Does he actually believe the shit he says...

Does he actually believe the shit he says? Is it just the result of him trying to come up with justification for his ideology or does he already conceive it as brainwashing? Why do people think he's not right-wing and why is he still allowed to teach?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE
youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU
youtube.com/watch?v=HxfFxhERMYY
youtu.be/T1P-VKwrhkI
youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

This is a right-wing board retard

this is a nazbol board, fuck off

>Does he actually believe the shit he says?
He's definitely engaging in hyperbole but he believes the gist of what he's saying.
>Is it just the result of him trying to come up with justification for his ideology or does he already conceive it as brainwashing?
He had some problems in his life so he had to come up with a way to cope with them. He then engaged in a fuckload of time trying to prove why his way of coping is the best way.
>Why do people think he's not right-wing and why is he still allowed to teach?
Because he says he's not right-wing, even though he obviously is. He's still allowed to teach because he garners attention for the university and, of course, tenure.

Topkek, crypto-commie admits academia should belong to his clique.

He believes he should say it. Being paid a lot of money and attention does that to some people.
Go watch Quiz Show (1994) instead.

>Why do people think he's not right-wing and why is he still allowed to teach?
Good example of the leftist censorious mindset. Right wing = evil and unacceptable. Right wingers must be stopped from having any sort of position where they're able to influence anyone ever. Right wing thought must be expunged from polite society.

And you wonder why the kids today are heading Right?

No it isn't, this is a Marxist board fuckface.

are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to teach because you think he is right wing? what the fuck

I think he shouldn't be allowed to teach because he messes with people's heads, not because he's right wing.

i thought we were pretending it was the Meiji era this and next month?

>messes with people's heads
Meaning what? That he teaches ideas that you don't like?

don't take his class if you don't like what he says?
>clean your room
>omg he is brainwashing them
is this actually what you believe?

Friendly reminder that this sort of leftist rage is precisely why Professor Peterson is so necessary. He burns more dead wood than any popular academic around.

He thinks women are valuable and have at least as many burdens and responsibilities as men do, which triggers MGTOW. He's a Christian, which triggers reddit atheists. He talks about men and women having inherently different personality traits on average, which triggers feminists. He talks about the blank slate epistemological framework of the modern left as being complete nonsense, which triggers progressives. He talks about the evils of National Socialism, which triggers the alt-right. He shits on postmodernists, which triggers Veeky Forums.

Holy fuck you are more of a retard than I realized. Fucking end yourself

I don't agree with Peterson, but one thing I've learned from the whole debacle is just how fake the left-leaning members of Veeky Forums are with their knowledge of continental philosophy. People are confused about his pedigree and conceptual framework, yet can't see the historical antecedents he is indebted to from certain post-Kantian German philosophers and early to mid psychoanalysts?

It thought it was just the analytics here that were pseuds.

Shit's hilarious.

>Marxist board
lit is a christian board, just wait till summer is over

Then why would you bring up the fact that he's right wing? We know what you were saying.

this
why the fuck is the board seemingly entirely composed of ideologue children

>Americans triggered by Europe being able to describe postmodernism as an artisitic and philosophical movement
>laughing European girls throwing dictionaries at the illiterate.oil painting

political flags when?

Backlash against /pol/ and the alt-right after Trump got elected. So now we have to deal with retarded Nazi LARPers and Marxist bottom-feeders.

Hopefully this blows over and lit can go back to being the mildly conservative Christian board it once was.

he attacks all those groups then cries when people call him far-right. lol

wasn't leftpol created when a bunch of Veeky Forums got fed up with /pol/?

>brings up unrelated shit, talks bullshit until you don't remember what he brought up, makes it sound coherent enough retards will fall for it
>false-flags
>accuses leftists of what they will accuse him and bring up bullshit they can't disprove
>abuses terminology of great thinkers

>attacking neoreactionaries and the alt-right while espousing basic biological anthropology makes you far right in 2017
We've passed the progressive Rubicon. Being a normal human being now makes you a radical right-wing ideologue.

when they approve the meiji flag and exclusion policy

fucking this

I did say he was far right, I said he cried when he got called far right. when will Veeky Forums actually read again?

I don't like Peterson, at all. But why shouldn't he be allowed to teach? What kind of nonsense is that?

provide an example or im just going to assume you're a brainlet, literally nothing in any of his lectures that i've seen have been like that, it's been pretty typical jungian style analysis desu

Context matters. Someone was literally murdered by a scumbag with far-right beliefs the day before. And some fucking journalist wrote a piece lumping him in with that crowd, even though he's been using Nazi German as an example in his classes when discussing the psychological bases of ideologically-motivated violence. In other words, they're accusing him of being what he spend half of his life fighting.

it's only when he transitions into 'and the crazy postmodernists want to take that away!' that i've noticed any flaws

ending of pepe metaphysics is the most obvious because the guy is not a good speaker as him but it's actually in every one of his videos

grrr zhe really ruffles xir's self and xhe-she is not a happy bunny because of it!!!

your point? people smear people all the time and they don't cry about it. he also had to scramble to make his alt right view clear. he knows, you know. cry about it.

thats not a lecture, though. give me an example from something he teaches rather than some youtube video where he's having a discussion

Chomsky's anti-postmodernist rants don't get him anywhere near the ire that Peterson's do. It's just an excuse to hammer an academic who's right-of-center.

