Is Jordan Peterson the best contemporary scholar? He kinda destroys those nu-male marxists

No he is an idiot. He makes so many baseless assumptions it isn't funny.

i'm not going to listen to /pol/tard hate speech

No, he's actually a pretty shit scholar because of his intellectual dishonesty. He's made a name for himself by talking about his own political opinions and using his unrelated qualifications to make it seem like he's an authority.

>admit you have no idea what the guy is even about

>still claim you hate him and that hes garbage

leftypol brainlet in action guys

i don't need to listen to hate speech to know that it's wrong

Give examples where he's wrong

what's wrong with this

He's an excellent thinker and a great writer but there are so many hundreds of scholars in so many hundreds of fields working today that you couldn't say any one of them is the best

Also he's not a very good speaker, he constantly stutters and trips over himself

Name 5 things he said that are hate speech or fuck off you leftypol fag

wait, is this the guy who defined truth as what is useful to make it "true" that god exists?

as if philosophers dont twist words meanings basically creating their own linguistic apparatus since ever

Liberal indoctrination in a nutshell.

It's the pragmatist conception of truth

this is definitely on the extreme end of such examples. there's nothing wrong with redefining words, but only if you need to to clarify your work by adding new vocab which doesn't exist in regular speech. this redefinition only serves to create doublethink

>who is Kant

I find it much more pragmatic to not treat what is useful as truth and learn to deal with the fact that the truth is often inconvenient

you posters:
I really want to hear why you think this is wrong:

>arguing with strawmen makes him so right about everything

There are a hundred trillion trillion trillion facts though

he's ignoring the long history of discrimination against marginalized groups

...ok? what's your point?

He's an ideologue who only gained attention because of his shit fit over pronouns and he's perfectly okay with redefining truth for the sake of confusing arguments and desperately trying to come out as the smart one.

You can't know all the facts, and knowing all he facts won't help in a single bit on what to do with those facts

I don't really like him. Just seems like a disaffected liberal

Pragmatist conception of truth has been around for more than 100 years. Your ignorance is not his problem

He gets triggered by Marxism and it's funny

how does this have any bearing on this? not knowing everything is no reason to engage in doublethink. we have to deal with what we got, not what we don't or what we want.

Hard to type this all out on phone... It's not double think at all, it's a prioritization scheme. There's a difference between facts and truth, while people like Harris conflate the two. The "truth in Shakespeare" is a good example

facts are the truth in conventional language. you have simply defined it as something else for the purpose of doublethink

>straw man
>the argument peterson is arguing against doesn't exist
you are claiming that argument doesn't exist?

You have to be pretty sick in the head not to be triggered by Marxism once you actually understand what it means.

>his argument is invalid because there is long history of discrimination against marginalized groups
>peterson is unaware of a long history of discrimination against marginalized groups
>peterson percieves human history without discrimination against marginalized groups
I'm honesty trying to think of this history without discrimination that you are implying people like peterson believe in but I have no idea how you would explain history.

how is he ignoring the long history of discrimination against marginalized groups?

Peterson's prescription for the issues the western world is facing is woefully unsubstantial in the face of issues like automation, ocean acidification, proliferation of unsustainable and unhealthy neoliberal/neocon corporate consumer culture, migrant crises, globalist geopolitics, etc

>how is he ignoring the long history of discrimination against marginalized groups

in peterson's worldview the atrocities of communism in the 20th century are the point of discussion over political systems but the multi-century enslavement and genocide of aboriginal peoples by capitalistic western societies over hundreds of years isn't

Again pragmatist conception of truth has been around for more than 100 years, your ignorance is not my problem

The target of his criticism doesn't. He's arguing about a /leftypol/ boogeyman that doesn't exist in the way he's implying. If it does, he certainty didn't call it out by name or identify it in any way. If he was actually interested in making a scholarly point, he could have chosen some figures to engage with, prove that such an organization existed behind this thought process he insists is happening, and come up with a reasonable statement to address the points he was able to establish. But he didn't, he made a bunch of assertions about how he says a group of people acts.

It's the same kind of thing you'd see on/pol/, just with more academic-sounding language. Because all he really is in the public eye is a political ideologue. And that's why people on that board love him; all he does is pander to their view of the world.

I am curious.
What are his arguments like. This is the first time I have heard of him.

So he's a bigot then.

