Leave jordan peterson to us

Huh? Even if this make sense, how the fuck does it make sense to you? What is Singer protecting, except everything and yomama? Seriously, I don't know much about him except some animal ethics and a bit too inclusive utilitarian philosophy that just seems like a cop out for people who can't dig Deep ecology. Like, what gives, man ... who is representing a highly complex system that can't speak for itself. You gonna sprout me some coherent juxtapositions between their arguments or are you just going peace the fuck out and leave us hanging. I don't got much patients bro.

noob here. honest question: Why do people on this site dislike peterson?

report non-literature threads
sys.Veeky Forums.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=9989092

>Why do people on this site dislike peterson?

most people on Veeky Forums in general like him though.

They won't since they all went through the indoctrination factory which is the humanities faculty in university.
Check out Moldbug

He's not lit.

He might have good ideas but he's pop Science at best.

what about him is pop science? I've only seen a few interviews of him, and haven't really read any of his books so I don't have much to go on

He's stupid and gay.

i'm honestly surprised it took this long for someone on Veeky Forums to respond with gay

he tells people to better themselves and assume responsibility, which is too much for this board to handle

>gay
You know what? Now I can see it. This rich, respected, famous men with an extremely loving family and a strong Faith is struggling a bit too much with life (I've seen him crying and tearing up far too many times at this point: this is not a serene man). Could it be that he is a flaming faggot (he certainly looks like one, and could get mad dicks in gay clubs), and that this ansolute truth (that he is gay) is in contraddiction with virtually every other istincts he's got?
I can almost hear him praying to Jesus to turn him straight, as a blessing. I'm sure he considers his obsession for cocks and boipucci as some sort of Divine Test, but he won't ever admit it.

That's it, we've solved Peterson.

pic related, in which JP looks gayer than usual

Forgot it.

I bet he only wears suspenders because he feels like it makes him look more intellectual. it's the same reason he does the stupid hand thing

Chomsky had respect for Foucault and didn't need to knock down straw men in order to attack postmodernism. Peterson's anti-pomo screeds don't actually deal with anything anyone in pomo believes, and he constructs a narrative where pomo is this last bastion of Marxism in academia when most postmodern philosophy makes a definite break with Marxist analysis. His claim that pomo just adopts the Marxist "oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy shows how little depth there is to his understanding of Marx and postmodernism.

Also he's a Jungian. There's a reason the only people who take him seriously are self-described "anti-SJWs".

You could get the same message from any self-help book. And that's what Peterson is: self-help for edgy teens.

I like his ideas

>didn't need to knock down straw men in order to attack postmodernism.
He never really did so, at best you can find like 4 small-time interviews he had over the span of 50 years. He thought that he was not well-versed enough to conjure a critique that actually deals with this literature, so he chose to simply avoid this hassle, which is exactly what Peterson should have done.

Peterson is out of his depth in his criticism of postmodernism. I like the guy, especially when he's talking about psychology, but he just rambles absolutely fucking incoherently about postmodernism.

for this reason
however:
i like him, i think he's helping a lot of people that need help, is an intelligent guy, and sees the problems squarely. his sense of the history of it is outside his expertise, though, and it shows, and will bleed out to idiots that will post him here

Eat crow. The oppressor/opressed dichotomy is literally the central premise to the Communist Manifesto, and the entire concept of intersectionality is based entirely around trying to resolve this false dichotomy without destroying it. That no self-ascribed post-modernist would define their ideology explicitly in the terms Peterson uses is completely and totally irrelevant, as any post-modernist should be able to tell you, given the relative and subjective nature of linguistic meaning. What's important is the underlying architecture of thought, regardless of expression. Even a cursory examination would reveal the majority of so-called post-modernism to be more than outwardly Marxist. Of course nothing now is the exact ideology as put forth by Marx, but if you actually paid attention while reading any influential philosophy today you would immediately find in the preambles of almost all major works an apology of sorts explaining how the following text will clarify or resolve or investigate or some-such-other-action a problematic schema, which always takes the form of an original Marxist supposition, or an earlier clarification. If there were any doubt, the most popular philosopher today is Zizjek, a self-avowed Marxist and post-modernist. Sure, you could dredge up the fore-fathers of post-modernism and explain how they are not inherently Marxist, but that would be deceptive and uncharitable. That's not Peterson's argument, and it completely ignores the almost intentional system by which mainstream intellectual thought has incorporated those same thinkers into a broad and unified Marxist dogma.

