How the fuck did this guy get so popular? 99% of his shit is trivial

The standard for a "public intellectual" on the fight is pathetically low, a run of the mill college professor pedalling a shitty self help course is the best they have.

Ah yes, I'm forgetting about all those erudite left-wing intellectuals like Noam "every problem in the world can be somehow blamed on US foreign policy" Chomsky and the incredibly nuanced Ta Nehisi Coates and Shaun King.

Chomsky is probably the brightest public intellectual still alive (even if his ideology is garbage), beyond that there really is nothing on either side. I think Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are the most intelligent figures on the right alive today and they could beat match with their counterparts on the left.

The status of "public intellectuals" is sorely lacking.

I second this. I enjoy listening to his lectures while driving because it's very conversational. I wish he would stop wasting every media appearance talking about SJWs.

You might not agree with his politics but you can't deny Chomsky is a smart guy, he'd run rings around Peterson. So would even a coked out slav like Zizek. Peterson might be knowledgeable about psychology but when he tries to talk politics or society he sounds dumb as a wall.

I'm probably too old to be under his spell but I see that most of his popularity is that of a father figure. His message seems to be something that we should all have learned when coming of age but there was probably nobody around for a generation of lost boys to tell it. His whole persona and delivery seem to suggest it.

I find he goes off on tangents a bit too much in drawing deeper meaning from art and biblical stories. It can be entertaining but I think he reminds me too much of me when I talk and now I'm actively trying not to be long-winded.

Steven Pinker is a good public intellectual/pop scientist.

lmao Veeky Forums is so tumblr/sjw lately, i miss the old patrician days

>The status of "public intellectuals" is sorely lacking.

Not really, they're public intellectuals. Real intellectuals doing real, meaningful research are preoccupied. People who couldn't cut it in academia or people who use their tenure to story tell and grandstand are the ones who shine, which is how you end up with public intellectuals like NDT, Bill Nye, or Chomsky.

>he'd run rings around Peterson
>Zizek
>Chomsky

This is what leftists actually believe top kek

I don't deny Chomsky is smart I just posit that his framework is fucking retarded

summer 2015, right?

>Chomsky is probably the brightest public intellectual still alive

Then truly, we are in dire straits...

wtf is this thing?

Your new lover. Spread your cheeks hon.

I'm more worried about the thing in front of her to be honest user

>I posit

As if any generation got more than one version of the story.

It really can be boiled down to daddy issues.

he owns that great depression fit hard desu

>So would even a coked out slav like Zizek.
*sniffs* "I say NO!"

old lit was leftist as fuck, leftypol literally started out as a lit colony

>ignores the substance and then says there's no substance

He is the only guy on the planet with an actually coherent and far-reaching naturalistic account of religion though. He's not exactly a lightweight.

A cult of people whose bastion is rationality and also overthink everything and never take any meaningful action. What will we ever do to combat such a sinister threat?

Hardly, I've been here since 2K12 when noone had even heard of Veeky Forums.

you mean the guy whose replies "not if I'm compelled to" when he's asked if he would go by someones pronouns, even though it was made clear in the question that they weren't trying to compel him in the hypothetical

dude's hilarious. did an ama on reddit and said (I'm paraphrasing) that ignorant people underestimate problems and brush them aside and then when asked about global warming said he wasn't worried and that man will figure it out.

dude has no nuance when is outside the discussion of religion. i'm sure he's great at what he does in his field of study but its so obvious when he is out of his depth. maybe it's because he is so sure of himself but he doesn't seem to have any ability to critically analyse his own arguments when he is in the public sphere

I agree with him on Global Warming. I'm not worried either. There's only two options: either A) it's been overblown, or B) we're all gonna die because no matter how many electric cars we build and treaties we sign, nothing on earth can stop a billion screaming chinamen from polluting the fuck out of the earth.

that's an empowered transgender womyn

Explains everything t-b-h, 2012 was when moot brought back /pol/ and the anti-sjw scene became a thing. This place has become far more right since then.

>I've been here since 2K12 when noone had even heard of Veeky Forums.
Veeky Forums became popular in 2007-2009 with Chanology and Internet Hate Machine. You are also ignoring the fact that around 2012 there was a huge influx of Evola nerds.