You're a bigot and a racist

Whatever you want to call him, he's ignoring very real systemic problems :

that aren't going to get solved by "sorting yourself out" and getting a 9-5 job, starting a family, starting a small business, going to church, etc

Watch one of his lectures on YouTube. People here try to make him be all about politics when he really isn't. He just refused to call a grown man dressed as a woman "she" one time.

>this nigga believes that a system is innately or even can be truly meritocratic if it is constantly judged by the winners.
Read the Rise of meritocracy by Micheal Young to fully understand 3)

Plus 4) is such a cynical way of describing to reforming

5) and 6) is classic 'psychoanalyse your opponents to make them look bad' tactic you see in /pol/

How so? I'm not the one supporting an actual /pol/ tier bigot "scholar".

>He just refused to call a grown man dressed as a woman "she" one time.
well that seems fair.
what is the meat of his content?
I don't exactly have the time to check him out right now.

>People here try to make him be all about politics when he really isn't.

We are in such a high stakes age that any prescriptive action is inherently political and because attention is limited.

see

"People should take responsibility". I couldn't sum it up better. He himself summarized his philosophy like this on an interview.

individual bootstrapping has no solution for problems like

peterson has clear issues with collective responsibility

hey reddit

nice trips but people taking responsibility doesn't create systemic change.

>collective responsibility

yes, maintaining standards for the environment requires collective responsibility.

>Is Jordan Peterson the best contemporary scholar?
>Moldbug is the best contemporary thinker.

when da ganja hit

Can anyone who is familiar with Peterson's work tell me what you like most of it? Because even though he's overall a cool guy with plenty of good points, though I also deeply disagree with him on some issues, he basically either rehashes standard current psychology or chimes in with his own basic self-help ideas.

yeah, the tribe happens to be your family too, dragon ain't slain until you've united the whole family bucko

I've nothing against him but he seems like a fairly minor academic who managed to get famous from complaining about a single controversial political issue.

I don't disagree with him but that seems like an incredibly silly reason to suddenly declare him "the best contemporary scholar".

>social scientists

Ew.

Change starts with the individual. Also change is not an inherently good concept.

I thought this was the standard conservative position. Apparently not, as long as they agree with you.

getting a regular 9-5 job for a company or starting your own plumbing business and going to church so you get "sorted" isn't the kind of change necessary for the survival and health of our species

>he basically either rehashes standard current psychology
that's because most of his lectures take place in psychology classes where he teaches psychology to his students.
>or chimes in with his own basic self-help ideas.
I wouldn't say "his own basic", I'd say it's mostly the standard stuff that is recommended in psychiatry. He has his own clinic so what he says on the topic has validity in that area.

I like him though because he's one of the prominent people who study the biology of believes. I like Jonathan Haidt for that reason too.

>people who study the biology of believes
people who studies the biology of beliefs*

I know right...

I don't take any of them seriously. Particularly psychologists, like Jordan Peterson.

Gee let me guess, what people really need to do is to quit their jobs and self-organize into autonomous communes?

no but we need to be talking about these issues and figuring out solutions, because the future is bleak if we don't

>self-organize into autonomous communes

all ideology aside, pioneers who owned and maintained their own property instead of reliance on corporate infrastructure were more sustainable and healthy than the cube dwelling bug-people of tday

>their own property
Wew what a petite bourgeois reactionary

>petite bourgeois

>unironically using this word and bitching about property

vocaroo.com/i/s1zQHtZxSBg9

see this is the empty bullshit that management tells when they don't have a clear goal in mind.

You organize and change based on apparent problems that you face.

what's the rationale in your insertion of a menstrual blood collecting trust-fund gutterpunk communist boogey man into any decent conversation about the issues the world is facing?

how about you ignore his jibe and tell me what personal responsibility is going to do when you need mass action to deal with actual physical problems in society?

>a reactionary contrarian
>polfags worship him

Makes sense. Just make sure you realize that you're putting a fucking social scientist on a pedestal.

Honestly nothing. It's basically known that preventing mass action or using mechanism to ignore mass action/the will of the people is what keeps the status quo you desire.

>he certainty didn't call it out by name or identify it in any way
yes he did. the neoprogressive social justice method. its in the pic.

are you still going argue that the neoprogressive social justice method doesn't exist? or are you going to argue semantics that thats not what you would call it.

>problems in society?

the problem is that you prescribe your own failures on that of society. Life owes you nothing pleb

what if the economic criteria for the status quo changes?
Take the example of the coal miners who are being driven out of their jobs by both automation and falling demand? How do entire groups of people pull themselves up by their bootstraps (which is a physical impossibility) when their primary economic activity is phased out and they are left without the means to adapt to a rapidly changing market?