*un-unified

Peterson's still shackled by conventional liberal morality

Have any of you ever considered why, despite a general acknowledgement of this being an era of post-modernism, there is no conversation about post-Marxism, despite Marx being a modernist thinker? Also strange that among all the death and genocide of the 20th century, it is only the communist dictators who can be worn on t-shirts? None of you find it strange that the entire political conversation in America and Europe revolve around a concept of Social Justice, and yet what constitutes such justice, nor its theoretical basis are openly questioned; instead they are simply accepted as given by all. It's so easy to dismiss the the conspiracy theories of the Frankfurt School and so forth, and yet the general discourse somehow follows the exact course predicted by those conspiracy theorists. How is this possible? How has this come to be?

>The oppressor/opressed dichotomy is literally the central premise to the Communist Manifesto

It's nowhere near that simple and you would know that if you gave Marx an honest reading. Yes, believe it or not, you have to go further than the propaganda tract Marx wrote in 1845. Marx's class analysis is not reducible to "oppressor/oppressed" without sacrificing everything that makes Marxism, well, Marxism. The "oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy long precedes Marx.

>the entire concept of intersectionality is based entirely around trying to resolve this false dichotomy without destroying it

Early intersectionalistas built on Marxist class analysis but added on that oppression can occur on varying axes. The goal wasn't to "save" Marx's theory like Peterson suggests, but to elaborate on how race and gender can act as separate spheres of oppression. Intersectionality today has more or less totally jettisoned Marx and discussions of class altogether, and exists in centrist and liberal circles as a way to shit on organizing around the concerns of workers exclusively. To that extent, it's fundamentally anti-Marxist. Adolph Reed Jr. goes into this in a far more articulate manner than I'm capable of, dealing with anti-racism generally (Reed is black btw):
leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html

>Even a cursory examination would reveal the majority of so-called post-modernism to be more than outwardly Marxist

A "cursory examination" is evidently far more research than you've done.

>the most popular philosopher today is Zizjek

Lol.

>Sure, you could dredge up the fore-fathers of post-modernism and explain how they are not inherently Marxist, but that would be deceptive and uncharitable

Why? Because it disproves Peterson's thesis? It's not that they're not "inherently" Marxist, it's that the majority of them are either not dealing with anything even remotely resembling Marxism, e.g. Judith Butler, or they're writing a direct and critical response to Marxism, e.g., Foucault.

you know uncle ziz is anti-idpol to the point that he is regularly called a crypto-fascist, right?

i like peterson, and i like him more because his fans are idiots and need help, but that doesn't mean we enjoy your blatherings
gtfo

>it is only the communist dictators who can be worn on t-shirts

Like who? Che wasn't a dictator, and the Castro regime is responsible for as much death as Pinochet, who right-wing libertarians have been scrambling to rehabilitate since he got put on trial. And if you wore a Che shirt into a Cuban neighborhood in Miami, you'd get shit thrown at you. Communism is still massively unpopular and the continued success of anti-communist propaganda like the Black Book of Communism is evidence of that.

>It's so easy to dismiss the the conspiracy theories of the Frankfurt School and so forth, and yet the general discourse somehow follows the exact course predicted by those conspiracy theorists.

Except it doesn't, you're begging the question and making shit up.

>If there were any doubt, the most popular philosopher today is Zizjek, a self-avowed Marxist and post-modernist.

This is why Peterson is always vague in this critique: you can't fake this kind of knowledge.

It's not that only communist dictators can be worn on shirts, it's just that most capitalist dictators aren't even named so.
If you're talking about Hitler or Mussolini t-shirts, you can't wear them any more than you can wear a Stalin one, except that maybe less people will recognize Stalin.
If you're telling me Pinochet isn't a huge liberal meme you'll be lying, not to mention acutal military junta torturers being hailed as heoes in my country in the last couple of years.

