>>9733168

>getting annoyed by children

I was going to say that he's a published neuroscientist and used to produce actual significant papers in that field, but looks like he's actually done jackshit there. Shows how much finding your niche and being charismatic counts over anything else.

Before I get hate from either side: I'm undecided and trying to make up my own mind about this.

It seems to me that the video is extremely dishonest itself.
For example, it claims that pomos are saying barely more than "knowledge and power are connected" and that Peterson has a problem with that. In reality, Peterson admitted as much and only saw a problem with seeing EVERYTHING through the lens of power. And his analysis of that problem is pretty convincing I think. For example when people start to attack meritocracies or even mathematics as an evil white system designed to retain power.
Of course, those things weren't directly said by the original pomos so one can blame Peterson for painting with too broad a brush but these conclusions are the direct result the attacks on the state/power relationship.

A second example in the video was when it said something along the lines of "and this was later misinterpreted by his followers". I mean, you can use that as a defense, but you can also see why someone would consider it a lazy defense similar to the "not real socialism" kind. If people read X, call themselves X-ians and act in that way, how can you attack them without ever mentioning X?

I get the impression that on the one hand, Peterson hasn't done all the reading and groups people all together and thereby makes himself very vulnerable and also wrong sometimes; and on the other hand, his critics hide behind moving the goalpost because there's always at least one pomo who doesn't fit the picture completely and stood out in some way while the analysis of their work and its consequences is still correct.
The whole argument seems to be: "Well yeah, some of us were this way, and what we did led to this, and your analysis of what it has led to is correct, but some of us were actually bit more complex or didn't plan for this to happen" vs. "I hate what I'm seeing currently, I have read some of the roots of where it comes from, so I'll act like this is all a masterplan from the hivemind of the roots".

Am I wrong?

>thinking about things through the lens of power is wrong because these other guys are trying to seize power
nice knowledge good number

I don't follow. Isn't that exactly Peterson's point? That "side A" establishes a system because it's the most just or the most efficient, while "side B" alleges that A is only motivated by search for power, claims to be fight that power in the name of justice, while ironically being the side who is actually only interested in power (outside of a few gullible useful idiots)?

They don't reference Lyotard who is crucial to understanding Pomo and I believe Peterson does address in one of his lecture series on the Pomo topic. So your point that >his critics hide behind moving the goalpost because there's always at least one pomo who doesn't fit the picture completely and stood out in some way...

Is on point.

okay, the problem with saying
>they're doing that
and
>that's why it's wrong to see the world as always doing that

is still doing that. the second proposition makes you the same as them, and you both believe you are opposite sides because you are both locked into the same idea of power. postmodernism doesn't say that the people doing that are bad because they are on the bad side of that game, but the system is bad because it necessitates those sides. by joining in, you don't regard things from the postmodern perspective, but get locked into the same perspectives as the panopticon of that world allows.

this idea that a meritocracy or anything else is good for the world when it views the world through power like that makes the mistake that all SJWs and generally dangerous people do: there is a perfect and achievable goal and ultimate truth and perfect process which is worth any human damage to perfect this world. postmodernism is against that. peterson does that as much as the people he's fighting: it's how you win that game if you want to stay in that game.

postmodernism just describes that game and says maybe your goal to wipe out the right people or interactions or whatever isn't going to be as fulfilling as having a meaningful understanding of the world which is not so fragile the fact it's only yours doesn't make you want to take over russia in winter/berkeley in february/simon and schuster. why would you want be the the psychology professor who got in a fight over a women's day spa? is the manicure depression curing? it takes some scientology level selling to raise that to a second career. it's different words but the same song: just like you don't need to recognise naziism or mosley or hitler in wodehouse's spode character to realise that man is a power hungry insecure nutjob who is far too obsessed with something and has somehow worked in turnips to the conspiracy equation. peterson and the people he's fighting are fucking loopy.

>while the analysis of their work and its consequences is still correct.

It isn't correct though, SJWs don't call themselves postmodernists. There's no real connection between the 'consequences' and the French postmodernists which is what the video is trying to show. Are SJWs a problem? Sure, there's just no point specifically naming Foucault and Derrida as 'Marxist' postmodernists in order to qualify the argument. It's a compelling story but it is not the truth.