He's not simply a reactionary, he's a human rights violator. He constantly harasses transgender students by refusing to use their preferred pronouns. He should be thrown in prison. Too bad Canada doesn't have the death penalty.

Yes, the huge impact that current lifestyles have in nature will solve themselves with the invisible hand of the free market.

retard.

>the multi-century enslavement and genocide of aboriginal peoples by capitalistic western societies over hundreds of years isn't [the point of his discussion]
please prove that his argument specifically excludes the multi-century enslavement and genocide of aboriginal peoples by capitalistic western societies over hundreds of years. because I don't see where you are getting that conclusion from.

>human rights violator
>won't cater to every special snowflake that wanders through university

Excuse me faggattron I identify as God and will be addressed as My Lord or Our Lord.

Denying me this is a violation of my human rights you stupid bitch.

How are you supposed to win if th winners kick out all the ladders, remove all the stairs and break the elevators?

How's a negro in the Jim Crow South or a Coloured man in Apartheid/1900's South Africa able to "win" if the whole system is rigged for him to lose?

stop speaking in this meaningless infantile rhetoric to try and mask the fact that all this boils down to is that your a failure and you blame everyone else (society) for it instead of taking on, not even guilt, but responsibility for your own fate.

Youre a sniveling little worm and you will always be one. Enjoys wasting your life groveling in your own self pity.

>you're putting a fucking social scientist on a pedestal.

vs putting a failed shitty utopian ideology that has failed over 100 times on a pedestal? lol.

The best part is not ONE post in this thread gives a valid criticism of the guy, you just hate him because he refuses to play into your MArcusian culture war dogshit of calling a man a woman because he "feels like it"

You realize of course that modern blacks use the very existence of white men to justify their failures despite being equal in every single legal way.

The outcome disparity between blacks and whites goes much further than access and franchise.

All we have achieved since your hated Jim Crow has been the creation of urban plantations with free room and board. And even this isn't enough to satisfy.

So we have constructed the world's largest prison complex to house the blacks who attack society anyway despite having all basic need catered to.

They can just try to use education to get ahead but oh wait. Most schools in those areas are dogshit/underfunded, universities/trade schools are quite a distance away and even if they do manage to get educated you activities in that area are limited since even if you got said education the fact that everyone else didn't limits what you can do in that area or hire. Can't really open up a candy store if everyone's money is tight or work as an actuary when said actuary jobs are in a city.

Hell many of those places only exist because they are a coal mining town and nothing more and people genuinely believed that it would last forever which is a thing that happens in America.

>muh fate.
>muh ressponsibility.
I am a successful man by society's metric - I pay my taxes, live in my own house and own my own car and work at a job that I like doing.

That doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have gotten where I was if I didn't take advantage of my country's public education system, financial help from charitable institutions and government sources.

I was helped along by a society that wants to help it's members when I needed help or when bootstrapping didn't work.

>you are wasting your lifa and grovelling in self pity.

On the contrary, I am successful becausae I was helped by society when I needed it.

Which is why you should tell me how exactly I failed at life because I am a successful and contributing member of society.

>inb4 reddit spacing.

I actually give zero fucks about a person's preferred pronouns. To make a deal out of it, one way or the other, is laughable. To say that you must be on one side or the other is foolish.

Can't I just think it's a non-issue? It means fuckall to me and the vast majority of people? Particularly, if this single issue is the one reason somebody is praised (again, regardless of what side of the issue they're on), they don't deserve much attention.

In my book, you don't get elevated to renowned scholar by voicing an opinion on a single social issue. Into the trash they all go.

So from what I gather Jordan Peterson's claim to fame is that he called a tranny a He instead of a Her.

>are you still going argue that the neoprogressive social justice method doesn't exist?
Yes. It's a term that (as far as I can tell) was invented by him and exists according his definitions. He hasn't demonstrated that it exists in any real sense. He literally made up a boogeyman to argue about.

Every time a liberal academic is accused of doing the same thing, conservatives lose their shit. It's not any more valid when Peterson does it just because you agree with the point he's trying to make.

>blacks are in prison because they commit crime
>not because of systematic racism
Oh look, this meme again!

To elaborate, Peterson doesn't get my recognition as a remarkable scholar for being able to actually articulate what mouth-breathing simpletons can't. He's the smart guy in a classroom of morons.