Petersonfagbashingthread

thats a good bucko

got a source for that
also i post this in every peterson thread but nobody ever gives me a (you):
his name is petey pete
he's the king of the rhumba beat

what I think you do

play the 2nd best MW game?

I know, but still writing garbage like that should be indefensible.
That he was knighted is a fucking travesty.

Wikipedia.
Like hints at, I cherry picked the quote in , as it does say he later retracted it.

Implying the Petersonfags are not the fedoras.

Go cry about it on tumblr

what we must do is to get these centrist-cucks to our side

>be Jordan Peterson
>raise children to be depressed
>gets his daughter pills before shes turned double figures
>somehow a bunch of latch onto him as he's somehow supposed to help them

support freedom of speech
have a neat and tidy room

But they hate us commies because somehow they think socialism is worse than fascism, it's going to be a difficult task.

if communists denounce the SJW movement then they're basically halfway to getting petey pete's audience already
basically just be nazbol

when he plays his maracas he goes
chick-chicky-boom chick-chicky-boom

>clean your room
truly one of the modern intellectual juggernauts

Some of us do, to a degree.
I believe in freedom from oppression, but not completely in the direction it's headed.

spooky

>peterson refers to thing X person Y said
>person Y also said thing Z
>peterson btfo!
why do people act as if this makes any sense?

scary

It's not anything to do with what Peterson said per se, but when these are the people used to defend his ramblings, it does say something

>but when these are the people used to defend his ramblings, it does say something
how exactly does it say something and what exactly is it saying? people can disagree with each other on most things but if someone says something that I agree with I'll refer to them to support my positions. that isn't somehow a bad thing

idiot

>its a "leftypol shitposting thread" episode

Peter Scruton is a conservative loony with all the style of a hash brown, yet he's the go-to guy to defend Peterson's unsubstantiated claims.

My point is, why are there not masses of more credible philosophers standing up for Peterson's readings?

Of course you can cite whoever you want to back up your claims, and just as obviously I am going to judge the credentials of the source in my valuation of it.

>muh opreshun!

source?
Big if turd

I would make an exception for you

not really, its just a cheap cop out because you have no argument against what he actually said.

>Peter Scruton is a conservative loony with all the style of a hash brown, yet he's the go-to guy to defend Peterson's unsubstantiated claims.
you're repeating the same thing I first said. why does what he has said about other topics matter in a discussion about what he has said about the thing peterson is referring to him about? his conservatism has nothing to do with what he has said about pomo. and calling his claims unsubstantiated is silly in a discussion about who peterson is using to substantiate his claims. you haven't pointed out anything what what he said about pomo, just called what he said about conservatism loony.
>My point is, why are there not masses of more credible philosophers standing up for Peterson's readings?
who knows, but whether or not its a good reading has nothing to do with how many people are saying it
>I am going to judge the credentials of the source in my valuation of it.
why judge who says it over what is said? it seems like you haven't even moved to assessing what he says and have been stuck on who it is that is saying it

>this is your brain on Peterson

woah, you really opened my eyes with that post

youtube.com/watch?v=KqXZY3B-cGo

...

When has peterson ever mentioned scruton?

You have the reading comprehension of a /pol/ack

or the op post was just vague. it says to discuss peterson fuck ups and that scruton was used as a source to back up his readings. if op was trying to say that other people were using him as a source then he wasn't being clear

Could you explain where the arguments used by Scruton that Peterson used are wrong?
Or is it the case that because you dislike Scruton everything he ever said is wrong?

apparently peterson never used arguments by scruton according to op was jut vague and meant to be bashing peterson fans for using scruton's arguments

>Or is it the case that because you dislike Scruton everything he ever said is wrong?
It's this one

Anyone link his debate with Sam Harris fo me?
I only seem to find reactions of it on youtube

Wait isn't he right?
What reason do gays have to ensure a good society when they will have nothing to pass that society on to?

Ethics?

All fucking "youtube intellectuals" need to stop immediately.

...

>denounce SJWs in favor of right-wing SJWs

Why not just denounce both?

how many kids u got bruv

There is literally nothing wrong with smoking nor does that have anything to do with based Scruton

If you had read the thread before chimping out you would have caught on and not made an idiot of yourself.

The Scruton quote in question:
>"On Postmodernism," by Roger Scruton
"There are philosophers who have repudiated the goal of truth -- Nietzsche, for example, who argued that there are no truths, only interpretations. But you need only ask yourself whether what Nietzsche says is true, to realize how paradoxical it is. (If it is true, then it is false! -- an instance of the so-called 'liar' paradox.) Likewise, the French philosopher Michel Foucault repeatedly argues as though the 'truth' of an epoch has no authority outside of the power-structure that endorses it. There is no trans-historical truth about the human condition. But again, we should ask ourselves whether that last statement is true: for if it is true, it is false. There has arisen among modernist philosophers a certain paradoxism which has served to put them out of communication with those of their contemporaries who are merely modern. A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is "merely relative," is asking you not to believe him. So don't. -- Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey (Penguin Press, 1995), pp. 5-6.

