>>9738007

Anonymous, I'm pretty sure the other Anonymous was joking. It's fairly obvious to me.

Is there anything more cringe than actually going to uni?

>Touching a shoulder is now rape
>There's an infinite amount of genders
>Males are scum
SJW seem fun and harmless until you actually meet them.

Yeah, being a working-class hero.

This. I used to think people like Peterson were alarmists before I got to college and joined the student union. They are going to kill us all.

This, this, this. They are real. They are not just memes.

really done me a ponder

>Doesn't cite a singe postmodernist in name, quote, or even idea
>Makes the claim all postmodernists are neo-marxists without a shred of evidence to back it up
>Says he first advocated defunding any discipline whose ideas he doesn't like
>Changes his mind and decides he should target parents and kids who have yet to be exposed to these ideas
>Thinks its incredible that there abstracts are being taken and republished on a site that doesn't give the opportunity to actually read the article and who intends to embarrass them
>Thinks you can sniff out whether or not something is postmodernist by whether it uses a no-no word, and thinks this is a reliable enough method that it should be the basis of whether a course gets subscribed to, no further investigation necessary
>Takes one 'postmodern' idea and says all 'postmodernists' subscribe to it, and by extension they're all bad people
>Thinks the phrase social justice is inherently postmodern and evil, even using it means you are corrupt and your wrongthink must be stamped out

And this is just the fucking tip of it. Also 'postmodernism is a cult that indoctrinates people, and if we scare parents into using my website where I take words out of context to spook you we can starve it out!'

Jesus.

>Not liking his personality lectures.

Sage all Jordan Peterson hate threads.

He'll get swept under the rug eventually by a kind of neo-postmodernism that adheres more closely to the actual writing of postmodernists, which has already begun among the more well-informed people on the internet. His anti-cult cult will be exposed for what it is.

>"Normally if you're a decent cult leader you can at least figure out a way to pick the pockets of your victims in a manner that enriches you."

Hmmmmmm he may have a point.

Let's not complicate the situation. This is not post-irony, nor post-post-irony, nor post-post-post-post irony or even post-post-modernism. This is simply juvenile and pitiful. To hate or to despise someone solely because that someone is now hip among certain boards is not an understandable reason to do so. This is shitposting and therefore not welcomed here.

>dude clean your room otherwise how are you going to grow the teeth to slay the dragon and save you father from the underworld chaos
i watched several hours of his lectures on youtube and probably will continue, but much of his conclusions are contingent on the fact that we accept a certain metaphysical framework and language, which he takes for granted, rather than demonstrate. he does this because he thinks if a meme survives then it must be good for the host, and the memes that survived for thousands of years (myths, bible), are more legitimate by virtue of being "battle tested".

God hates pseud enablers.

Maps of Meaning is still god-tier though

neomarxism is a serious threat

I want Peterson to go toe to toe with . Do ya think they'd get along

I'm happy that intelectuals now make money

>Peterson
>intellectual

Nothing he's saying is wrong

With Alan Davies? I know Zizek is considered a comedian by many, but I'm not sure it works the other way around as well. It does for teenagers worshipping Carlin or Hicks, but that doesn't count.

What the fuck. I typed in Zizek and saw it when I posted

Please, please, please don't cross out Peterson because of his recent SJW crusade.
He really provides an interesting way to understand the world in the "Maps of Meaning". It's absolutely not political in any way. It's a shame so many people won't read it because they disagree with him on completely unrelated things.

How does a postmodernists determine whether a preference is socially constructed or the result of an inherent biological imperative? Never understood how they deal with that question

This

It's fairly hard not to as the only outlets that gave him coverage have been alt-right/lite media. But now seeing that most of those who interviewed him on said media have themselves gone onto a proto-traditionalist narrative is hilarious how they don't seem to have listened to him.

As much as I enjoy some of Peterson's lectures, his contempt for post-modern and Marxism is annoying. Mainly because of his "followers" all suddenly label anything and anyone with a vague notion of either as libs, cucks etc and completely disregards any conflicting information, which I'm sure Peterson himself would be against.

this guy is a fucking joke. Listening to this video, it's just strawmen.

>Gender Studies = Stalinist Russia.

Nice lies.

Maps of Meaning is not political, but Peterson's political stance is a consequence of the fundamental observations made in Maps of Meaning.

>Doesn't cite a singe postmodernist in name, quote, or even idea
He does, though. His main targets are Derrida and Foucault. Particularly the claim of moral relativism.

Knew he was a pseud since when he called himself a Christian the first time. What an utter brainlet.

>reeeee stop making money
There is literally nothing wrong with making money. You realize that this dosh goes into his lectures and university coursers he uploads and not into coke and hooker, right?