Both sides have voices, deportment unsuitable for the media; they are like Nixon in the debate with Kennedy, even if they were making salient points I am turned off by Peterson and the other guy on such a basic level that I simply don't care what they think of feel. Peterson should stick to writing books I guess but he doesn't seem sincere enough for it, craves attention and the pedagogical podium, a largely Phallic construct where he feels safe, whole and empowered. It's funny to watch people like this spend time on their efforts to "educate" while the world turns on very different, much more occult and profound axes. The fact that anyone of the ecelebs or their critics believe they are having an impact on the world is probably an aspect of first world narcissism. Remember that narcissus couldn't look away if he wanted to. He was probably terrified by everything that was not his reflection. The chaos of the world and all of its inhabitants defy any predictive model.

I think your conclusions are correct but your premises are simply wrong.
You already start out on the assumption that the system is bad.
But if we take the example of: Who should be given tenure? The best minds and educators, or those who are part of a certain group? - then I simply don't see a lot wrong with the meritocratic and self-less system. And it is self-less unless you really believe there is some secret illuminati elite behind it who came up with a plan to educate our children the best way ONLY to put more white people into power.
The same thing with the crazy idea that mathematics and other hard sciences are racist - what is wrong with the current system? Who in their right mind would argue that mathematics is a system designed to necessitate both powerhungry whites and powerhungry SJWs?

And it goes on to your conclusion that Peterson is crazy and power hungry because of his "fight". Your premise is "there's nothing to fight against, he's just out for money". In reality, free speech is a valid thing to fight for and before it resonated with people and turned into some kind of movement, it didn't give him any power, it only threatened all the power he had.

You are acting like they are two sides of the same coin, with the coin being an evil system described by the pomos.
While to the critics of the pomos, the system is fairly good and as good as any human system has been for thousands of years, and the pomo attacks on it are used as an excuse to tear down a mostly just system and replace it with identity politics.

I should have just said: "of the consequences" - because the other part is what's held in contention, yes.
My response to that was my second point - that it seems the postmodernists hide behind the fact that there's always someone who doesn't fit right into the picture. They've said one thing and then the opposite of it. So it's always easy to find a quote and then a quote against it. Which is why I said it's wrong of Peterson to talk like they were a hivemind with a masterplan.
But I don't think it's wrong to say that they wrote things which got directly picked up and used by people who became very influential in academics which then influenced today's generation of SJWs.

Simplified, some pomos created the seeds from which certain revolutions grew, but it might be wrong to say that they planned the revolution themselves. E.g. when he says "slight of hand" it implies intent, whereas I think it's just where the research and discussion naturally went after one explanation failed. There's no conspiracy, just people who liked shaking the foundations, and now people who think they stand in that tradition when they completely burn down the foundations.

Eh come on, do you really feel you're saying anything worthwhile when you just pretend you're above both sides and that things like the US election totally don't influence the world because it's much more "occult"?
You seem a little smug and esoteric.

I didn't mean to seem that way but I did for sure. I mostly wanted to say that I couldn't stand JBP or the narrator's voice and that made it impossible for me to engage with the video. And I guess logically following that I meant that such things, attraction and repulsion on a libidinal level, have a greater impact on life than these kinds of videos.

I can agree with that (and it's also showcased in the election which was probably decided to a big portion not on theory but just one candidate seeming close to the people and the other like a rotting robot) but you have to keep in mind that those repulsions are a) very different for everyone and b) not everything.

Some people are attracted to smug youtube narrator voices. And Peterson is held in high regard partially for his eloquency despite his silly frog voice.
Of course both only appeal to a small subset of people who like to jerk off over rationality. But that's still millions of people.

>but i might be backing the WINNER in the prison fight i promise i'm not in
good luck with that koolaid mate.

I'm clearly leaning towards one side; I didn't claim I'm neutral or unbiased, I just said I'm undecided. And every time I try to actually have discussion about this with the other side, I get people like you with zero arguments or outright insults - which in turn solidifies my suspicion that I'm leaning towards the side with the better arguments.
I would honestly be glad if you pointed out where I'm wrong.

>DUDE WE'RE NOT MARXIST YOURE BEING PARANOID!

>shills dogshit marxist shit

cant these post modernist just accept that they lost and fade away into the trash bin of history forever like they were always destined to instead of pathetically clinging onto Jordan Peterson, the only person who gives them any sort of relevance for their failed abortion of a philosophy?