thread was made about: what is a good video to watch or something to read to understand his position?

DISREGARD AND IGNORE THIS THREAD. SADLER IS UNTOUCHABLE AND IS ABOVE THIS PETTINESS AND IS Veeky Forums ROYALTY

Attached: sadler.jpg (487x519, 60K)

Gender itself is even a tricky concept. People deploy the word holistically along with statements like "gender is a social construct" or "gender is fluid" as if we're supposed to blindly accept that. What do we mean by gender?

Gender roles?
Gender expression/presentation?
Gender identity?

The former two I can see as "socially constructed" because it's obvious marketing plays a huge role in what we determine as male or female. Blue used to be gendered feminine, but now pink is, etc. Why should I buy a shaving cream that's marketed for men if the pink one accomplishes the same thing for less money? Does the pink bottled shaving cream speak to an essential aspect of my Being? Does it make me not-Male? It's really ridiculous when you begin questioning those cultural associations.

With sex there's male and female, and rare intersex conditions. I think the separation between gender and sex - formally synonymous - is to at least allow for more freedom of expression. Just because David Bowie is male, for instance, it doesn't necessarily follow he needs to act in a manner that society dictates is appropriate for "men."

The problem is that this separation is relatively new (like 1970s) so there's a disconnect between how people were taught and how people are being taught that muddies the conversation.

The other problem is that now, instead of allowing for a more free expression for male or female bodies, one is some sort of new identity for being a male body that likes makeup, which is ridiculous. Call me Xe instead of He because I wear makeup and I'm oppressed. We've basically just constructed a new "essentialism."

At least this is what I've gathered.

isn't gender the most uninteresting thing in the world though?

I thought Peterson was the Zizek of the right.

peterson is not a philosopher at all, not even a meme philosopher like zizek

The left's answer to Jordon Peterson is a hearty laugh and telling him to fuck off because forget proving him wrong, its almost impossible to find anything he's said that's actually correct.

Sadler is everything Peterson wishes he was.

>wanting the left to be represented by a sweaty fat manchild who majored in philosophy

True poetry.

a freelance philosopher?

that's rich coming from a movement whose whole contribution to philosophy has been a century of excuses

Oh look, its a Kekistani "meme farmer" come to say vapid and fallacious things with no evidence for them! How you doing sport?

you are pathetic

I'm not joking. I literally cannot find anything memerson has said that's true. Even objective things like mathmatics that's pretty hard to fuck up.

Centrism is pro status quo, pro establishment.

"You can't be neutral on a moving train."

Is Sadler a leftist? I haven't really seen anything by him but I was under the impression he was a Hegelian.

>>tfw you realize transgenderism or sexual amorphism is essentially mysticism (mind-body duality, pure pseudoscience)
Honestly this. How can you truly defend transgenderism without appealing to some metaphysical argument? I've raised this question among leftist people before and I've been called a brainlet but I haven't been told why. Am I retarded, bros?

You were called a brainlet because you are. What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

You are a brainlet because you are. What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

I think he's a conservative simply because he doesn't come out and say he's a leftist. He's in academia and he's not tenured so it would be career suicide for him to come out and express any sort of conservative views so he tries to toe the line and portray himself as some sort of centrist.

I don't think it's possible to be a centrist in any real sense because the distinction between the left and right is not so much about politics, but it symbolizes certain underlying assumptions that people have about the world which then go on to inform their politics and policy preferences. There's a dichotomy of possible assumptions on certain things and they can't be mixed into one system and remain coherent.

Attached: 211.png (401x516, 104K)

Yes, you're retarded, but all Petersonfags are so don't feel so bad about yourself.

I doubt he's a conservative. Serious intellectuals rarely are.

Isn't Sadler a theist?

>Believes in derridean "there is nothing outside the text"
>A conservative

Wrong you fucking spastic.

Peterson wishes he could lose his tenure and his massive audience?
Maybe he's more delusional than we thought.

>Peterson is right
>Sadler is left
>their aims have fuck all to do with each other

Attached: Bonifatius_viii_papst.jpg (166x266, 14K)

Leftist use of language to promote their agenda is something people need to be more critical of.

“Latinx” for example pisses me off to no end. It’s blatant cultural imperialism that shows the left has no respect for other cultures outside of what fits into their own ideology. Another example is the movie Coco, which was praised for its “representation”. However, Mexico’s Catholic culture plays almost no role in Coco despite the story centering around a Catholic holiday.

For them, diversity is a means to make their other tenets palatable to as many people as possible.

Don't get me worried like that, 6 weeks is nothing.

Sadler will complete German idealism. Let's start a petition to make him the head chairman of philosophy at the University of Berlin

Attached: brandenburg-gate-berlin-GettyRF-1500-cs.jpg (748x421, 86K)

Not his followers

Peterson wouldn't think so. His entire framework involves a universal scheme of masculine and feminine duality, with quite specific archetypes and ideas associated to each. If all he was saying was the existence of a dialectic between order and chaos, or the unknown and the known, It'd be a little better are more likely to be legitimately universal, but as soon as he ascribes gender to these concepts, it becomes painfully clear that he doesn't know his philosophy, his myths, or his history.

So yeah, gender is actually pretty interesting on a sociological/historical level, studying how different groups and traditions think about it. But it's no more interesting than any other aspect of myth and philosophy.

If it's not strawmanning, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Picking the low hanging fruit.

