/lit/ - Literature

>>11181722
>His permanent absence on the public stage would be sorely missed.

That should be sorely felt. I'm a brainlet.

>He's a smart man

When? He thinks ancient Chinese drawings show the DNA double helix

Its ogre.

>>11181722
>He's a smart man

What did he do recently that ruined his reputation?

>>11181733
>with lapses into contrary retardation.

I'm new to /lit/ and I don't know much about this guy. Why don't you guys like him?

>>11181722
> the whole enforced monogamy debacle
That report has not legitimacy as it is presented as a conversational snippet, devoid of context, in a NYT article dedicated to attacking his character.

People have also misrepresented his statements in that Vice interview by saying that he was against women wearing lipstick, or high heels. He was simply stating that women and men have been working alongside each other for a very short period of time and negotiating what is appropriate work behaviour hasn't been taken seriously. The lipstick and high heel comment ( since they're objects meant to increase a woman's sexual desirability) were posited as questions, not as personal beliefs. He in fact stated that he does not believe that forbidding lipstick is the answer. He merely said that we're not taking these things seriously enough.

The NYT article saying that he enforces monogamy is very likely another misrepresentation. I won't be surprised if he sues.

>>11181769
His the piece on him in NYT is a pretty big blow to the face. To start with its a quite well written mockery laden hitpiece, that makes his out to be quite pathetic and miserable (that awkward overexposed photo of him leaning over in his office, had to be on done on purpose by the NYT team). On top of that, he did his usual thing of getting cocky and full on ramming his foot down his gullet, talking about shit like enforced monogamy and the fact that witches are real.

Also his reputation among his fanbase as a strong rhetorician has been utterly destroyed every time he speaks in a room in the presence of a fellow speaker who is unsympathetic to his views (Harris, Dilahunty, That anti-natal guy, Munk debate, Lane Craig, VICE, NBC). He's a very good speaker when he's alone in the pulpit but insert a hostile agent and he goes to pot. He's in such a bubble that he forgets to steel-man his own bloody arguments from attack. I know what he means by "witches are real" but the fact that he can say something like that without realizing how that's going to come across to people that haven't followed him and without seeing it necessary to provide further explanation, is just evidence of how far his head has gone up his own ass.

>>11181741
Its ogre boys

Sage

>>11181743
How can anyone dispute that Peterson is smart? He did teach at Harvard. He's just getting too big for his cowboy boots.

>>11181830
People who think JB is dumb are retarded beyond belief. JB has an IQ of 150. He worked at Harvard AND during his time as an student at McGill he published far more papers than anyone else had done ever. His studies have also been citated by other scientists at an top rate.

>>11181811
>Also his reputation among his fanbase as a strong rhetorician has been utterly destroyed every time he speaks in a room in the presence of a fellow speaker who is unsympathetic to his views (Harris, Dilahunty, That anti-natal guy, Munk debate, Lane Craig, VICE, NBC).
You may be saying the truth in general, but from the Munk Debates I've just finished listening to, I honestly don't find what you have said to be the case. Granted Stephen Fry was the MVP there, but he didn't do that badly.

No peterson no!

>>11181769
he said the government should force women to marry incels for social cohesion

>>11181811
>thinking he lost the Munk debate

>>11181855
this

You have be very special to think that the black man say ANYTHING profound. He was a nut job, and absolute idiot! So was the woman.

>>11181795
having rules in the workplace is way less crazy than government mandated gfs for incels though

>>11181795
Enforced Monogamy is an anthropological term which means socially encouraged monogamy. In the same way its socially encouraged not to be a disgusting NEET but hey we're all here and not in jail. It's not state mandated girlfriends.

However, to those who don't know much about academic anthropology (I.e nearly everyone), Enforced Mongomy does SOUND an awful lot like "state mandated girlfriends" and to a man with a least half a fucking brain, that should have occurred to him and he should have used a different term.

Also, if he's so often misrepresented, he really needs to start recording interviews himself.

Either way, he's now got the reputation of Incel Philosopher attached to him now - unfair or not, if it sticks then what little positive mainstream attention he has been getting is going to dwindle away. He's a fucking laughing stock on social media right now.

>>11181795
>were posited as questions, not as personal beliefs.
just asking questions man, i'm just a comedian, why are you getting mad? relax

>>11181722
No, he's nowhere near finished. His cult followers and earnings are skyrocketing. But he's stretched himself so far out of his educational areas of expertise that he needs his ass kicked now and then. He's not Joseph Campbell, he's not Jung, he's not Chesterton, and a lot of what he says is ill-considered bullshit backed up by his feelings, coupled with cringeworthy self-help homilies, and makes academics look bad in general. He can go away any time without me missing him, but he's not going to.

>>11181733
This must be bait. Not even Peterson is that stupid. Although I wouldn't be completely surprised if he actually believed that. I honestly have no clue how someone so irrational as Peterson could get graduated, and become a professor. The guy is incapable of critical thinking and for someone who calls himself a classical liberal he certainly is not a rationalist. I would tell him to go to therapy but if people like him can become therapist nowadays then I don't know how much good that would do.

