Besides the recent trans stuff, what do you think of this man?

Besides the recent trans stuff, what do you think of this man?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DtiRzQMgBDM
youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ
frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Veeky Forums mods are a funny bunch.

If by funny you mean gigantic ass eating faggots

Careful there, might get your post deleted!

I dare them to

MODS ARE FUCKING PUSSIES! BAN ME YOU BUNCH OF SHIT EATING RETARDS

Are the Maps of Meaning lectures worth watching/listening to?

Eh, I dont find them as interesting as his one off lectures.

His ones about evil vs tragedy and existentialism are my favs.

stop

definately. highly intelligent lectures on a diverse number of topics.. would also recommend 'personality and its tranformations' or any of his other lectures

Only if you promise to stop having sex with my mom please

i wish he was my therapist desu

Treat them like podcasts.

Stop deleting my threads.

Why does this thread keep getting deleted? This man is a professor and author. He lectures and writes about philosophy and literature, among other things. How is he not Veeky Forums?

who is this motherfucker

(checked)
Jordan Peterson

Not nearly as bad as /mu/. At least I can still be a pretentious twat on this board. On /mu/ I was banned for it.

The mods much like the administration of his university has an agenda. It doesn't matter if he has written a published book or not, he questions their ideas and in a time when cultural marxism has gone unchallenged for too long that's dangerous because they can't formulate counter arguments.

>The mods much like the administration of his university has an agenda.

Yeah its known as quality control

That's wishful thinking on your part, just take one look at the catalogue and you know that's not the case.

>cultural marxism

literally everything you say is null because of this.

Peterson is a legend.

>man
>implying that's not the face of gender dysphoria

I am trans and have always enjoyed his lectures and recorded classes. He is a strong POV for affirming gender expression and archetypal identification with certain gender norms. I don't think his teaching precludes anyone from expressing for one gender or an amalgam of those qualities, just for remembering that gender is not fanfiction, it is deep rooted and powerful conceptual framework for our actions and ways of living. Rejecting it out of hand and then hypocritically falling into old gender roles is kind of silly and makes pedantic SJWs look like narcissistic people with egos too short so that the point flies over their metaphorical heads.

Peterson is not against marxism. He is against fascism and allowing hate groups to go unchallenged. The two are not the same. His pro-free speech ideas are there because he believes that hate groups use many LGBT and other minority protections as opportunities to confirm their biases and as times to go underground and spawn splinter groups. Lack of free speech gives fascists excuses that can recruit gullible people. The same shit was happening on left, uncaring bureaucrats and academics enabling popular ideas of how to legislate LGBT issues but were ultimately not actual measures: they legislated pronoun respect without a democratic discussion yet the issue trans and LGB people are worried about is DISCRIMINATION. There's a lot more they could have done, but possibly would be "unpopular" so they chose something passive aggressive.

If Peterson came out to his wife and children, he would probably not "identify" as a bizarre gender or as NB, so he's a wonderful ally. Trans people don't need transtrenders ruining their lives with bullshit behavior.

I like him, some of his lectures on existentialism actually touched my soul quite a bit.

But I do have a problem with him, and it's the same problem I have with Zizek. And the problem is that sometimes when he's analyzing a certain X he extrapolates a lot, and with that extrapolation he presents information that is supposed to elucidate X, but the connection between the information he presents and said X is not clear at all, for it is an extrapolation.

For an example, watch the first 10 min of this video, where he analyzes Genesis:

youtube.com/watch?v=DtiRzQMgBDM

Do you guys see the problem? Or am I being retarded?

The only thing I have to go off of is one of those videos of him dealing with protesters, to which I can only say he seems like your average academic who treats a poorly articulated argument as invalid because he's spent so much time studying one or two things that he doesn't feel the need to take shit from anyone anymore. Intelligent but dogmatic.

>I don't see things that way therefore your opinion is shit


Classic form

>himym caption
>using the word "classic"
makes sense.