He disagrees with people who think Stalin did nothing wrong. Wow, incredible, how brave.
He disagrees with people who think gender post-structuralism should be a state-mandated opinion. What a genius, a real forward thinker.
etc.

>think gender post-structuralism should be a state-mandated opinion
think? it is policy in plenty of meme places already

>His entire framework involves a universal scheme of masculine and feminine duality, with quite specific archetypes and ideas associated to each.
Is he wrong though?

Yes, he's very much wrong on that. I've been reading "maps" for the last few weeks and don't have a full understanding yet, but his main points and (Jungian) archetypes are quite clear. There's two ways I see, that he's wrong:
> His examples are somewhat cherrypicked and (for lack of a better term) modern-western-centric. There's many mythologies, cultures and traditions that see things differently than what he posits. There's societies that have had very different conceptions of social and family structure, of the ideas surrounding "chaos", of what symbols (let alone genders, lol) are associated with "civilizaiton", and also of the hero myth. Gender roles are no different - while they have plenty of universals, a ton of the shit JP pushes is, while "common sense" to a western, modern layman, is really not that universal or based in anything but history and the development of cultures in different ways.
> He doesn't just try to find these archetypes and claim (implicitly - otherwise his arguments wouldn't work) that they are universal to humanity. He goes further to claim that they reflect some deep, mystical reality of the world. I'm not really against this idea, as it's something Jung and Campbell did. The issue I have is, he's half-right and probably knows it. Culture and everything about us has biological underpinnings, but there's not a 1-1 relation between the two. His arguments skirt naturalistic fallacy, namely that there's "one way" that society is meant to be structured and "one set" of archetypes, all biologically determined, which are "right" because they are "natural, duh". So he's right about the impact of biology but like a true Jungian, he applies reduction way too far and arrives are ridiculous results.

This, the left is often blatantly ignorant and disrespectful of other cultures, only using their status as either "oppressed" or on the flip side "regressive"/"backwards" for politics.

Politically yeah he doesn't say much controversial at all (but one might argue that his entire political stance is motte-and-bailey, with the bailey being pseudo-alt-right, it's still not that clear though). Some of his followers are really the issue, he himself hasn't said anything too crazy.

However his philosophy in general is just a mess. Self-help is good, but he pushes some pretty bad philosophy as "self evident" largely to support his simple, clean, universal worldview.

To make things clear, there is a duality of masculine and feminine in humans, on a biological level. This is reflected in society (but not always in the same way, in different societies).

But JP ascribes this duality to literally everything, literally "chaos/unknown is the great mother" (and yes, I'm aware exactly of what he means by this, and his examples of it), something plenty of religions would have felt is the reverse of the truth. Or his hero myth (while perfectly valid and close to universal, as scholars have pointed out before - in it's structure), the issue is he states that it's a specifically male myth (which it's not - and this isn't some progressive revisionism). He really seems to be under the impression that these things have some universality among cultures and traditions, when in fact (although a few things are universal) half the shit he claims doesn't even have a fucking pattern among cultures. The shit about gendering of the sky god and solar myths? Of writing and knowledge being male-associated (which to be fair, is common among many cultures - but it's again, far from universal). Absolute hogwash.

Look, all traditions/cultures/religions have some worldview around these (and other abstract concepts), and they historically all thought they were universal. The issue is that JP passes this universalism off as "scientifically based", when in fact only part of it is (and that part isn't even that interesting or controversial). It's intellectuall dishonesty or extreme ignorance.

On another note, it's interesting to see the definite Christian narrative he holds as sacred, when he's discussion the quadpartite structure of hero myths. Again, nothing wrong with that, but he admits his biases even less than Campbell, lmao.

>There's many mythologies, cultures and traditions that see things differently than what he posits.
Yes, but have any of those societies which, by Peterson's standards', have got it wrong survived in the long term without changing its myths?

This and checked

>German idealism
Immense eye-roll.

He's a nerd. I want to see people fight.

These societies include some of the OG civilization builders and long-lived civilizations (Egypt, Sumeria, etc.). You don't need to go to hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads.

There's a huge amount of variation even within patriarchal, literate, agricultural societies, and positing that just because modern western culture is dominant now, these other civilizations are less valid due to their abstract concepts relating to gender, is ridiculous. Again, I'm not arguing for shit like "women not being warriors is a construct", or "gender roles as a whole are a construct". There's a lot of subtle stuff that has really no bearing on the survival of a civilization (why would hittites having a orderly sky goddess make them less fit? seriously?). The change in myths is almost entirely due to simple historical circumstances, etc. Remember, in the modern day pretty much no old cultures remain.

That said, India (Hinduism) is a perfectly good example of where Peterson's lack of universality is clear in a religion.

Also, what's wrong with looking at failed societies? Societies fail for many reasons, and a lot of it is lack of ability to adapt to modern life (nomads for example). There's no reason to believe that there's any pattern with this and "wrong gender roles" or something. There's no "right social structure", it depends on the environment. Agricultural societies will invariably see things differently than nomads. But we should be looking at nomads, because they tell us about a stable way of life that has worked for humans in the past, and provide more information on how human culture functions and develops in different environments/histories. The reason this is vital, is that modern life is NOT the environment western, modern culture evolved in. How are we to know that our current culture is optimal for the environment of modern technology? It's unclear. By ignoring other societies in the past, you tacitly assume that the current one is "correct" and optimal.

All of this rests on the assumption that there is not "one correct social structure" that humans are meant for - at MOST there is one optimal society given an environment. But this should be obvious really, we're no longer hunter-gatherers.