>>11181782
Because other people like him and rule 1 of /lit/ is to be as much of a hipster contrarian as possible

>>11181842
>citated
Ask me how I know you're either a portuguese or a spanish first language speaker.

>>11181846
Dyson was an absolute tard and Peterson should have taken him apart but instead came across as quite feeble and brittle (especially in comparison to Fry).

I think that debate highlighted one of Peterson's big problems in that he seems to cut out his sense of humour whenever he goes into a debate, grasping onto the naive idea that the more serious you are, the more seriously you will be taken. Instead he comes across as quite wooden and petulant (this is even more notable in the Dilahunty debate). A little playfulness can be quire effective in winning people over (plus he is perfectly capable of it: look at the Cathy Newman interview or some of his pre-fame lectures).

>>11181782
((((They)))) don't like him and have been shilling against him since day 1. Why do you think so many Peterson threads are allowed to stay up?

is JBP the new St Paul? basically making sitting down and shutting up in a time of great cultural upheavel seem like the truly subversive position?

humanity is a disgrace

>>11181864
>Enforced Monogamy is an anthropological term which means socially encouraged monogamy.
that's fine when you use it as a descriptive name, when you use it as prescription you are waaaay outside the limits of what's considered acceptable "liberal" borders. Whatever that is, is already in the realm of reaction, which is fine, but let's not pretend you are some sort of liberal individualist anymore when you are willing to make whatever it takes to keep social cohesion over the freedoms of many individuals

>>11181888
Ah, I will agree with you on that point. Let's just be happy that this time Fry was on his side (of which even Peterson himself seems to be very grateful) so the debate didn't go as horrendous.

Also nice 1 and 8 m8.

>>11181811
>"This new opinion piece will finally end Jordan Peterson "15 minutes of fame" says perpetually butthurt social scientist with a chip on their shoulder for the 7th time this week.

>>11181924
No one is saying that until now

>>11181722
>but the past couple of years have inflated his ego to such an extent that he's started to believe his own hype and now genuinely figures himself as an untouchable genius level intellect who will single handedly save the west.
You hit the nail on the head here. It's clear for anyone who came across JP before he exploded into mainstream how much fame has changed him. He started to think way too high of himself, much like a cult leader. It's evident how he's moved by money and power nowadays. He's past his peak and I believe he has nothing more to say than what he already has.

>>11181904
I agree, however he's not an liberal individualist, he's a conservative one in the Eisenhower mould.

"Do what you want but within a strict set of confines and if you steer yourself outside of those confines then expect to be ostracized as a consequence until the point where you transgression is deemed useful."

Basically: follow the herd, unless you're amazing, in which case, don't.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
>Mr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.

SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN.

THIS IS THE END OF HIS CAREER.

FUCKING R.I.P.

>>11181943
The contrast between his pre-fame lectures and his post-fame ones is stark. The former are so much more laidback and eloquent in comparison to the tortured sermons he gives now.

>>11181934
everybody was saying that during the makeup at the workplace thing though

>Lion Arar, 22, a theater student in Montreal, says Mr. Peterson’s discussion of gender brought him back to religion.

>“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’”

>The changes in his life include starting to clean his room. “My mom’s been nagging me for years, but I’ve never done it until Dr. Peterson,” he says.

Kek.

>>11181981
IIRC it is more like people confirming him as a brainlet. He is not going anywhere any time soon since brainlet need him

>>11181974
yeah this is a little disappointing.

btw has Peterson ever even called anyone a "snowflake"?

>>11181733
did you get this from that weirdly obsessive feminist twitter account that is spamming that everywhere?

He doesn't think they were depicting DNA, but rather they happen to stumble on a very similar pattern to mean life which is an amazing coincidence. You could say he puts too much meaning in coincidences, because Jung, but that still wouldn't be what you accuse him of.

>>11181943
He plunged straight into the fame and purposefully cultivated it. He could have just made his point about government overreach and university culture, but he immediately went on tour speaking at universities and other venues, seemed to take every TV spot and podcast invitation, set up a patreon, started several new online lecture series, wrote a new book, and is now entering high-profile debates.

Despite what he says to the contrary, I'd guess that he thought he had everything figured out and wanted to reach as big an audience as possible with his idea. He never showed humility or reluctance about fame.

>>11181974
Example of his post fame lectures? His recent leap to fame has passed me by.

>>11182005
That sounds even more dumb. And no jung didn’t say something like that as well

>>11181869
>backed up by his feelings
What's wrong with this?

>>11181722
>He's a smart man
he is a most complicated man

>>11181811
>he can say something like that without realizing how that's going to come across to people that haven't followed him
but that's exactly what he thrives on. the more righteous outrage he can whip up about the liberal Marxist media taking his statements out of context, the more Patreon bucks he makes from his NEET cult

>>11181943
Anyone who was paying attention knew what he was going for months ago, charging $200 to talk to him for 45 minutes on Skype, shilling his self authoring program which is nothing more than a series of questions for $45. It seems very disingenuous to me.

>>11181875
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5cBkbQpGY

1:45:32

>>11182069
>its very complicated to explain why

He has a reason he just omitted it for brevity, someone should ask him about it.