I've never listened to or read anything from him before, but if he gets so many people assblasted he must be doing something right.

yes they do wtf. have you ever been to grad-school? hooooly fuck, chomsky is a punching bag.

>you're at least slightly complicit in the murder of an innocent girl
>and i'm saying this in a mainstream publication with hundreds of thousands of readers
I wouldn't cry, but i'd be fucking pissed.

youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE

I'm not studying philosophy. I only know of Chomsky's reputation through the leftists I interact with, and none of them seem to bring up his views on post-structuralism. I'll take your word for it, I guess.

ask anyone familiar with austin or serle about chomsky.

>Hitler's resentment was self-destructive
Is this a controversial view?

Kek, there are tons of better examples that have everything you brought up you retard

Chomsky leftists are something like right wing fedoras who believe they're ronin and own at least three swords and maybe a grenade "just in case".

You're probably interacting with someone who has blue hair before their 60th birthday and for that you deserve all the ignorance you get back. If you were relying on your tobacco chewing local WWII vet's opinion of the relevance of the Japanese to national security, I'd think the same thing of your right wind views. Most leftists would be further left of Chomsky and rip on him for treading outside his discipline. If right wingers didn't do the same for their sideshow freaks, it would make them worse at being right wing.

>The Holocaust was so illogical and self-destructive that it contributed to Germany losing the war therefore Hitler was superevil and just wanted to kill as many people as he could

I feel like there's a simpler conclusion to draw from this.

proofs

what was wrong with that, in your view? all he's saying is hitler was either retarded for devoting so many resources to systematically murdering jews and dissidents or his goal was mayhem under the guise of the 1000 year reich. then he talks about how people don't neccessarily fight for resources solely, sometimes they fight for terrible reasons which is true- take WW1 for an example, purely ideological war. In both points i'm not seeing a flaw that could be considered brainwashing, he's only using the hitler example to introduce his 'old psychoanalytical idea' of looking at the result and inferring the motive from that

>Why do people think he's not right-wing
Define right-wing.

Define 'define'

>If right wingers didn't do the same for their sideshow freaks, it would make them worse at being right wing.
And you think that this sort of ideological tribalism is good for the intellectual discourse? It's part of the reason for the complete ideological uniformity you see in so many humanities departments today. Sideshow freaks deserve at least a modicum of attention, even if it's just as a form of dialectical target practice for the real academics.

>most leftists would be further left of chomsky
are most leftists comrade lenin in your mind?

God, get a look at this one.

Explain what you mean when you use the term.

youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU
He's obviously conservative.

no, they're just not american 20 year olds.

should i have added an inb4 holohoax disclaimer? when he mentions the 6 gorillion he's doing it for hyperbole anyway, not like he's going to come out and say to his class that the deaths from the holocaust are massively overstated

Define "Define 'define'"

he's not right wing youtube.com/watch?v=HxfFxhERMYY

because he believes that women have fucked themselves over with feminism?

>spouts red pill talking points while wearing a fedora
God, this is almost too much to defend. But little of what he said is actually untrue.

>And you think that this sort of ideological tribalism is good for the intellectual discourse
I think it's necessary for the right wing, who by definition are defenders of the traditional, rule based, oligarchial centralized command to have a small group of leaders who define the mode.

You've probably reduced its meaning to an ideological epithet used by people who display those tendencies and claim "leftism" in your brain, but the right wing doesn't really concern itself with right wing drones defending the hive individually, so if you are a "right wing" person in that context, according to any basic right wing doctrine, you deserve those blue haired menaces' attention because it stops them from taking up important people's time.

right-wing readings of Marx are the most patrician

>150 iq
>thinks procreation is not immoral
Wew lad.
youtu.be/T1P-VKwrhkI

he doesn't believe a single thing he says, he's just cashing in on the anti-SJW gravy train
he uses postmodernism and neo-marxism in the same way neo-nazis use "cultural marxism", but it's obvious peepeeson is just some lukewarm neoliberal and not an actual anti-semite

Can we go beyond good and evil perhaps? It is too simplistic.

see this guys accurate definition of right wing aside for oligarchical how can an individualist with other classical liberal values be right wing? believing in biological differences is not an inherently right wing belief, for example here's a quote from zizek;
>What if sexual difference is not simply a biological fact, but the Real of an antagonism that defines humanity, so that once sexual difference is abolished, a human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machine?

Still waiting for some actual brainwashing.

Frozen is propaganda though.

>oligarchial
that was the entire point of the right wing/left wing system.

link?

Morality is a spook.

oligarchical is an arbitrary distinction, was bush jr's government not right wing? it was a large government compared to clintons

voegelin's was pretty good but generally, nah.