>Peterson is not against marxism.
He's against authoritarianism, which is what the fruits of the frankfurt school has seeded and which also was the consequences of applied marxism. Now I'm not saying he's pro capitalism or against workers rights or anything like that but that he is simply not an ideologue. I liked his comparison of ideological thinking to demonic possession because that's such a succinct way of putting it.
>Lack of free speech gives fascists excuses that can recruit gullible people.
It doesn't give them excuses, it validates them because their ideas are considered too dangerous to engage in fair discussion which would imply that they are more true than what the establishment are spouting. Additionally it will eventually force them to resolve things with violence because of their pariah status.

Why though? Because you don't like the word?

The shame of Frankfurt School is that people begin to believe that social justice must be tied up in legislative rather than social approaches.

>comparison of ideological thinking to demonic possession
Agreed. I am a big supporter of Zizek's moderate approach to things, that people need to talk about the issue not to engage in propaganda of the deed or to produce legislation that produces revolutionary change, since it becomes dysfunctional because the root of their change is delusional.

youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

>It doesn't give them excuses
I suppose my word choice was less than direct: I meant that it produces "excuses" that are then used to validate their agenda but may not actually be directly logically validating them. It is validating their personal worldview, which happens to be quite narrow. So I agree, exactly, we are speaking of the same meanings.

>force them to resolve things with violence because of their pariah status.
We should, as Peterson says, be more afraid of not speaking what we believe than the consequences of silent. It is time to think and speak and discuss as a society with respect and open dialogue, not whatever has happened with the bizarre leftist progressive bubble of political correctness and niceties.

Not the person you are replying to; however, it is a bogeyman for American rightists to call everything left of normal American leftism (which is moderate rightist or classically liberal to most foreigners) "cultural Marxism," which is nonsense. Social aspects of Marxism are not limited to any academia or really any particular movement. It's a strawman, a conspiracy theory. If you are disagreeable, you are then labeled based on being feminist, socialist, leftists of any kind etc etc "cultural Marxists" who are destroying western societies. It also implies that socialists all agree on what socialism is or how it should be implemented... or that many people among far leftists share ideologies with direct agreement; they Most modern socialists are not Marxists; in an analogous situation, most modern psychoanalytical psychiatrists are not Freudian even if Freud was the basis for their modern theories. It shows massive ignorance of the nuance of socialism.

watch more of him, you're wrong

>It's a strawman, a conspiracy theory.
Gramscianism is hardly a strawman, I mean they teach critical theory in schools and you try to make it sound like it is some shadowy force. You shouldn't use the term "conspiracy theory" either, that's the establishment's choice words to ridicule any criticism or questioning no matter how valid.
>"cultural Marxists" who are destroying western societies.
The point of any revolutionary ideology is to destroy the current society, is it not?
>It also implies that socialists all agree on what socialism is or how it should be implemented
I don't think it does that at all.

that's all he's famous for though

he's a professor at a minor (and canadian at that) university

He used to teach at Harvard

Not really. His lectures were gaining attention before all this business came about. In fact they popped up on my suggested videos on Youtube.

>I am trans

You are confused

Stop wasting your life on AGP and Internet roleplaying

no

>Peterson is not against marxism
Pretty sure he's explicitly stated otherwise.

Yea he's called it a pathological ideology a number of times now.

Yes but I also recommend reading the book, it's one of few relatively recent works I can honestly say has affected my perspective on things.

I bet op is a ban evader

It's pathological for the same reason every ideology is pathological. It never ever tells the entire story.

I mean, ask yourself. Would a Marxist even care that a person in the lower classes worked for 20 years 90 hours a week to become upper-class? No he wouldn't, because a Marxist doesn't care if people are successful in a capitalist framework(Even if their success is predicated on exceptionally individual ability and perseverance), because they believe the framework is corrupt and irredeemable and should be destroyed whatever positive arguments could be mustered in it's defense.

loser!