>>11182069
its like a boring version of ancient aliens except the expert is even less self aware and even more mentally ill

>>11182085
I'm sure bobby fisher had a reason for why he thought jews had stolen his memoirs, it doesn't make it any less insane

>>11181722

You are all acting like the intellectual figures of the past were perfect human beings incapable of folly in their own rhetoric.

The only one who saved his own ass was Socrates/Plato admitting to "Not knowing anything".

I hate this fucking board so much.

>>11181733
You're a brainlet.

>>11182097
yeah dude, ancient aliens. Because a picture showing a man and woman combining is snake like form reminds him of dna.

>>11181811
>quote someone who's stupid saying stupid things
>hitpiece

>>11182118
The writer clearly went in to the piece with an ax to grind. The fact that Peterson decided to assist her in actively painting himself as a massive incel retard is neither here nor there.

>>11181876
Everyone sits back as this motherfucker BTFOs /lit/ itself

>>11182109
>reminds him of dna.
>"i really believe that's a representation of DNA"

look man you can't pull that kind of shit when we can watch the video right here.

>>11182098
I'm not saying he's without worth, just that his occasional brainletry and messiah complex has begun to catch up with him and there are going to hemlock-esque consequences for that.

>>11182061
This.. is actually exactly correct, he'll ride the same wave that trump did.

>>11181811
This is the only post that has a semblance of coherence and actually addresses the article.

I agree. He is terrible at communicating with people who attack him through sophistry and digs his own grave by using loose terminology and metaphors. He really needs to change his approach as he's doing their job for them.

>>11182141
You make it seem like anything in the video supports your point except for that one vague sentence. You are literally just talking about that one sentence, which he leaves unexplained.

It can be interpreted in a few ways which are not really that all that weird (such as a child inheriting "traits" from both parents).

In fact, thinking "these old chinese people knew what DNA was" is one way it can't be interpreted.

ancient aliens it is not.

>>11181853
I hate this lad. But he's right on this one

>>11182140

>Messiah complex

First of all, you kill any opinion you have with meme non-words like "brainlety." You sound like one of those teenagers who found /lit/ 2 years ago and is just eating up all the dead meme scraps. Clawing at half-baked random opinions that pop in your head with these banal words.

Secondly, I really see no signs of a "messiah complex", but hey I don't have a doctorate in psychology.

He's just a man caught in a great wave. It's fun to see how a public figure can go from loved to hated on just the one false step on an eggshell. People that call him a retard or a brainlet are just people vying for some new imaginary position of dominance.

>>11182172
it's start speaking about government issued gfs and now /lit/ loves the guy, i shouldn't have expected better of you guys

It's amazing how something as boring as 60's boomer new age thought and conservative values can become so polarizing.

>>11182174
/lit/ aside, people made their mind about him as soon as they understood he had conservative opinions. the "rational" atheists types remain ambivalent.

>>11182168
> "these old chinese people knew what DNA was" is one way it can't be interpreted.
>i really do believe this, altough it's very complicated to explain why, i really believe that's a representation of DNA

the most straightforward reading of his words is exactly the interpretation you say is impossible, which is only really true if you start by excluding the idea that maybe jordan is fucking dumb. Considering we are talking about a man who thinks Gödels incompleteness theorem means you cannot prove anything without believing in god and that the correlation between the prevalence of poisonous snakes and hominid eyesight is proof that genesis is "true", i don't think there's a huge stretch to think that he's just being stupid here.

>>11182141
Is it really so hard to believe? There's many possible explanations. The ancient greeks theorized atoms long before it was proved.

>>11182192
jesus, it's like this twitter feed has found itself on /lit/ somehow
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq

>>11182201
>The ancient greeks theorized atoms long before it was proved.
if you take the ancient greek concept of "atom" and compare it to the modern understanding of the same particle, the only overlap is "they are tiny things". Just because physicists named something after a old greek philosophical concept doesn't really lend credit to that concept.

>>11182184
It shouldn't be surprising. The West has went so far to the left and become so liberal that modern ''anti-leftists'' are just old school liberals. Social conservatism is dead in the West.

>>11182201
>Is it really so hard to believe?
Yes

>The ancient greeks theorized atoms long before it was proved.
The atoms of Leucippus and Democritus are totally different to modern particle physics. They had a philosophical hypothesis about indivisible units of matter, which actual atoms aren't. They thought different properties of matter were because of atoms' different shapes, atoms with hook shapes would stick to each other, etc. It's totally different to even the classical model of chemical bonding.

Something as specific as DNA would be unknown to the ancient Chinese. A double spiral (helix) is a simple geometric design, you think magically imaging DNA is more plausible than it simply being an artistic design?

>>11182201
So the fuck what? All these are concidences at best.

Peterson is abusing the already obscure Jungian concept of synchronicity cynically. A far better example would have been August Kekulé's discovery of the benzene structure

>>11182174
You're slightly deranged reply is proof enough of his Messiah-like aspirations. The fact you were so easily triggered by a dead meme word on an Albanian transexual forum shows how indoctrinated you are into his little cult, how desperate you are not to have this father figure taken away from you. You use his language, you lionize his meagre accomplishments. You lash out any criticism of the saviour, cos if he goes down, you'll be alone again. Well his fall is coming, and you've only yourself to blame. It's pathetic sheep like you that have turned this once sweet hick academic into a self aggrandizing moron with no self awareness or humility. You fucking brainlet.