He's popular for standing up to SJWs, not for his work in psychology. He's an attractive, middle aged white man, who is a father figure for fatherless millennials.
Again, reasons he's popular: standing up to SJW, being a qualified clinical psychologist, being a middle aged, attractive, white man.
Not reasons he's popular: scholarly contributions to psychology and philosophy

>2012
>no one had even heard of Veeky Forums

Yeah, but it has less to do with him being white, and more to do with those suspenders he wore in that one youtube video

Because leftist academics have dumbed down colleges so hard to the point that a professor doesn't really need to be exceptional in order to receive attention.

>How the fuck did this guy get so popular?
>99% of his shit is trivial
his popularity has nothing to do with 99% of his shit and everything to do with memez, pussycat

>ousting yourself as cancer

dont shitpost with kemono friends on Veeky Forums

what are you talking about bro? science is overrated because it can't tell us what to do, and is an inferior method of truth-seeking to mythology. gah

He's drowning in citations though.

I actually just got out of a talk by Jordan Peterson, and truly thought it to be incredibly insightful. He's is an incredibly well-articulate, thoughtful individual and yes, his message is something we all know deep down, but it's also something we (as in young men) tend to forget frequently in this post-modernist society we live it -- at least I know I do.

I spoke with him briefly after the talk about found him to be an extremely pleasant, inspirational individual. I only wish I'd heard his talk earlier in my college career, as I believe it's definitely affected my outlook on life.

I'm so glad I don't live in burgerland. Look at OP's picture:
>professor's gestures scream: "I'm smart, I'm thinking"
>woman with glasses pretending to understand what the professor is saying, probably a feminist too.
>that ugly bitch behind her
>cuck with beard behind professor

Being a third worlder is glorious, my friends!

You know "that ugly bitch behind her" is a man, right? It's worse than you think, user...

...

I'll straight up say it, I admire the fuck out of this guy

I really don't see how anyone can see him as anything other than a total pseud with a big vocabulary.

Like, are these threads all trolls, or what?
I refuse to believe that anyone who has ever read a book or enjoys reading books could seriously mistake this guy for anything but.

???

This, did the OP even watch/listen?

that's because you have issues with your father

Well, we have an entire thread unironically dedicated to self-help books right now, so take that for what you will.

HINT: Veeky Forums is full of pseuds.

>pajeet on the right is wearing a Captain America shirt

America, everyone.

He's funny. I like listening to his insane self-help nonsense, it's weirdly therapeutic

this, he even talks about it

youtube.com/watch?v=VJMCQ94t98k

except chomsky just doesn't engage with people who don't agree to his terms. foucault, harris and zizek aren't memes but he just won't talk with any of them b/c reasons

the fact that peterson can't win debates doesn't even matter. he stands down mobs of braindead ideologues and the passive-aggressive cunts at the university and elsewhere. he's sincere about what he believes and that's why people love him

Harris and Zizek are definitely memes, and Chomsky already BTFO Harris a couple years back. Plus he went on Firing Line with Bill Buckley a long time ago.

Not that I like him, I think his ideology is total nonsense, but the man is there for a reason.

He seems like a silly man who offers little of real substance, but if he can convince a enough young people that dead a bunch of dead Frenchmen are responsible for all of their problems, he will have made the world a better place.

Everyone I don't like is a pseud: Veeky Forums edition

Literally every intellectual who ever existed is a pseud with nothing but trivial things to say to you guys

>her
it*

I honestly can't tell if anybody in this image except Peterson is a male or female (or some ungodly mixture of the two).

This. Not exactly a lightweight.