Why is he so perfect? I wish any of my professors was this cute.

His autistic passion is so pure it makes my vagina try to drown my chair.

I want to believe

Nah, they know I'm not breaking any rules so they just quietly delete the threads.

Your response is irrational.

It only tells that you are confused and believe that trans = AGP, which means to me that you actually know what AGP is, and therefore must be AGP or trans yourself... or possibly some kind of masochistic, self-hating trans chaser.

Trans are a mostly invisible group of people; knowledge of their internal discourses is either because trans issues are overwhelmingly interesting to you (unlikely) or because they are interesting because it affects you (likely).

Assuming things about people or making your whole argument about assuming things is willful ignorance.

This is an excellent argument. Marxists can be especially pathological because of their attachment to their inability to produce favorable results- a kind of badge of honor in victimhood- after the failures of so many communist experiments in the last century. Oftentimes, Marxism failed in application to encourage the inventive to be aggressive in any regard. Most everything was done through black market capitalism and systemic corruption.

Systematic rigidity -ironically something Marxists wanted to remove and destroy in capitalism- led to egregious production demands and bureaucratic inefficiency. Thomas Sowell loves to harp on about how simple tasks like painting agricultural equipment in Soviet Russia would often take ridiculous amounts of time because getting the correct, centrally distributed paint for the vehicles was impossible; instead, the workers focused on getting the work done immediately as demanded of them, using instead paint that was available but not rust-proof. The machines inevitably broke down... and the workers were blamed.

>Your response is irrational.

This is funny coming from a mentally ill person defending their own irrational dysfunction and delusion. "Transgenderism" is no more an identity than schizophrenia, bipolar or OCD is. Just because the gay mafia has made it into one of their protected domains doesn't mean that you should let your illness define you. Just be a genuine person.

>Peterson is not against marxism.

Only a crazy pervert could do this much mental gymnastics. He's one of the most anti-Marxist academics ever.

He's not anti-marxist per se but anti-ideology.

is the concept to difficult for you?

I tried watching his lecture on Osiris and it's clear that he had no idea what he was talking about.
Like, I have no idea where he got such a shitty comprehension of the most famous story in the Egyptian mythos.
Also, his doctrine seems, to me, to be kind of Last Man.

Back any of that up with arguments.
Not saying you're wrong but your post is kind of useless like this

He pretty clearly thinks Marxism of any kind is bad.

He is anti-Marxist in the most severe form, his method is purely idealistic and subjectivist. Peterson's not providing an "anti-ideology", what he provides is a rationalization of ideologies and trying to give it some utility for people to use to their advantage. Ultimately like all forms of psychoanalytic theories it's a doomed project.

>It's pathological for the same reason every ideology is pathological.
Ideology isn't a disease and it can't be cured.

>Would a Marxist even care that a person in the lower classes worked for 20 years 90 hours a week to become upper-class? No he wouldn't, because a Marxist doesn't care if people are successful in a capitalist framework(Even if their success is predicated on exceptionally individual ability and perseverance), because they believe the framework is corrupt and irredeemable and should be destroyed whatever positive arguments could be mustered in it's defense.
You're right a Marxist shouldn't care. There's no point in getting emotionally invested in a particular form of social relations. The entire premise is there is structural limitations to social formations which they all eventually reach.
Capitalism shouldn't be destroyed because its corrupt or irredeemable but only because it has reached its limits and become a burden on further development.
There were emotionally fulfilled and successful slaves and feudal peasants who were traumatized when they became freed, that's something Peterson may be interested in but its totally irrelevant from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is a form of anti-humanism whereas Peterson is a humanist.

Is tehre scientific evidence for archetype theory/collective unconscious?

>Also, his doctrine seems, to me, to be kind of Last Man.

This is absolutely not true. He constantly advocates making things harder on yourself.