>>11181864
>that should have occurred to him and he should have used a different term.
That is the whole point, Peterson deliberately remain obscure to remain this ambiguity to use and abuse. Any specialists would have known to importance of using layman terms, but he chooses not to remain controversial

>>11182319
Don't thing the frog is self aware enough to troll like that.

>>11182353
No one can unironically say enforced monogamy and then be insulted when layman take it for face value.

>>11182362
>layman
Reporter perfectly aware of what he actually meant, but who then deliberately obfuscates the general context so that readers assume he is advocating for government mandated girlfriends.

Please.

>>11182377
Powerful Joe Rogan as Socrates is so funny it makes me want to kill myself.

>>11182381
Oh so did she have a phd or even degree in anthropology? Do everyone who went for the talk have that too?

>>11182415
No, but that quote lack context. It wasn't a single utterance that was postulated as a dictate, it was preceded by a conversation about the erosion of monogamist values which would have informed on a layman's reading of 'enforced monogamy', but was deliberately excluded by a reporter as to present Peterson as some feminist Handmaid's tale boogeyman.
>Do everyone who went for the talk have that too?
I don't understand the question. You're probably not a fan of normative grammar either, but it makes things intelligible between people, so do better. Also, I have no idea what 'talk' you're talking about.

>>11182435
>It wasn't a single utterance that was postulated as a dictate
but it was.

>>11182439
Do you have any proof of this?

>>11181853
no, he said government should promote monogamy, but you and the likes of you try to twist it in every thread in what's basically "so what you're saying is" 2.0

>>11182435
Oh wow so the answer is fucking no then. You can bitch about the context all you want, but the usage of that term will always be intentionally misleading on Peterson's part

>>11182064
Speaking of his retarded cultists, I'm one. Paid for the 45 min conversation and still waiting on it. I dislike his repetitive talks too.
Any questions you'd like to ask? I'll give the anons of /lit/ credit when I talk to him.
How would I politely suggest to him that he needs to stop being unintentionally misleading in the form of question?
What are some aspects of his worldview/interpretation of mythology you disagree with?

>>11182444
Other than the interview itself? lol I guess you got me.

>>11182377
Who would be Shapiro and Stefan Molyneux?

>men need to stop being so toxic, it's okay to cry
>AHAHA LOOK AT THIS FUCKING CRY BABY

why is ironic left so retarded?

>>11182469
What interview? All I saw was an oped article that contained scattered quotes from Peterson's truncated speech used devoid of context to support the author's opinions.

>>11181882

He is probably Brazilian. We are having a pretty strong conservative fashion among teenagers right now: it’s painful to witness.

>>11182462
>What are some aspects of his worldview/interpretation of mythology you disagree with?
If I could ask a question in this vein to him it would be along the lines of "JP, how is it that someone who references Nietzsche and Jung as much as you do get their ideas so wrong or only half applied? Why do you conveniently ignore everything from those same intellectuals that doesn't go along with your immediate argument? Why don't you suggest people to read the source material itself? Is it because you realize how much you've defrauded them?"

>>11181722
You should know that it’s poor form to inb4 as op.

>>11182141
You probably have autism, he's a college lecturer trying to making dumb kids pay attention for two and a half hours.

>>11181811
Good post

>>11182478
Not a left winger anon. Just thought it was a fitting image

>>11182499
Please shut up.

>>11182461
>peterson talk with some journalist for two days
>say some technical terme
>the journalist doesn't ask further about it or question him on what seems to be a contradiction in his thinking

Yeah sure it was peterson trying to wipe up outrage.

>>11181882
>>11182496
I'm not Brazilian. I'm from south "Brazil" but we're Germanic/Nordic. We preserved our culture from the Weimar republic (that was the time that our immigration to this land started), so it's only fair to call us what we are: Germanics.

>>11182499
So what, you can't just gleefully shitpost and not contribute to the discussion?

>>11182496
Brazilian exchange student that came to my school in Australia a few years ago and was a very sweet and likeable guy seemed to be part of this trend. I can understand. Socialism in Latin America is trash pig disgusting.

>>11182098
>>11182174
Narcissist defending his kin

>>11182377
Who's modern Diogenes then?

>>11182521
>the journalist doesn't ask further about it or question him on what seems to be a contradiction in his thinking

This is his fault. He's not talking to Powerful Joe Rogan anymore, who will nod and say "hmm interesting, what did you mean by that?" He's talking to a female liberal journalist for a liberal newspaper who wants to tear him the fuck apart because she finds his politics backwards. It's a different game.

He always answers questions vaguely with the assumption that the interviewer will follow up with a more precise question, which he will answer more in depth. A hostile journalist isn't going to do that. They're going to ask you their question and then take your wishy washy retarded answer as read and move on to the next one because their aim in the conversation is not "listen to what Dr Peterson has to say" but "get Peterson to say something retarded." The fact that he complied with this just might mean that he is slightly retarded.