Chomsky is probably better known than Zizek and he's the most analytic robot ever, the man is the first motherfucker since Godwin who tried to argue anarchism from a utilitarian perspective (lol anglos)

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it wasn't honest to take Marx at his word when he said the history of all hitherto exist society was the history of class struggle. Nor should I have believed him when he said the whole thing could be described "in a word--the oppressor and the oppressed?" In regards to internationality, you clearly didn't read. To say that something is a false dichotomy is to say that the set of all things considered by the rubric cannot be effectively categorized by the rubric. Surprisingly you are honest in recognizing intersectionality as arising out of Marxism, and even go on to describe it as the very thing I say it as--a method for maintaining the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in a world that cannot be described so cleanly. You literally explain how, because oppressor/oppressed was incompatible with post-modernist theory, the marxists split off multiple axes of oppression in order to co-opt burgeoning post-modernist thought as the modernist predictor of strict capital/labor based class descriptors proved ineffective. As pertains your last three quotes, I urge you to reread my primary reply. You are straw-manning Peterson's argument and mine. The question is not really one of the historical manner in which post-modernism and marxism have grown together, but rather why the Marxist underpinnings of the dominant post-modern literature go unrecognized by the very people who have developed these theories? For example: Foucalt. His "critical philosophy" explicitly argues that empiricism itself is a political action used to reinforce the power structures of a given society. So, as has already been stated, post-modernism, intentional or not, is a continual attempt to keep Marxism alive, despite its very obvious failings. That Marx's original premisses are now rejected only highlights how much effort has been put into maintaining his conclusions all the same.

>Zizjek, a self-avowed Marxist and post-modernist

Of course he is called a crypto-fascist--he is popular. I always find it fascinating how those without an argument try to dismiss the factual by pointing out the irrelevant. Whether other people within the movement agree with Zizjek has no bearing on the fact that he is the most widely recognized and has garnered the most success with the widest audience. Telling, too, that the very criticisms hurled against him would confirm the Marxist ideology of the rest. How else, but from a post-modernist marxism, could anyone arrive at crypto-fascist as a meaningful term?

That's not begging the question. Begging the question is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Also, queer that as the slightest mention of the "known communists," you jump straight to deflection. While it's true libertarians look kindly on Pinochet, the John Birch society is a long way off from being ESPN. Notice how I didn't actually make any commentary on the historical individuals themselves, but rather the manner in which the 20th century is generally discussed, especially within academic circles. Quite relevant given that Chomsky heads this very page.

Fair enough. But Chomsky describes himself as a linguist, for what it's worth. I also think most would consider him of a prior generation. Maybe I'm wrong though.

>I guess it wasn't honest to take Marx at his word when

Yes, I think you should try reading Marx more deeply than to take what he says in the opening sentences of a propaganda tract written for barely literate workers in the 19th century totally at face value. Context is important. You're also ignoring that "oppressor and oppressed" precedes Marx by literally millennia, and that what makes Marx's critique uniquely his own is not simply that he posits such a distinction. You may as well blame postmodernism on Thrasymachus if you're going to reduce class analysis to such bare terms.

>to describe it as the very thing I say it as--a method for maintaining the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in a world that cannot be described so cleanly

Except the whole point of intersectionality is that you can't describe oppression in the "clean" terms that Marx uses, because race, gender, etc., are factors which Marx excludes in his analysis.

>the marxists split off multiple axes of oppression in order to co-opt burgeoning post-modernist thought as the modernist predictor of strict capital/labor based class descriptors proved ineffective

This isn't true. Most Marxists rejected postmodernism, including "post-Marxists" like Castoriadis who saw it as an example of what he deemed "generalized conformity". His whole essay on this topic is worth a read because it's an example of a critique of pomo that's actually informed by a reading of it: socasis.ubbcluj.ro/hrblog/upload/syllabus2011/13c.Castoriadis.pdf

>The question is not really one of the historical manner in which post-modernism and marxism have grown together

Because, like, fuck history and empirical evidence, amirite? Shitty little narratives are easier to construct, and they get them clicks on youtube and them alt-right bux on patreon, lmao

>rather why the Marxist underpinnings of the dominant post-modern literature go unrecognized by the very people who have developed these theories

Marx's influence goes beyond Marxism and Marxists, you dumb ass. You'll find traces of Marx almost everywhere because Marx wasn't some dumb ass who just lucked into being the most cited philosopher of all time. The fact that he shows up in postmodernist works is because Marxism was dominant in Western European academia until, believe it or not, pomo came onto the scene.