>but much of his conclusions are contingent on the fact that we accept a certain metaphysical framework and language, which he takes for granted, rather than demonstrate.
I've watched all of maps of meaning and it's pretty solid. The only fundamental axioms you need to swallow are:

>objective reality, objective truth and objective morality exists
>the world is too complex to fully understand
>you can't derive moral guidance from scientific fact alone
>suffering is bad and ought to be minimized, as in always strive for the good
>free will is a thing

That's all. If you can't accept these fundamental axioms, how are you even alive?

I'm afraid most people who worship him haven't made the effort to understand maps of meaning. Especially not the MGTOW faggots.

Not an argument. Peterson has studied nazi and commi ideology for 4 decades and when someone like that rings the alarm bell its time to listen.

Idiot. He NEVER argues on metaphysical grounds, only Darwinian and practical ones. Well and Jungian, but that's not metaphysics. Everything he claims is rooted in biology. He is not a creationist. To him God is an abstract concept, like a number. Not something that actually exists.

pseuds die God laughs

Yes I know it goes into funding his cult.

Most of his "followers" are they same ones who label any media outlet that they don't agree with as fake news, meanwhile getting all their information by a heavy handed biased platform. I doubt any of them can comprehend any sort of literature.

>Particularly the claim of moral relativism.

So are the postmodernists Marxists or are they moral relativists? Can't have both.

>To him God is an abstract concept, like a number. Not something that actually exists.
he subscribes to pragmatist epistemology, he does believe that [theological belief system] is "true enough" on the basis that it's useful in expressing correlations, he literally believes that believing in god is as justified as believing in say the big 5 model, as in the 5 traits aren't the axioms of the brain, but as a model it's descriptive enough that we accept and use it. god might not exist in-itself but religious wisdom is heuristically useful so it's more true than say, moral nihilism.

I cant say is this thread is PoMo satire or not.
wew lad

i always try to listen to a talk by him. and once i made it through one in several sessions. had to see him cry and weep and seem not very sorted out. however when he strawmans "marxism" as stalinism and not as a fundamental critique of capitalism and when he strawmans postmodernism as totally arbitrary i cannot continue. postmodernism doesnt say: everything is totally random and equally valid it just sais: distrust anyone who claims to have found the absolute truth and challenge his assumptions

your'e wife slept with another man

>Most of his "followers" are they same ones who label any media outlet that they don't agree with as fake news
To be fair, almost everything these days is fake news. Exhibit A:
youtube.com/watch?v=kRcdmbC0HHs

If you still trust the media, you are not deep enough into the rabbit hole. The 2016 election changed me forever.

>can't have both
Why not? Post-modern moral relativist neo-marxists. Note that "neo-marxist" is just his fancy term for SJWs. Also post-modernism is intrinsically morally relativist. Even Noam Chomsky agrees on that front. Also by post-modern he means Derrida. I should also mention that he doesn't say that SJWs are post modern, but rather that post modernism leads to alienation and nihilism and ultimately to extremism in the form of neo-marxism.

youtube.com/watch?v=H0tnHr2dqTs

His claim is that Derrida and Foucault are to blame for the SJW meme. You know the whole "the west is evil and straight white men are literally Hitler, check your privileged" thing? Peterson consideres the philosophy of Derrida and Foucault as the memetic source of that type of thinking.

>distrust anyone who claims to have found the absolute truth and challenge his assumptions
Yes, but why? Because post-modernist SJWs seem to think that everything is about power. This is why SJWs are able to dismiss their critics so easily and refuse to debate them: Because to them dialog itself is just another power game on your part. They don't believe that people have any goal apart from power, and as a result they try to accumulate as much power as possible by infiltrating institutions. The fact that you distrust him to such a degree, thinking that he has some sinister agenda just proves his point.

The only thing that entertains me about this is sjw's are buttblasted he gets paid for opposing them

...

Joke's on you. I've never even known the touch of woman :^)

Yes. But that's more sophisticated then "memes with high distribution must be beneficial to the host". Memes aren't simply parasites. Genes and memes evolved together. Archetypes are stronger than memes. Archetypes are weaknesses to certain memes that evolved genetically because they are indeed beneficial.

>however when he strawmans "marxism" as stalinism and not as a fundamental critique of capitalism
Except that he says that the fundamental observations of Marxism are valid but ultimately murderous. Don't resent people who are above you in the dominance hierarchy and don't assume they got there by cheating.

pseuds blew up the shuttle

>Not an argument. Peterson has studied nazi and commi ideology for 4 decades and when someone like that rings the alarm bell its time to listen.