I like the guy, honest, but he needs to fucking think once in a while and stop playing for the crowd.

>>11182497
And you failed to specify what those ideas from Nietzsche and Jung might be. I honestly don't know. This is related to the flaws in his analysis of mythology that I am interested in. I don't know what those flaws are but I have suspected for a while now that his maps of meaning theories try to group them together/give them a collective meaning too much.

>>11182572
4chan

>>11182575
this. He hasn't learned how to play the game yet. Ben Stiller should initiate him in autistic conversationalism as a defence tactic against hostiles.

>>11182575
>He always answers questions vaguely with the assumption that the interviewer will follow up with a more precise question, which he will answer more in depth.
honestly though, even in interviews with someone more sympathetic Jordan tends to fall somwhere between vague and nonsensical, he's just really bad at expressing his ideas.

>>11182497
Is it possible that he just doesn't agree with everything they said?

>>11182168
>>11182201
>>11182502
>No!!! The words don't mean what you think they mean!!! Or he had some OBVIOUS exculpatory motive for saying them which you are too stupid to figure out!!!
This isn't Biblical textual criticism here, folks. This isn't some well-thought out parable or aphorism. It's the side-note ramblings of a credulous perennialist. What you see is what you get.

Greek atomism is a very general (but nevertheless impressive) theory about the nature of matter, formed in response to the arguments of the era's natural philosophers such as Parmenides and Empedocles. It's quite different to something like the double helix structure of DNA, which one would think requires precise empirical observation of a very small, very unique little structure.

>>11181882
>the only thing he refutes is grammar

>>11182575
And that is my original point, that Peterson do this knowingly to avoid any overt or intense criticism and also to browbeat his opponents by change the frame or context as when he wishes

>>11182575
m9 that's not a hostile journalist. That's any journalist. They only ask you follow up questions to allow you to further incriminate yourself, like the cops. She could have asked how he would enforce monogamy ideally, and he'd have said some retarded shit which would lose him some fans and make many others have to do some serious doublethink. Reporters _only_ dig to bury you. If she wanted to make him seem worse she could ask him what he thought of frogmen or princess points and he'd seem like an even bigger madman, because the absolute madman would respond.

That's not hostile journalism, by any stretch of the imagination. Hostile journalism goes through your trash, stalks your kid, finds your college sweetheart who remembers you taking coke and regrets your sexual activities together (and suspects you're queer), and then it asks your wife for her response first. Stopping someone from making retarded statements on record isn't a journalist's job, that's a PR agent or lawyer's job. Not stopping someone who agreed to go on the record from making retarded comments doesn't make you a hostile journalist, it just makes you a lucky journalist whose boss is going to remember this when contracts roll over.

>>11181722
>I think his position is very fragile ATM.
He has hundreds of thousands of fans who listen directly to him speak at length on any topic, he has almost ten thousand people forking over money every single month, his position is, if anything, antifragile and controversial exposure will only help him.

>>11182628
>avoid any overt or intense criticism

Well he failed at that one.

>also to browbeat his opponents by change the frame or context as when he wishes

What does this mean? Are you saying he is trying to do a Trump and be so retarded that his opponents don't know how to react? Because

A) Trump isn't doing that on purpose

B) Peterson's schtick is that he's a rational and intellectual soul surrounded by malevolent crazies. Pretending to be stupid does him no favours.

>>11182653
By hostile, I don't mean they're playing unfair, I mean hostile as in they don't like you and have gone into the article with the desire to fuck you over, no matter what you say or do. Read the fucking prose in the article, she clearly has an ax to grind. I don't hold that against her, the political stance of her writing is a matter between her and her editors. I do hold it against Kermit for not realizing all this.

>>11181888
>>11181859
Watched it with my wife a few hours ago and we were stunned that the 'debate' wasn't even on the topic. Hell, the woman opened with some character attack tirade and the black chap just punched out arrogant sermonising twaddle.
I would guess that Peterson is often misconstrued for more reasons than his ideology contradicting the 'hugbox or death' movement going right now. He has that autistic monotone going hard and you could tell he was embarrassed by the stupidity in the debate and couldn't swallow it. To paraphrase: Come with me to a BLACK CHURCH MR MEAN WHITEY. I STAND BY CALLING YOU A DOODOO HEAD.
An utterly shameful fiasco where the Agree seats didn't even understand the concept being debated. If it's possible for debates to have own goals then it's happened here.
Thank goodness for Fry being there and trying to impress the sanctity of language. It's a necessity to preserve linguistic freedom from right-think fuckwitism.

>>11182656
>A) Trump isn't doing that on purpose
Ouch, someone never read Art of the Deal. Keep assuming it's all just an accident!

>>11181722
Michelle Goldberg was the star of the Munk debate.

>>11181722
>he is doing the world a great service by providing young people with and alternative to both the self flagellation of intersectionalist culture and the mindless hedonism of neoliberal degeneracy.
By promoting forced monogamy?