>That Marx's original premisses are now rejected only highlights how much effort has been put into maintaining his conclusions all the same.

The conclusions of, e.g., Baudrillard are vastly different from the conclusions of the Marxist he ripped of, Guy Debord. And the conclusions of Foucault and vastly different from the conclusions of the Maoists he publicly debated.

dude please sort yourself out
this is horrible, it has almost no content
the point is that the marxists are appalled by the sjws, that's all
marxists (you know, the ones who see class struggle everywhere) see the sjws as just reinforcing the neoliberal order, asking for recognition of their uniqueness, to be sold things based on it

Really? You're raising your eye at the most verifiable phrase in the entire screed?

marxism is practically the definition modern, you can't be marxist and post-modern, retard

in theory this is true, but i dare u to go to any marxist scene in the city and start talking about how identity politics divides the working class blah blah blah you'd be better off saying you voted for trump

I'm not deflecting shit. You can't wear a Stalin or Mao t-shirt without getting weird looks from people who know who they are. I'm a Marxist and I'd give people weird looks if I saw them wearing one. You're overestimating the influence of the Frankfurt School and underestimating the influence of ideological anti-communism. If you want to engage in conspiracy theories, there's more evidence that the CIA used postmodernism in the arts to undermine the USSR than that the USSR used postmodernism to undermine the US: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Cultural_Freedom

>the manner in which the 20th century is generally discussed

Yeah? How is it generally discussed?

The idea that "opressor/oppressed" precedes Marx by millennia is far more dishonest. Obviously, by necessity of language the concept of oppression preceded Marx. But the idea that it is the primary, or the sole, axis of social conflict can be laid at the feet of no other. That you take discussions of class and oppression as inherently fitting this dichotomy as Marx and post-modernists mean it betrays your deep-rooted ideological biases. And again with intersectionality, you are repeating my argument and acting as though you've proved me wrong about something. What gives? In regards to the rest, you perfectly demonstrate why a "continental" education is so flawed. That you cannot recognize the metaphysical, epistemological, or logical elements of these arguments is a significant problem. That water was added to a bucket of salt, or salt to a bucket of water has no bearing on the nature of the solution now occupying the bucket. Your argument is the equivalent of saying St. Augustine wasn't a Christian because he rejected some of the arguments of Origen. There exists a system of thought primarily begun by Marx, and countless revised by successive philosophers, which now makes up the bulk of western philosophic development, and that system is distinct from alternative western systems of thought.

people who would call themselves marxists or even socialists as opposed to "social justice activists" talk about organizing workers because they're meeting in real life to change actual material conditions
not talking on the internet about transphobia
don't conflate these things

If you understand the logical meaning of the term class, you'd realize how stupid complaints of class reductionism actually are.

Wow. I think you win dumbest reply. I guess you're right though--Nietzche, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Hitler, Picasso, Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, on, and, on and on, all of them Marxist.

also, if "in theory this is true" then how can you hold that sjw-ism is the logical outgrowth of marxism?

dude, you've clearly never left the internet in your life, i spent like a decade running in all kinds of leftist circles, the only people "organizing workers to change material conditions" are liberal unions, socialists/communist/anarchists and any other "revolutionary" brand don't do jack shit, grow up

Actually, I rejected the conspiracy theories. As I said in another post, the literal history is less important than the nature and quality of the ideas themselves. As counterpoint, there are far more copies of the Communist Manifest sold than Mein Kampf. There's no one relevant writing articles dithering over the morality of punching Communists. These statements are in no way meant to advocate in one particular direction, and are certainly not in favor of fascism of any kind, but are rather meant to point out the nature of the political conversation happening today, and where people believe the center to be.

you must be american

it's because most marxists are bourgeois kids who have a subconscious sense of class interest and know keeping a cheap supply of mexican nannies is more in their interests than raising the wages of walmart employees or whatever

how are they fucking marxists, then?

It's incredible how much all the discussions of marxists sounds exactly like every other conspiracy, and yet somehow manages to gain so much more legitimacy.

the most alienating thing one can experience is being working class at a meeting of manhattan marxists

Look, he said Marxist scene. People can be wrong about what they say they believe right?
Lead an inquisition if you'd like, but you'll have a hard time finding the true-believers in a sea of relativism and subjectivity.