Modern literary academia is a joke. Non-pseuds these days choose science or IT fields to express their genius

These two hit the nail on the head.
I'm by no means a /pol/fag, but this picture or perhaps just the situation stirs an almost reactionary feeling deep inside me. The handsome, eloquent professor dressed in suspenders and a slim tie, his sleeves rolled with precision, standing by himself beset on all sides by the ugly, hateful forces of progress, trying his best to reason with them. It's almost romantic.

chomsky is a beast, it's true

who wins a harris/zizek debate? zizek seems to really dislike harris. i'd like to see that, harris must have considered it at some point

youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

youtube.com/watch?v=ObnBHMzIQ_A

you would think they could talk about islam

this, he's the anti-sjw guru and people want gurus because it's the post-truth world and nobody knows what to think or even why

whether it's self-help or religion or cult or whatever it is, he's thriving because it is an age of unreason and irrationality

>brought on by bloody neo-marxist postmodern intellectuals

also this
youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4

>anarcho-masochist

haha yeah man shakespeare and nietzsche wouldve been app devs today haha Veeky Forums is right all academics are pseuds 420 blaze it

fucking retard

But those two were pseuds............

sorry for shitting up this fine thread, but listen to zizek defending religion & christianity here.

isn't this the same thing peterson is doing? isn't this what's going on, the return of religion - specifically Western/archetypal religion - against postmodernism?

youtube.com/watch?v=JkpRqxKbgF8

just thought that was interesting, since *sniff* zizek is a freudian and *sniff* peterson is a jungian

and so on and so on

Shakespeare was a cutting edge entertainer of his days, he sure as shit wouldn't by writing plays. Probably would've become a filmmaker, or a videogame designer

>>brought on by bloody neo-marxist postmodern intellectuals
It might not be exactly true or intellectually honest, but it at least helps people recognize the radicalization that's been going on at universities for decades and the texts being used to do it.

That's Jordan Peterson, the alt-rights cool uncle who treats them like a real adult and talks to them with big words!

It's pretty frustrating that you can't talk about most literary criticism in here anymore without be called a sjwcuck.

Veeky Forums was a lone leftyden on Veeky Forums for years before the neoright started popping up

now that you guys have someone challenging your shitty retarded opinions formed in an echochamber all you do is bitch about it

I still enjoy Zizek's early books, but I met him last summer, and he told me he supports Podemos, so I feel ambivalent about his current politics at best now. He really seems to be riding the accelerationist train, and I'm not sure I want to go along with that.

If they accept anything more than a living wage, yes, they're a pseudo intellectual.

good lord

>now that you guys have someone challenging your shitty retarded opinions formed in an echochamber all you do is bitch about it
kek this.

His talks of personal responsibility and agency go against the increasingly fatalistic worldview of young people.

>not knowing why you should hate sophists
You have some more Plato to cover user

Veeky Forums's favorite pasttime is bitching about how "inconsequential" or "trivial" or "irrelevant" certain things are

ironically

The problem is more that those on the right don't really challenge anything though. Or rather, they don't actually engage with anything they challenge. They just shout and say "looks like someone needs a helicopter ride" and other reactionary shit like that. I'd be more than welcome of actual right-wing critiques of post-structuralism or post-colonialism, or any other political or literary movement, but I haven't seen anybody, especially not on Veeky Forums (shouldn't be surprised) give actual substantial critique to these ideas. It's odd, because post-structuralism was actually a boon to certain right-wing ideologies a few decades ago, but now it's "spoopy degenerate postmodernism" so it's taboo to even engage with it.

k so fuck all of human history, fuck everything and everyone

the only true intellectuals to ever exist, according to Veeky Forums's absurd criteria, are diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

fan-fucking-tastic guys, you did it

I see people actually engaging left-wing sophistry all the time, it's met with "x person you referenced is a pseud lel" and condescending name calling until it invariably turns into a dick measuring contest

this place used to be a piss-pot, now it's just a piss-pot with a different flavor of retard and more people complaining

that's exactly it.

on top of that, peterson has to deal with that radicalization *personally.* he's the one being de-platformed, shouted down, being forced to defend himself...i can't blame him for not engaging charitably with the other side because of what they are presenting to him. and now that he's acquired a fan base i see even less reason for him to do so. i can't begrudge the man his success when he's earned it the way that he has.

but he never loses his temper, never stoops to their level. and that is why i support the man. his arguments are not always so polished, but he believes what he is saying and he says it in a way that makes me admire his conviction and character in the face of those crowds.

and Jesus, don't forget Jesus.

>diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

also pic related

Can you give me an example?