>>11182674
>Thank goodness for Fry
you can say that again, i fucking love that guy

>>11182656
>Well he failed at that one.
Au contair, look at all the Petersonfags telling everyone that the interview wasn't fair or nobody understands him. This is classic wounded gazelle tactic. His retweets after the Cathy interview is evidence of this cynical manipulation.

>What does this mean?
He says something in an ambiguous and obscure way, people form their own conclusions or interpretations from what he said and he handpicks which benefits or suits him and browbeats those that don't with 'b-but that is not what I mean >:(' .

>>11182132
>The writer clearly went in to the piece with an ax to grind.
not provable

>The fact that Peterson decided to assist her in actively painting himself as a massive incel retard is neither here nor there.
>why does it matter if i piss and shit myself in front of an audience? that is neither here nor there

>>11181795
>The NYT article saying that he enforces monogamy is very likely another misrepresentation. I won't be surprised if he sues.
>very likely
So you didn't read it?

>>11182604
>posts wojack meme

>>11182690
He discusses complex topics with multiple layers of potential interpretation. When hyperventilating critics try to isolate the stupidest and most evil possible interpretation to use it as a weapon, he points out, correctly, that it's not what he meant.

>>11182706
>multiple layers of potential interpretation
I don't normally save brainlet memes, but I will start just for you. No one should say such ambiguous stuff, especially in an interview that meant to shed light on him.

And this post clearly outlines this weaponization of the ambiguity that Peterson enjoys. I don't understand some people ITT thinks Peterson is dumb to take these interviews. He does this consciously to do what I said in >>11182690

>>11182719
>No one should say such ambiguous stuff
He doesn't need your tactical input, anon. He's done the opposite of what you advise and the result is hundreds of thousands of fans and ten thousand paying subscribers.

>>11182693
Do generally find it difficult to infer intention and subtext from the written word? I'm curious why you're on this board.

>>11182737
Yes that is my entire. He constantly remains ambiguous to cynically garner supporters who can project whatever they want on him.

Hey buckos,

My name is Jordan, and I understand every single one of you. All of you are depressed, fatherless, underachievers who spend every second of your lives grasping for some kind of meaning. You are everything human in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any structure? I mean, I guess it’s trivially entertaining making a hobby out of trolling as a projection of your own bloody insecurities, but you all take it to an axiomatic level. This is even sadder than collectivizing through identity politics on Facebook.

Don't be afraid to be an individual. Just hit life with your best shot. I’m pretty much there with you. I'm an accredited clinical psychologist, and tenured at the University of Toronto. What dreams do you have, other than “realize the potential defining my individual existence?" I also get my words twisted, and have a bloody hot interview (I just got her; Shit was SO illuminating). You are all people who should just improve yourselves. Thanks for listening.

Pic Related: It’s me and my interviewer.

>>11182589
Was going to post this

Peterson should get back to the lectures,they were great.

>>11182706
>multiple layers of potential interpretation
First of all, the topics aren't complex. Second of all, it's literally just a motte-bailey tactic. Get over yourself.

>>11182739
Quote the text or read up the Jungian concept of projection

>>11182690
Is this some kind of weird reverse /pol/ paranoia ?

>w-well okay he was right here but he manipulated the journalist !

Peterson is certainly not perfect vut a oot of his critics seems absolutly buttblasted and make absolutly no point.

>>11182771
But a lot*

>>11181722

I couldn't watch that fucking debate. I saw a 5 minute clip where Dilahunty or whatever his name is said "to quote the American philosopher Beyoncé Knowles" and cringed my way out of the window. I figured that Peterson "won" the debate because he was clearly talking to some pop culture libs that probably exist on buzzwords and corny talking points.

>>11182771
Not that guy but it's not "paranoia", it's just recognizing a common tactic he uses.

>>11182763
yes, gone are the days of dissecting the lion king for jungian elements

>>11182745
I think this is true to an extent but his ideology has always been quite vague and wishy washy. I don't think he wrote Maps of Meaning to gain followers and increase his influence.

He is a lot more cynically minded than his fanbase imagine him to be. His inability to be clear about his religious beliefs is a very blatant PR move (if he swings either one way, he risks alienating a huge core of his fanbase).

His (non) opinion on Trump is another example of this.

>>11182771
Oh please, criticism of his shit ideas have been done to death so much so that Petersonfags have resorted 'but he helps improve lives' defense.

What I am pointing is how he manipulate public perception around him. Some people ITT thinks he is stupid for entering this interview, I think he is a genius for doing that.

>>11182778

Looks like that was he Munk debate, I'm guessing the Dilahunty one was about religion or something.

>>11182789
>I don't think he wrote Maps of Meaning to gain followers and increase his influence.
I've read 'Maps', it's not that vague at all. He really doesn't make his arguments clear in his lectures, and mostly just states things which are really not that simple, as simple facts. Basically he says with certainty and confidence everything which would make him look smart (even if that means cherrypicking) and says the things that are more controversial (among mainstream, or among his fans as you say) with vagueness. Pretty obvious sign of an ideologue, not a 'philosopher'.