It's at that point you should realize Marxism was never anything else. Side note: have you ever listened to the New Atheists talk about their fathers or their schooling?

>he thinks marxists are working class

not even MARX AND ENGLES were working class! actual workers aren't stupid enough to believe marxism, only university students could believe such shit

>there are far more copies of the Communist Manifest sold than Mein Kampf

Yeah, and? Karl Marx wasn't responsible for the Holocaust or the second world war. The Manifesto is also more coherent than Mein Kampf. You're trying to make a moral equivalence between communism and fascism that just doesn't exist. Communism, even in its Stalinist variations, caused death and destruction primarily because of economic mismanagement and bureaucratic ineptitude. The primary victims of Stalinist terror were bureaucrats, members of the Communist Party who were insufficiently loyal to the regime. Pic related as far as economic mismanagement goes, source is Michael Ellman's article discussing whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide.

Sure, no one poses class struggle as the motor of history until Marx does, but the idea of there being an oppressed and oppressor class goes back to fucking classical liberalism at the very least, if you want me to avoid hyperbole.

>you are repeating my argument and acting as though you've proved me wrong about something.

You're pretending that Marx's class analysis isn't completely disregarded by intersectionalists. The fact that intersectionality was influenced by Marx doesn't make it an attempt by Marxists to salvage class analysis from falsification, and in its assumptions and conclusions it fundamentally disagrees with Marx. Like I've said upthread, there are plenty of non-Marxists who this logic is never applied to, because it doesn't allow hacks like Peterson to claim that there's some conspiracy of Marxists in academia who want to somehow salvage Marx by getting rid of everything that makes him Marx. Joseph Schumpeter is more of a Marxist than Foucault.

that's not the point
or is he noting that as the bourgeois kids are engaging in class struggle with their "sense of class interest" they are truly being "marxist"? perhaps accelerationists...

Just posting to say your posts changed the way I see post modernism, good stuff user.

How about this--how about instead of asking this of me, you go read a sprinkling from the wide range of holocaust apologists. If you are honest with yourself, you will notice perhaps a frightening similarity in language. That's my point. For slight example, there's a whole slew of holocaust deniers who put forward the same mismanagement argument--that most of the Jews died from typhus, and that the rest died as a failing of the German machine under war-time stress, that the deaths were not the intention. Personally, I find both arguments horrific, because they blatantly ignore the primary injustices. If you're unwilling to see the similarities, I have valid concerns.

And again, for fucks sake, intersectionality was a purposeful process of separating out oppressor/opressed into a variety of "intersecting" criteria because the traditional labor/capital split was obviously failing. Furthermore, logically speaking, race, sex, etc. are all class dichotomies anyways. All intersectionality does is take the original Marxist proposition and multiply it so it can be applied to multiple axes of oppression at once. Literally saving the concept from immediate falsification.

No, he's saying that what people say, and what people do are often not the same.

Glad to help. Just remember, when objectivity is getting thin, there is no avoiding the reality of time. No matter the nature of our senses, no matter the nature of our thoughts, now is never then.

Aye what a quote

The differences between Stalinism and Nazism are even acknowledged by one of the authors of the Black Book of Communism:
>Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the Black Book on the Soviet Communists are sober and damning, told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union."
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/the-future-did-not-work/378081/

I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, because I'm absolutely a critic of Stalinism, but from a Marxist perspective which you clearly, from the start, have made zero attempt to understand on its own terms.

>intersectionality was a purposeful process of separating out oppressor/opressed into a variety of "intersecting" criteria because the traditional labor/capital split was obviously failing

This makes it seem as if Marxism either transformed into intersectionalism (it didn't) or that it was a deliberate attempt to save the theory from falsification (it wasn't). It was an attempt to deal with blind spots, so to speak, in Marx's theory, trying to explain conflict in our society that Marx's analysis made no attempt to examine. Certain intersectionalists built on Marx, but so did Schumpeter, so who gives a fuck, that's not evidence of a conspiracy or a "broad unified Marxist dogma" or whatever the fuck. There are even Marxist critics of intersectionalism, like Adolph Reed Jr, who I mentioned earlier.