>diogenes, thoreau, and the unabomber

pretty good list but you forgot Stirner

He receives a lot of hate here because Veeky Forums contains a disproportionate number of Marxists and trannies. In reality though, he's quite an insightful individual. His views regarding religion, meaning and being are especially interesting.

Odd theory. Say how's your relationship with your father?

Sure thing, pal:
>I'd be more than welcome of actual right-wing critiques of post-structuralism or post-colonialism, or any other political or literary movement, but I haven't seen anybody, especially not on Veeky Forums (shouldn't be surprised) give actual substantial critique to these ideas.
Their inability to critique post-structuralism comes from their reliance on a vulgar, anti-intellectual (and more politically effective) version of it. If the right were to seriously try to critique it, they would undermine their own project.
As far as post-colonialism is concerned, the disagreement is on an axiomatic level. It really is dependent on a conception of humanity that is breaking down (i.e. stopped being useful to the right after the fall of the USSR, though it hasn't completely died out and built upon shaky ground to begin with) among right wing people for the past few years. The notion that colonized people or formerly colonized people are at all worthy of consideration is laughable to them as is all reasoning that follows from that position. I personally hope it reaches the point where they renounce their humanity for any number of more specific identities.

does his book make his views clearer or is it more of the same sort of mess he says in his lectures?

>Their inability to critique post-structuralism comes from their reliance on a vulgar, anti-intellectual (and more politically effective) version of it. If the right were to seriously try to critique it, they would undermine their own project.

Which is part and parcel of the right's inability to criticize the left. The left has already pushed post-structuralism to its limits and highlighted its flaws many times. The right's blind embrace of a sort of bare-bones post-structuralism falls victim to the same fallacy of assuming an objective subjectivity that many on the left have already criticized ad-nauseum in regards to post-structuralism. The left recognizes that post-structuralism is another garbage can that they can't quite stop themselves from eating out of, while the right has enthusiastically started eating out of the same garbage can while blatantly denying that they are eating garbage or out of a garbage can.

In short, the right's embrace of deconstruction and post-structuralism fails to engage with contemporary dialogue on the issues of post-structuralism in favor of willfully blind implementation of it. They aren't having the same conversation. It's like a kid talking to his parents about the actions he imagines his action figures are taking while his parents are talking about the process and limitations of being able to talk about imaginary actions.

>The notion that colonized people or formerly colonized people are at all worthy of consideration is laughable to them as is all reasoning that follows from that position. I personally hope it reaches the point where they renounce their humanity for any number of more specific identities.

Wow. This statement actually reaffirms basically every claim that post-colonialists make regarding subjective identity between the colonized and the colonizers. Again, this is an example of the right embracing and in no way challenging the epistemological frameworks that the left produces, only to wallow in it. Effectively, this is saying, "no, I'm not eating garbage. This is a fine cuisine. This isn't garbage. You're garbage. I'm glad to eat from this garbage can. It's delicious."

I'm sorry this did come off more disparagingly than I had hoped. I actually think it's perfectly fine for people to make different subjective value claims as long as they can provide adequate justification, but it sincerely feels like two completely estranged conversations.

This last example where you say that you want those that recognize themselves as colonized individuals to "renounce their humanity" seems emblematic of this problem. Post-colonialists would argue that the colonizer does seek to dehumanize the colonized subject, so anyone making such a claim does nothing to challenge the epistemology of post-colonialism, or at least they do nothing to challenge it by making that statement. Instead, they just assume their role as colonizer uncritically. It seems like a more fruitful argument against...

What's this conception of humanity that you talk of? I've been getting close to this same point for a while and I'd like to see if I can clarify my own ideas by looking at yours.

Continued

post-colonialism would seek to undermine the core arguments and criticisms made by post-colonial scholars. They would look at the underlying assumptions that scaffold their epistemologies, looking for any unjustified subjective value judgement or fault in prior critical interpretation, but assuming one of the subjective roles established in the epistemological framework of post-colonialism doesn't seem to critically challenge or undermine it in any meaningful way.

Marxism and postmodernism are completely incompatible

Zizek is lacanian and wrote his book about why the christian legacy is worth fighting for.

But zizek is more Hegelian than psychoanalytical