>>11182771
>weird reverse /pol/ paranoia ?
Nope. But it's definitely an understanding of the sort of /pol/-like paranoia and victim complexes that many of his fans have, and an understanding of how he manages to appease a wide variety of fans and continue that exact victimized narrative.

i like the Lobster Daddy. if anything, he'll only grow stronger

>>11182785
>Not that guy

Yeah sure anonette. Sure.

>>11182797
You're just making a vast generalisation. Most critics of his idea are either people misunderstanding (i just found a recent post on quora saying Peterson believe free speech means you are free from judgement, which he doesn't) vague blanket statement (hurr he doesn't understand the people he quotes) or paranoia (he's expressing badly on purpose!).

Again he isn't perfect but most people on the internet are shit at coming up with retort.

>>11182849
Nope, also to imply that only a woman would take issue in this is ridiculous.

>>11182849
Wow and no mention of how people on /lit/ has already shattered his shit opnions on pomo and neo-mraxism. Even that catholic article was post around this week. Stop playing dumb Petersonfag and stop shifting the discussion

>>11182572

Styx.

>>11182768
I don't even accept your "first of all" so don't bother proceeding to a second

>>11182849
He's been taken apart on multiple occasions. His philosophy, his essentialist garbage interpretation of myths, his knowledge of historical and modern philosophy/political theory. Everything has been criticized and much of it has shown him to be a complete hack. It's one thing to disagree with said critics but to think that they don't exist is beyond myopic, it's dishonest and exactly in line with his narrative.

>>11182522
weimar
culture

i wont even bother with ponctuation on this one. Da próxima vez não faça papel de palhaço na internet, joelsson.

>>11181722
>Is the guy who has made himself a multi-millionaire in a very short amount of time finished

Yeah dude, he's totally finished.

>>11181974
That's the effect a nervous breakdown can have on one's thought processes. His performance at Harvard is light years different than what he's doing today. At Harvard, he was doing hard science and research. At Toronto, he's become a purveyor of Pop Psychology and a Pop Culture figure. That being said, he's prolly making more $$$ now, than at Harvard. Plebs are soooo gullible.

>>11182878
Are you trying to tell me that the topics he talks about are some high-level shit only he understands? Please, most of his views are regurgitated and the unique ones are not really what people are even arguing about. And even said unique views, like his modification to the Campbellian analysis of myth, etc. are really nothing that sophisticated that the interpretation is left super unclear or anything. No, he's unclear because he's unclear, not because everyone is a brainlet or whatever you seem to think.

>>11182891
>Materialist swine
Now tell me how many reddit upvotes he has

>>11181842
>JB has an IQ of 150
by his own estimation, not the result of testing lmao. given he's a "psychometrician" he should sit down and take the best raven's progressive matrices variation and report back. i'm certain it will be significantly lower than 150.

>I will deal next with Dr. Peterson’s report entitled “Multiple rater response to play assessment description From Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report”. It is dated May 4, 2009. This is perhaps the most interesting of all of the reports that counsel for the respondent wishes the court to consider. It comes as close to “junk science” as anything that I have ever been asked to consider.
oh no no no

>>11182789
>His inability to be clear about his religious beliefs is a very blatant PR move
I wonder why a guy getting constantly soundbited by predatory critics willing to purposefully misinterpret him would be conscious of his public reputation

>>11182908
He'd be lucky to get 120

Why is philosophical discussion on /lit/ 90% about the philosophers and only 10% about their ideas?

>>11182924
>onstantly soundbited by predatory critics willing to purposefully misinterpret him
And yet constantly does interviews using obscure technical terms only to mope about the aftermath. Classic wounded gazelle tactic.

>>11182898
You're too stupid to engage with further if you think that psychology, theology, and mythology aren't complex topics

I don't really care what you think of the notorious JBP, this is a more basic upstream issue of epistemology

>>11182917
What the fuck is this from?

>>11182891
>>11182654

He was on the verge of being a hitchens level mainstream pundit. No longer.

>>11182953
The topics in general are complex. What he talks about isn't. And certainly not complex enough to validate the idea that we just don't get what he's saying because it's too multi-layered. lmao no, he's just vague and the only two layers are the motte and the bailey.

>>11182462
ask him what works of derrida he's read to completion and to name them. ask him what works of marx he's read to completion aside from the communist manifesto and to name them.

don't let him do his usual tactic of "oh well y'see that thing with derrida was that blah blah blah at least foucault was legible and that's the funny thing about foucault he was blah blah" and then never actually answer the very straightforward question.

>>11182985
that's not how it works, you have to read jung to talk about peterson but peterson doesn't have to read the works he's supposedly talking about.

>>11182174
dumb post lol

>>11182948
exactly.

>>11182948
He tries to speak carefully, although he gets mischaracterized regardless.

It works out for him because the 10 minute hit pieces from problem glasses bloggers ends up generating interest that turns to the thousands of hours of youtube content where the elaborated positions are

I don't think this is controversial; his approach has been objectively successful

>>11183003
So ... you agree that he does it purposely to cynically garner sympathy and controversy?

>>11181722
He should become truly anti-Left instead of just advocating Individualism. But, I think Peterson has largely been elevated as a pressure valve to prevent angry young men from directing their frustrations towards ends that might be harmful to Jewish control over the levers of power.