>Furthermore, logically speaking, race, sex, etc. are all class dichotomies anyways

No, they're not, not in a Marxist sense, and you're just making it more and more obvious that you've never actually read the works you're trying to critique and don't understand what Marx means when he talks about class. I'll help you out: ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/found-c1.PDF

>Literally saving the concept from immediate falsification

You're just regurgitating a dumbed down version of Popper's critique of Marxism's scientific status, which also just happened to ignore that scientists regularly attempt to save theories from immediate falsification through the addition of ad hoc hypotheses.

You keep missing what I'm saying almost completely. I'm not making a comparison of Nazi theory and Marxist theory; I'm comparing the language used by apologists of these theories to defend the atrocities committed in their names. And again, each time you bring up intersectionality, you continue to demonstrate my argument exactly. The one thing I will apologize for is the word unified. I meant to write un-unified, but hit post before correcting; I immediately replied to myself with the correction, but it's completely fair that you would have missed it. That miscommunication is entirely my fault. Also, logically speaking, yes race, sex, etc. are all classes. Literally, in the terms of formal logic, they are all, by definition, sets of class. Lastly, the "other people do it too" argument is irrelevant. The point is not that these philosphers did something unfair in trying to save the fundamental concepts of marxism from falsification, but rather that they did, despite all protestations to the contrary. I do find it incredibly interesting, however, that you would not only take this argument given everything else you've been saying, but also that you decided to characterize it as ad hoc. I'm biased, but it's beginning to look a little like cognitive dissonance to me.

>Literally, in the terms of formal logic, they are all, by definition, sets of class.
dude wtf

What is your confusion? The genders are classes. The races are classes. Do you think this is an equivocation? I'll admit, this is not the exact sense Marx used, but based on his logic, and the logic of intersectionality, it appears to be functionally identical, thereby rendering Marx's original argument more accurate to current thought than even he would admit. Then again, since he does take the time to delineate Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, as opposed to any other class, it seems like a fair reading to say that he was very open to the concept of other class conflicts, but only saw one class dichotomy to be primary, and thereby the source of conflict, at any particular time. Either way, it's a very small jump to intersectionality, which is just the proposition that multiple class conflicts are engaged in simultaneously on a more individuated basis.

>I'm comparing the language used by apologists of these theories to defend the atrocities committed in their names

I'm not defending any atrocities. I know what Stalin did, I know about the Great Purge, I know about the Holodomor, and in the former instance, people who think like me were the targets of repression. W/r/t Nazis trying to chalk up the Holocaust to mismanagement, it's obvious that they're lying because there's empirical evidence of a deliberate genocide. The similarity in language is entirely superficial. Very few historians of the Soviet Union would classify the Holodomor as a genocide, and as Michael Ellman argues, to classify it as such would also mean classifying the Bengali famine as one. Here's the link to that paper: paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1933.pdf

>Literally, in the terms of formal logic, they are all, by definition, sets of class

Then we're no longer talking about Marx. What Marx means by class is not what is meant by "class" in formal logic. Marx defines class as a social relation between people, not an identity which is simply "oppressed" by an "oppressor". The proletariat is not seeking tolerance, or a higher position on the totem pole, it's looking for the abolition of the totem pole, for the abolition of class society and "proletarian identity" as such. Peterson's critique makes a mockery of that class analysis, and the identities which intersectionalism discusses can not be understood in those terms. You can not reduce Marx's analysis to "oppressor/oppressed" without eliminating everything Marxist about it, which is what I'm trying to stress.

>The point is not that these philosphers did something unfair in trying to save the fundamental concepts of marxism from falsification, but rather that they did, despite all protestations to the contrary

Maybe I'm just tired, but I have no idea what you're even trying to argue with this. If you'd read Marx, and you'd read the intersectionalists, you'd know that it's not trying to save anything from falsification, and that's not even Peterson's point, which is nowhere near as well thought out as the replies you're giving me. I'm serious. You've put more thought into this discussion than Peterson put into his critique. Read this shit, for real:
theepochtimes.com/n3/2259668-jordan-peterson-explains-how-communism-came-under-the-guise-of-identity-politics/

I'm done for tonight though. Gotta get a good night's sleep if I want to exploit my privilege to the fullest.