When someone who has studed fascism starts telling me to boycot gender studies, woman's studies, queer studies, race studies, english literature and even the teaching of education, because he spies some marxist bogeyman at work, then I think it's time to stop listening to that person. Its extremely reminiscent of nazi-antisemitism. Group everything together you disgaree with and blame it on jews! Now we're blaming it on a philosophical critique of capitalism, but also confusing that critique with soviet governance. wew.

It's fair to label CNN as such because they make politics seem more like a pay-per-view special than actual information, that I agree with, but they'll still go mad if any media organization critiques the right/Trump. See the praise for wikileaks, then in turn the scorn with the leaks by Reality Winner

i don't distrust him at all. is think he is sincere but dumb. he is just like the SJWs and feels is identity is being threatened.
but in his case it is even more hilarious. if you belong to a racial/sexual minority and you have a history of oppression behind you i can somehow understand that you feel intimidated and react in stupid and cringeworthy ways. however if you are a normal professor you should be ashamed of your own weakness, because really you just could accept SJWs as whiny and fearsome and move along and not pretend like the world is going to end

>marxist
Not marxist. Neo marxist. He means SJWs. And if you don't think those are a problem, please go back to NeoGAF.

Not everyone on the right is one person, user. The craziest are usually the loudest. Also Reality Winner just reeks of a setup. Literally everything about that case stinks. Why risk your life "leaking" something that's already in line with the believe of most people, especially when the document itself contains ZERO proof and only further allegations? She is either dumb as a brick or a deepstate plant.

Zizek has said a lot of this nearly verbatim.
Sometimes I post Peterson quotes wih his picture and it actually starts a good discussion without any negative comments. And sometimes I do the reverse and no one notices it's not zizek.

Leftists lmao

>he is just like the SJWs
>CAN'T YOU SEE, YOU BOTH ARE THE SAME, LISTEN TO ME, I AM ENLIGHTENED
t. you

>because really you just could accept SJWs as whiny and fearsome and move along and not pretend like the world is going to end
So you're an SJW apologist. That's cute. Why is it so hard to accept that SJWs are a real threat? Do you live under a rock?
youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

Your argument is literally "just ignore them, they will go away". Nice try. I though that too in 2011. Now look where we are.

>reeks of a set-up
I'd wager that the Intercept (whom she leaked too) have made some very powerful enemies, certainly since the whole Snowden scandal. And claims still require proof, yes? To showcase some tampering by outside state actors on one machine is the start of the breadcrumb trail

I have no proof, but one of the guys the broke the story on the intercept used to work for buzzfeed. Take that as you will.

>valid but murderous
murderous is the state, not the critique of capitalism
i agree that centrally organized communism is the worst. however this is not "marxism"

Is this the spook general?

greentext is for fags and losers

>murderous is the state
SJWs are trying to take over the state with legislation. That's what every single "diversity officer" is. A subversive agent.

The biggest spook here is that SJWs are harmless.

why are you quoting stuff i didn't say

I don't believe he has as much as read a blurb of at least one book of Derrida. What is really entertaining is to see a peterson fan in the wild (i.e. r/askphilosophy) getting BTFO and then whining about academic ivory towers that won't pay attention to his righteous struggles. And there is something sad and banal about that.

Buzzfeed is shit, but they've got a legitimate news team doing some good investigative journalism. Similar to Vice, lots of crap, but the occasional golden nugget.

Nice argument, cunt.

Vice went to shit when it got bought by Rupert Murdoch in 2013. These days it's an SJW hellhole. It makes Breitbart look like the New York Times.

t. pseud

Not an argument.

spook general is every thread on this board

>Post-modern moral relativist neo-marxists.

Marxism, as a modernist ideology, is predicated on a fixed moral system that continues in 'neo-Marxism' as that minorities should be treated with respect. Foucault's idea of exposing political power is not relativist, it is based on the 'historical truth' of materialism.

>Peterson consideres the philosophy of Derrida and Foucault as the memetic source of that type of thinking.

He's wrong though, because social justice (you don't have to make anything up to draw the link between 'social justice' and 'SJWs' like you do with 'neo-Marxism') existed in the US before the French postmodernist texts did.

>post modernism leads to alienation and nihilism and ultimately to extremism in the form of neo-marxism.

To me postmodernism addresses the nihilism that results from modernism. It's not postmodernism that gave us the bomb or rigid institutions. These things lead to alienation and nihilism. Extremism defines the whole modern period after the Enlightenment. Why else would Marxism form? Postmodernism, by looking at the oppressed or marginalised is an attempt to recover humanity from this nihilistic system.