An adherence to any sort of traditional belief or value couldn't just exist in the mind of an individual person, it has to shared by the wide collective culture if it's worth anything. And the ideological value of low-status right wing people is in their ability to propagate those beliefs through low-level discourse. So even if I were to accept your premise that right wing ideology would necessitate excluding people like me from affecting the people who matter, it still wouldn't suggest that we play no role in the propagation of the ideology.

But user, they were an enemy that America fought in a war, so that means they were a pure force of evil, and that totally isn't propaganda.

No, it wasn't right wing. There hasn't been a right wing in America for decades, just a second left on 20 year delay.

Hey...at least Peterson threads are better than Nick Land threads.

it was about as right wing as nixon's and consisted of about as many key players. the clintons would also be oligarchical. america isn't terribly good at english, so they tend to think their democrats are "leftist".
>daily reminder hillary thought jfk committed voter fraud against nixon as a teenager
it is not a smart country.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew

Land threads are post-Kurzweil-fantasy jew threads; Peterson threads are almost-redpilled white guys vs 16 year old whiny beta white guy threads.

so which is it? as i said, the distinction of a 'few' is arbitrary. the right wing left wing contrast is primarily based on a moral and economic basis rather than how many people are in control, you can have a collectivist left and a collectivist right just as you can have an authoritarian left with few people in power and an authoritarian right with few people in power

His point is not so much he is rightwing but whatever he is far right, which he obviously is not. I think his ideological flirting with 'the kekboys' as he called them (or something like it) brought this upon himself. But he is being co-opted by far right currents which is out of his control.

The kekboys mix themselves with genuine far right people and anything in between. There is no coherency; the people who flock to Peterson can be anything from the classical liberal he sees himself to, to the more far-right.

The media thinks in black and white terms too, almost anything that goes against the progressive current becomes far-right. It really is a mess.

Since this retarded hack unironically recommends Stephen Hicks to anyone interested in postmodernism, I couldn't care less how unjustly is he associated with far right, he should have been buried much earlier for the inane shit he spouts outside his area of expertise.

>But he is being co-opted by far right currents which is out of his control.
Peterson is attacking prime jewish targets/ideologies without, apparently, realizing what he's doing. But since high-IQ white men of the internet age are well-versed on those targets and view them rightly as the societal threats they are, they are elevating his status, as they rightly should.

The alt-right is the ultimate show of dunning-krugerism. They see their hand in absolutely everything.

What's wrong with Stephen Hicks?

I find it more likely that you are simply not one of the latter I mentioned. It's not super complicated to connect the dots, but you have to be wee smarter than you appear to be.

i actually think there's some truth in the way that hicks describes the switch from marxism to post-modernism. not in the sense that it is some neo-marxist scheme that the marxist intellectuals switched from class to indentity but rather that those who are looking to blame some other for some sort of oppression (which would be drawn to marxist schools of thought traditionally), are drawn instead to a kind of post-modern 'fight on the side of the traditionally disenfranchised' foucalt-esque identity politics that has kind of transformed into what we see today as the 'oppression olympics', so to speak. the book is still shit though

oligarchy is always necessarily right wing. even if they're a card carrying democrat, if they believe in the rule by the few, they are right wing.

interestingly, in america, both sides ignore this. a campaign to get the ten commandments in school/keep the pledge of allegiance is seen as right wing, while a campaign to get mandatory consent classes/therapy sessions is not. both are authoritarian oligarchical nannyism, and therefore right wing policies.

it's not like the SJWs/less extreme American "left" want less death camps, either, but Peterson's world is probably exactly as oligarchical and authoritarian as their utopia. both of them think a group of the masses are doing something wrong and those few who can see it ought to move the rest to do something about it.

He/s not right wing he's a classic british liberal

Yeah, the only part that's missing, though, is jewish piece of the puzzle. It was very intentional because they realized it wasn't about class but race. Pic related was what Foucault had to say about the connection between Marxism and postmodernism btw.

this. rather than accept that consumerism, mass immigration, globalism, conscripting women into the workforce and so on is an innate facet of capitalism, they have this kind of cognitive dissonance where in order to believe capitalism is the perfect system they need to blame everything on the jews in order to avoid critique of their ideological beliefs

>oligarchy is always necessarily right wing. even if they're a card carrying democrat, if they believe in the rule by the few, they are right wing.

We have an early frontrunner for stupidest comment of the day.

>classical british liberal
>not right wing
>highly_skeptical_edmund_burke.what
You know Pitt declared war on revolutionary France right?

>"i'm a vegetarian"
>shovels meat in mouth
yeah, those pesky definitions of words that don't let you call yourself whatever you want regardless of your actions.

>contingent events and things are necessary

This indeed is the dumbest comment today. user above is right.

No, you just don't have a very good grasp of the history and inner-workings of how those things came about and who promoted them. As convenient as it is for you to blame the evil abstract entity of capitalism, capitalism is of course determined by human inputs.