Pls tell me what trans-historical truth you Modernists ascribe to?

I actually agree. There's no real reason to care about what happens after you die unless you have kids.
I sure as fuck don't care, i'm not even gay i just don't want to breed.

I don't want to breed either (and me and the gf has had an abortion because neither of us wanted to), but I still try hard to make the world a better place by volunteering for the Red Cross and being involved in local politics.
You don't need spawn of your own or plans for it, to want to leave the world a better place than you found it.

Why?

Because I feel sorry for the human race, and want to alleviate its suffering. Of course also the reason why I'm a socialist.

Reminder that literally the only reason /leftypol/ cares about Jordan Peterson is because /pol/ likes him. Imagine being so obsessed with /pol/ that your worldview is essentially "I'm for whatever I think /pol/ isn't".

inb4 asshurt /leftypol/ faggots, go start another thread about how much superior you are to /pol/ and/or the alt-right you obsessed liberals

>thinking that a father has control over daughter depression
>thinking that society pushing women out of the home isn't making them depressed
>thinking that women in their best child bearing years should be earning meaningless degrees and whoring around

/pol/ doesn't like him anymore, grandpa. Ever since he denounced the alt-right as dangerous ideologues they have turned on him.

/pol doesn't like Peterson because he isn't racist

He is, he just doesn't dare to condone acting out on it

Regardless the only reason he's brought up here is because of his relationship with /pol/ (however brief).

It's not

Fuck Peterson. She should quit her teaching job and live off her Patreon money if she had any decency.
How her university hasn't told her to sort herself out or find a new job I don't understand.

Empathy?

Reminds me of /pol/s relationship with SJWs

Peterson is ok I guess, the problem are his fanboys, telling them to clean their rooms is fitting

A few grammatical errors in that post, user, but its quite all right. Certainly nothing to get worked up over, like the transdoshans sometimes do. Have a wonderful day!

I've seen people on /pol/ be in favor of abolishing net neutrality literally only because it's the opposite of what reddit wants

>both extremes are dumb
Who'da thunk it

>be anti-postmod youtube man
>go full postmod in your first debate, redefining truth in a way that suits your religious views

The only good thing Sam Harris did in years was host that debate, so I could see how bat Peterson is.

>>>/reddit/

But he's right.

I want leftypol to leave

Wait, here I was hasty He's partially right, because he thinks we should instill in children feelings of disgust towards homosexuals. There's no need to do that, it comes naturally to everyone, even homophilic men, you just need to stop indoctrinating them that it's ok, even great, to be gay.

May i direct you tumblr good sir, with you and the rest of your 52 memegenders?

No.

*tips beret*

*dodges*

Daddy!

>>you learn that he is known for Traditionalist Conservatism, and writing articles in favor of smoking, without disclosing that he was on a £50k annual salary from JTI the tobacco company
What a meanie weenie.

I checked there Reddit page the other day, it was full of white nationalist propaganda. There was even some MAGA fags at a Peterson Q&A asking why "theleftcantmemeXD".

>/leftypol/ cares about Jordan Peterson is because /pol/ likes him.

i just can't comprehend how this guy is actually seen as modern philosopher by some. all he can do is talk about psychology (which, granted he is definitely better at) and repeat philosophers that fundamentally disagree with him. i can't manage to think of a single original thing he's come up with.

G-guys
my bedroom isn't clean, should I be worried?

>Peter Scruton
>Peter

Also
>loony with all the style of a hash brown

You mean you disagree with him?

potentially many.

>Ethics?
BWAHAHHAHAHA
>Empathy?
BWAHAHAHHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHA

White nationalist propaganda!!!!! OMG shut it down, can't have any of that evil stuff anywhere, ant it definitely represents Peterson 100%

Peter, Roger, James, something.
I couldn't be fucked to google him again.

Yes, I think he's a disingenious reactionary who should have retired 50 years ago.

while /pol/ has recently started hating him because he came out and shat on the alt-right, the user is still right that the only reason leftypol hates Peterson is because of contrarianism. Im willing to bet most who hate him have never read anything he has written or listened to any of his lectures

And you have a single fact to back them up?

I hate him because he's an intellectually dishonest cunt and his followers the absolute worst kind of people. Of course identity politics can be cancer, and I understand from psychologist friends that what he writes about Jung is somewhat interesting.

That doesn't mean I'm going to jump aboard his pandering shit train.

I have never read/watched anything by him, but doesn't he usually give nice, wholesome advice? Clean your room, eat your veggies, study hard, etc. Why the hate?

to be fair his fanbase actually benefits from hearing those messages

His detractors would too...