You owe it to yourself to not just take Peterson's word at face value.

i am just saying he exacerbates the situation.
maybe you should just call charles manson and ask him about helter skelter

I think if Peterson had actually read Foucault and Derrida he'd be able to see how their philosophy counters the SJW cult-like political oppression. He should stick to psychology.

>i am just saying he exacerbates the situation.
He doesn't. I really wish I was wrong. I met these people IRL. They would take away our right to vote if they could.

Yes, but they still make the occasional quality article/video

>SJWs are trying to take over the state with legislation.

By saying you can't exclude trannies from everyday life on the basis of them being tranny, as is a right afforded to literally everyone else in the country?

democracy is the pinnacle of posercore

The equation of a certain sort of relativist "anything goes" post-modernism with Marxism really makes no sense. Maybe the most fundamental tenet of Marx's thinking is that there are real material processes that structure society in a way that may be entirely different from the way we experience or interpret these processes.

Power is just the ability to control these processes. Certain forms of knowledge operate as power in such a system. A committed relativist or nihilist can do whatever they want with this, but a committed Marxist (or anyone who wants to pursue their vision of the good for that matter) will have to gain power in order to change anything.

It is pretty much settled science at this point that people do not change their minds for rational reasons. Dialogue and debate do not automatically lead people to the right conclusion. In order to change people's minds, you need to change the discourse. For a Marxist, there is a right interpretation and the task at hand is to advance that interpretation by whatever means are most effective. So post-modern discourse represents nothing more than a tool for attacking ideological obstacles—first you level the intellectual landscape, then you rebuild.

He doesn't claim that Derrida and Foucault were SJWs themselves, but rather that SJWism is built on their foundation.

No they don't. Are you under the age of 20 or something?

>He's wrong though, because social justice (you don't have to make anything up to draw the link between 'social justice' and 'SJWs' like you do with 'neo-Marxism') existed in the US before the French postmodernist texts did.
Before the 1970s? How?

>To me postmodernism addresses the nihilism that results from modernism.
Post modernism rejects narratives and thus eliminates foundations that tell you what to do, letting you drown in an ocean of possibilities from which you conclude that life is meaningless because in the end you're just a machine and the universe is going to die anyways, so why bother?

>Dialogue and debate do not automatically lead people to the right conclusion.
Gross. Literally kill yourself.

>first you level the intellectual landscape, then you rebuild.
Aka society itself. No thanks.

>not donating to Ben Stiller's patreon
>in 2016

>Marxism, as a modernist ideology, is predicated on a fixed moral system that continues in 'neo-Marxism' as that minorities should be treated with respect
no it's not you fucking tard

>"y-y-you don't know what marxism is!!"
>proceeds to not know what marxism is
kys

who /pseud/ here

You really drank their kool aid, didn't you? Fuck off to /lgbt/. This isn't about trannies. It's about legislating that gender identity is fluid and arbitrary. Meaning that if I claim to be a women despite expressing myself as a man as well as being biologically male, misgendering me would be a criminal offense. SJWs don't speak for trans sexual people. They use them as a pawn to push their control agenda.

You can't argue that Vice's ongoing coverage of the Ukranian crises isn't noteworthy

NEO-Marxism isn't marxism. Neo-Marxism is SJWism. Actual marxists at /leftypol/ hate SJWs as much as the right does.

>but rather that SJWism is built on their foundation.

Well my point is that it's not a foundation supported by the philosophers themselves. I don't think Derrida and Foucault can be blamed for certain interpretations of their text when their text can also be interpreted as against that interpretation.

>Before the 1970s?
Civil rights and feminist movements. The French postmodernists certainly did take off in the US (in a different way than in France, in fact the US model influenced the French reception of it) but there was already a foundation of social justice and even the criticism of institutions as systems.

>Post modernism rejects narratives

This isn't really true. It's an 'incredulity towards meta-narratives' which isn't an outright rejection. Besides, there are still local narratives.

8gag is for ultraposers

What a funny misreading. Good post.

>You really drank their kool aid, didn't you?

You mean I read the bill? Yes I did.

>misgendering me would be a criminal offense.

No such law exists.

I quoted you verbatim.

I know. That post wasn't clear. I don't mean that Marxism was concerned with gender and ethnic minorities, just the politically dispossesed (the workers) which is something that has continued into neo-Marxism as that concern for minorities.

he uses extremely imprecise language, certainly he intended to say "constraints on the interpretations of the world" and not "constraints on the number of interpretations..." and he makes a ton of mistakes like that.

And as far as content goes, its clear hes got a smooth brain.

None in this thread are talking about literature.
Enjoy getting banned, faggots.

Yeah and you misread it.