Not to mention he tells people to explore their anxiety all the time

Yeah, implying that would increase self-knowledge or something, crazy I know

If you mean Neurosciences, then I don't think so. Neuroscience is still in it's childhood, still figuring out how the basics work. Extremely subtle phenomena like unconscious archetypes is just beyond what Neuroscience can probe atm.

All though it is a known fact that human's share brain structures across the entire species, and I believe these structures correlate to the archetypes in some form.

Psychoanalysis is still our best method for examining someone's subjective state, perhaps combined with fMRI

He follows Stefan Molyneux on Twitter and thinks Milo Yiannopoulos is an intellectual lol

when is he going to be on stefan's show

i've watched the personality 2015 lectures and i find them amazing

>He follows Stefan Molyneux on Twitter


It's wise to keep one's ear to the ground.

stop lying

I've only said the truth ITT.

It's cool that anti-SJW people finally have a reasonably interesting intellectual to fetishize

You can't make the truth a fetish

Start accepting truth.

Is this a Vargposting variant? This has true meme potential

That's actually pretty funny

>or possibly some kind of masochistic, self-hating trans chaser.

H-haha as if!

>not following the memers of the day

hmm this is not fucking literature.

No, but he IS an author, and I don't know why anyone isn't talking so much about Maps of Meaning, because that is one hell of an enlightening read

Its philosophy which is discussed here all the time. He is an author though and his book Maps of Meaning is pretty great

Yeah, I'm just going through his existentialism lectures and he seems to do that a lot.

The extrapolation from existential to wide-scale social or whatever is pretty suspect to me. I'm still working it out however.

...

> And the problem is that sometimes when he's analyzing a certain X he extrapolates a lot, and with that extrapolation he presents information that is supposed to elucidate X, but the connection between the information he presents and said X is not clear at all,
I know exactly what you mean. When i first watched his lectures i was like that. But after you have watched a lot of his lectures you know what he means. You don't see the connection right now but like a puzzle over time when you watch you'll get another piece which strings those together. You might get it when you watch another of his lectures which seems unrelated. I don't mean to sound fanboyish but its because his stuff is deep. Like a lot deeper then one thinks. It takes a long fucking time to digest and get his ideas. His statements and sentences are dense.

I'm sure fascism has noble goals too if you asked the fascist

You know it's bad when you're comparing your ideology to fascism.

Well, isn't it?

That's a nice strawman but unfortunately for you it's not anywhere close to true.

that pic is completely true desu

There is no aspect in which trans acceptance benefits society.

What about aesthetically?

Speak for yourself. I want a qt asexual trans gf.

That's exactly what happened, though.
frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett

I admit that there is a degree of intrigue and maybe even appeal to the aesthetics of the more successfully transitioned examples, but between the fact that those aesthetically successful examples are a tiny minority among transgender people(with most of them being absolutely grotesque in appearance) and the fact that even those successful examples come with a plethora of aberrant and socially eroding behavioral patterns(to say nothing about the socially eroding nature of the very concept of transgenderism itself) I'd say that the minuses far outweigh the pluses.

The common man should not have to see his surroundings and the surroundings of his children turned into a horrorshow because of your(or mine, for that matter) fetishes, user.

Turning the world into your safe space, nice

>The common man
Kek. The common man is barely conscious; if his morality is inconvenient to the intelligentsia, he can be assigned another.

>Turning the world into your safe space

Most sociopolitical movements can be boiled down to this idea, both the ones you agree with and the ones you abhor.

>The common man is barely conscious

This is what we are trying to change.

>the world
Only commie ones, bro. Reasonable, sane ones tend to boilable-down to turning one's specific, sovereign area into a safe space.

Does your plan involve neurosurgery? Because the common man's limited consciousness is largely due to genetics - and to the uneven distribution of intelligence.

>turning one's specific, sovereign area into a safe space.

I don't even think you genuinely believe this.
Either that or you have some very far-reaching ideas about what a "specific, sovereign area" would encompass.