There's a group of unironic commies from another site (no, not Reddit, it's an even worse site) who are completely obsessed with him and need to make these anti-Kermit threads on a daily basis on this board. They like to justify it by talking about his retarded audience, and while they do have a bit of a point there, it's hard to take them seriously because for every pro-Kermit post his idiotic fanboys make there's like a dozen anti-Kermit posts made by his hateboys.

a class is defined by its common relationship to the means of production (for marx)
based on "his logic" blacks or women make no sense as classes
this is stupid at this point

see and . I appreciate the debate, but I think you need to approach some of your ideas from that coveted "outsider" perspective. If anything I wrote seemed mean, know I just did it for the bantz. While I don't think you're giving Peterson a fair reading, I'll definitely admit that his arguments are a little weak on the philosophy, since he seems to approach almost everything from the perspective of a predominantly Jungian psychoanalysis. If my arguments seems more thought out or more robust, it's probably just because I tend to approach things from an epistemological and metaphysical perspective which always give a nice sense of heft and sophistication, even when nothing's really said. Good night, travel well.
---a wandering crow

>---a wandering crow
why the fuck do i still come here jesus christ
i'll go sort myself out

>based on "his logic" blacks or women make no sense as classes
do black and women own the memes of production lmao

>The feminist is not seeking tolerance, or a higher position on the hierarchy of genders, it's looking for the abolition of the genders, for the abolition of gendered society and "female identity" as such.
See?

No. A class is defined by its common nature. The classes Marx discusses most prominently are classes defined by their relationship to the means of production. Intersectionality still concerns itself with the means of production, but has a much wider sense of capital that would include cultural capital and power within a society. It also acknowledges that each person can be described by multiple classes, and so class struggle cannot be seen in such simple terms as those laid out by marx. Thus intersectionality is not a contradiction of Marx, but an expansion. It does not reject his central thoughts, but instead recognizes a far greater complexity than he allowed for. These distinctions are easily explained by the general transition from modernism to post-modernism. So then, given the nature of current political discourse, the history of Marxist activists in regards to their "oppressors", and the recent agitation across the western world, maybe you can understand the concern?

I'm a drunk asshole so don't worry about it, I come to imageboards because I'm a masochist and love wasting my time. This is my first visit to Veeky Forums in years and I'm glad the place hasn't degenerated that much.

Hillary Clinton does and she's both.

Because the only way you can hold on to your last vestiges of emotional strength against the void is by finding people you can still look down on, despite your self-annihilating doubt.

a lawyer

>not pronouncing it PehPeh
>one of us

I literally just came from a talk by some old-school marxist lady and she kept babbling on about "gender identity" and "blackness" meanwhile denouncing the bourgeoisie and false class consciousness. from my point of view, realpolitik forces sjws and marxists to partner up and make compromises with each other

Why is it that most of the threads on this board are home to only one person? Shouldn't threads have lots of people in them instead of just one?

Malcolm

His wife picks his clothes

Are you high ? There are 34 posters in this thread

He's Evola, Eliade and Guenon but castrated. Alt-lite as it gets. Also an anglo, so he's obviously bad.

when are they gonna do something

>mistakes polemic for philosophy
>has only read the communist manifesto yet considers himself an expert on Marx

Oh, I'm sorry, we weren't actually meant to take you seriously.

>Zizek
>Pomo
Lol you haven't read him
>Inb4 Lacanian = pomo

How y'all niggas gonna be so reductive and overthinking at the same time? The pomo phils like Derrida and Foucault took some inspiration from Marx because WW2 was fucked up and they didn't want to see something like that happen again but then they realised that the Soviets were fucked up too. Couple this with a complex world where consumerism and technology is taking off and you don't know what's what any more, and you've got a bunch of phils trying to sort out how meaning works in world so oversaturated with information that connecting any dots leads you to an arbitrary structure that people live by in which the system is in control and not the people. Marxism agrees with these principles of alienation quite well, and so you have a precarious connection. Derrida and Foucault die, thinking that they have given people an option towards self-determination but they underestimate the spoiled offspring of the hippie generation that take their work as religious dogma and begin a culture war that gets caught up in the US v them Marxist narrative.

The problem isn't that pomos wee trying to destroy the world, it's that the kids that grew up reading them were introduced to them too early and not inside the full context of the history of philosophy. There's a lot wrong with pomos, but there are interesting ideas and lessons to be salvaged.

>there are bad guys

Please explain how Lacan is not post-modern?