Is this guy on his way to becoming the Noam Chomsky of the right?

intriguing

idiot

cholo fuck off.

lol faggot

I sure fucking hope so...

>right

he's as centrist as you can get

profound

Not even remotely, not in any sense, literally nothing you said right now applies to reality in any form. You're in the outer space of outer space.

This. You can't disagree with a single point he makes.

Nice samefagging

If you know the slightest about this guy other than the VIRAL VIDEO XD MUH ERVOPA then he's about as classical liberal as you could get

Oh the same people who need to know this the most probably can't differentiate classical liberalism from postmodern progressivism anyway

I fucking love this guy.

It's funny too, years ago on /r9k/ people were posting videos of his and examining his views on society and human nature. This website truly has its fingers on the pulse of contemporary philosophy and its future heroes.

From what I've seen he values Freedom of speech. That's enough to be labeled as right wing now?

The right hate Freedom of speech just as much as the left.

Look at how many of them want to ban people from burning the US flag, or ban women from wearing the burkha.

That's actually a pretty based podcast

Gripping.

...

I'm not sure if he's actually right wing. More libertarian/centrist in some ways I would say.

He's neither left wing nor right wing because he values true speech and abhors ideology

Yeah, this guy would be a great inoculation shot for /r9k/ goddamn

/pol/ for that matter too

in what way tho

>dub dubs

no one has made me come closer to religion than this guy

hes fucking based and probably one of the only thinkers who I can say changed my life in some way.

Both are rampant with angst and postmodernist fact denying

eh, /pol/ has critical stopped clock syndrome

Yes

>Peterson
>right-wing

He's pretty much a centrist, although really he's anti-ideological. You might call him a political pluralist or pragmatist. He refers to political viewpoints as tools, and to values as tools.

Those are property rights issues, not speech.

would those situations fall under freedom of expression though? and also, burning the flag is fine, but most instances of anti-flag banning usually involve public or mixed institutions (private school that recieves government subsidies, thus making it a free speech violation to ban any form of political expression, as the government cannot take part in those acts. If a private institution is gonna ban political expression is fine, as long as public funds or other government interference is not associated with said institution.

the burka shit (like in France) is total B.S. though.

So /pol/ and Veeky Forums are the same now?

nope, we just don't mind talking about anything and everything. on a board about philosophy and history, it is inevitable that we're gonna talk about politics from every nook and cranny of the political spectrum, left to right, authoritarian to libertarian.

But honestly... Most big businesses have their thumb in the government pie.

pol with dates. a great man once warned that that is what a history board would be.

One of the main reasons I follow the Right-Libertarian ideal, attempting to get a separation of government and business like their is a separation of church and state. limiting the powers of government to the point that it does not matter whether or not that a businessman is in power, because he can't do shit to his own benefit anyway.

Not gonna go the way of Rome with all Equites essentially becoming proxies for the businesses of senators.

/Thread

You guys are retarded, I've literally only seen right wing people try to categorise him as 'right wing'

But there's another problem. If you make your government too weak, you end up with warlords or states within a state.

And you end up with Sengoku Japan.

Or worse... The HRE.

>implying there's anything wrong with that

What you think if there were a threat to the nation at large that the states wouldn't defend each other? Strong economy makes that an improbability

Desu. The problem with the Sengoku Japan and HRE wasn't external threats, it was the states declaring war on each other in internal power struggles.

Have yet to see any evidence for his whole "muh pronouns hurt you" bs
Sure do it but don't lie why you do it
t. sjw hating trantran

Anyone done the self authoring yet?

How was it?

He says very explicitly that he won't use them because they're artificially invented words that are political in function.

Not an argument.

He also seems to do that to legit trannies tho (e.g. mtf "demanding" female pronouns) and has repeatedly said that using preferred pronouns would hurt them
But never gave any actual reason
For the record tho I wouldn't use any other pronouns either and "call em as I see em" but only because I am a lazy asshole
T trantran

>The right hate Freedom of speech just as much as the left.

Bullshit.

As a practical matter, the greatest threat to freedom of speech comes from leftist prohibition of so-called hate speech, which comes down to prohibiting mockery and contempt for leftist shibboleths (e.g., special rights* for gays), as legislated in the UK and Canada.

*Fashion designers can say "No, I wouldn't make a dress for Melania," but Christian bakers can't say "No, I wouldn't bake that cake for a gay wedding."

from the homepage of his website

jordanbpeterson.com/

>Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Jordan Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home,
and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.

>He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker.

And it goes on.

Dude is a charlatan and a fraud.

youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc&t=20m10s

Tried listening to him on Rogan. Says a couple of cool things ( crisis of reproducibility in psychology, describing Nietzsche's worry about discarding myths), makes some bad arguments (about marxism, socialism, communism).

Once he engages a topic beyond his expertise he's at the same level as some of you highschool edgelords on message boards. But that's pretty much the nature of academia- you know a whole lot about a narrowly focused subject.

>jordanbpeterson.com/
are you saying he is lying?

Damn that slipped right past my radar
Thanks and mean culpa maxima

that applies to Chomsky and many left wingers too..

the only bad arguments for those three ideologies is to argue in their favor, you double fag

No because Noam Chomsky is a quality scholar.

This guy is just the new Milton Friedman.

Jordan Peterson is a world renowned scholar, you have no idea what you are talking about

Have you even listened to one of his lectures?

At least put some effort in before passing your retarded judgement

meant for

>makes some bad arguments (about marxism, socialism, communism)

What is wrong with his analysis of marxism?

He is pretty spot on about the dangers of ideology. He has literally spent his whole life thinking about these things.

Chomsky hasn't done shit since the 70s when he ruined linguistics

he is no quality scholar

Yup, that's why I'm a libertarian, not a fedorable AnCap. the state has a role, just not so large a role that a few rich individuals can get in a fuck the rest of society with oligopolistic legislation, nor so much that some morally self righteous busybody should have free reign to ruin the livelihoods of thousands of business owners and workers because "muh trust-busting". By all means their must be a balance, a "Golden Mean" so to speak.

moral busybody pic related.

Babies is angry.

This kid knows nothing about politics or economics so he has nothing to contribute.

Everything he says is funnily enough pure ideology.
Wrong and he's the most cited in academia.

There is no comparison between this random hack phenomena which will disappear in a few months and Noam Chomsky. He might be comparable to some low tier thinkers but that's about it.

>Everything he says is funnily enough pure ideology.

Define your terms. How is what he is saying ideological?

You're retarded bruv

>most cited
>academia

believing that academic reception is the only measure for someone to be recognized as an intellectual is hilarious

rofl

does the left claim anyone is "of the right"if they disagree with them?

Only the OP did and it would seem he himself was right wing

but everyone who isn't an anti-capitalist is a liberal and their political positions don't differ substantially whether they're sjws or fascists

wrong

Julius Evola was anti-capitalist, but he was anti-materialist in general

don't think anyone could seriously claim he was "liberal"

Sort yourself out

> "Noam Chomsky is a quality scholar."
> "This guy is just the new Milton Friedman."

anyone who types this is admitting that they never read anything by either of them.

hey thanks for the nuance but you really suck at reading comprehension

Thank you for displaying your general ignorance.