>>11182866
Those kind of screenshot dpesn't prove anything, litteraly anyone with a laptop could fake it in 2 minute.

>>11182881
And where did I say the critics didn't exist ? Stop inventing yourself an ennemy.

>>11182868
Link me those stuff then.

>>11182522
WE

>>11183047
WUZ

>>11183013
>He tries to speak carefully
No he does not. If he indeed does that he fails spectacularly about it. It is a question of whether he is legitimately or only pretending to be retarded

>>11183053
WYPIPO AND SHEEEIT

>>11182174
Yep, the resentment towards him is very telling about the people who harbor it, since his message is so positive and constructive.

The criticism towards him is mostly coming from people who would benefit from taking his advice. Instead they claw at the tall poppy.

>>11183022
NTAYRT but yes, I agree. It's pretty obvious.

>>11183013
>He tries to speak carefully
man if JP is actually excerting himself in his interviews, debates, and lectures i wouldn't wanna hear what kind of incomprehensible mess would come out if he was talking off the cuff about his ideas.

>>11183059
Perhaps, anon, it is you who is retarded. After all millions of people listen to him speak carefully on complex topics, while your only audience is me, some guy spending Sunday morning on 4chan.

>>11183029
>And where did I say the critics didn't exist ?
You said valid criticism that engages with his ideas doesn't exist.

Honestly most people who are butthurt about Jordan Peterson are just Communists. Any semi-respectable anti-Leftist is a public service at this point.

>>11183029
>Link me those stuff then.
I am not spoonfeeding you. Sieve through the archive yourself >>/lit/

>>11183077
>it is another petersonfag attempt at psychoanaylsis episode
I genuinely do not care that he is helping you retards getting your shit lives together, only that he is brainlet in everything he talks about including Jungian psychoanaylsis.

I never listened to his lectures or read anything he wrote but that article is so fucking stupid.

>Nellie Bowels purports herself to be quite the intellectual, though her eyes are visibly crooked, something she tries to hide by forcing herself to smile and awkwardly trimming her eyebrows, which only further accentuates her cretinous demeanor.

I HOPE you get enslaved.

>>11181855
Everybody lost the Munk debate. It was a total shit show.

>>11183083
He has a very noticeable habit of pausing to collect his thoughts before replying to tricky questions. If you haven't noticed it I don't know what you've been watching.

>>11183090
Appealing to popularity in an anonymous imageboard is not helping your cause senpai

>>11183132
doesn't mean that what he says after that pause is well structured and clear though

>>11183029
Whatever, be paranoid that everyone you argue with is the same person (and is also a woman, kek).

>>11182887
The São Pardista is mad lmao. We south "brazilians" are homesick for Deutschland. I stand correct, my grandpa fought in WWI and here in Porto Alegre we're all white, although we have some Italians.

>>11183092
Where ?

I said
>most
Not all.

Maybe the problem is woth your understanding, not with Peterson ?

>>11183107
Ok then nothing. Good job anonette.
>using his twitter
Well at least I do agree that he is rather brash and stupid on there.

>>11182572
Noam Chomsky

>>11183107
I can see from the intent behind the pic you included that epistemology is a bit over your head. Combined with your insult patterns the general impression is one of a very stupid man angry at the success of a smarter one. Carry on.

>>11183150
>Ok then nothing.
Well at least it is clear to everyone ITT that you are too lazy to even use the search bar

>>11182230
>Social conservatism is dead in the West.
social conservatism was always 10-20 years delayed progressivism, don't kid yourself thinking it was something else or it had any future vision beyond "slowing down whatever those guys want to do"

>>11183164
>epistemology is a bit over your head.
That is not where the tweet breaks down at all

>>11182572
Zizek maybe, not enough public masturbation i guess

>>11183134
Appealing to popularity is a valid way to settle the question of whether he's failing to express himself, as his audience is the result of his success at expressing himself. Put down Logical Fallacies for Dummies and try thinking beyond your gut reaction.

>>11182452
now "enforce" means "promote", top kek

>>11182497
Only an actual autist who doesn't have any social interaction outside 4chan would even consider asking a question like this. It's so incredibly loaded and aggressive that he probably wouldn't even answer it.

>>11183139
I agree. It usually is but not always.

>>11183186
>his audience is the result of his success at expressing himself.
or they are reading into the wordsalad he spouts something they like, pseudo-profound bullshit is rarely without an audience.

>>11183186
Just because millions choose to listen to him doesn't means said millions do understand him. It is clear appeal to authority

>>11182497
You'd make a fine oped writer/reporter for The Guardian, or buzzfeed mate. Excellent questions.

>>11183198
He says some things clearly, if it's common sense or accepted things. The rest is just vague or suggestive. It's very clearly deliberate.

>>11182929
120 IQ is average college student

>>11181722
He did fine in both. The fact that niggers, frumpy Jewish lesbians, and "rationalists" can self suck while ignoring all his points is their problem, not his

>>11183201
>>11183198
Maybe, but I don't think so. Anyways, I'm going to go read something in a clean room. Have a nice day fellas.

>>11183240
>but I don't think so.
Wow what a resounding argument.

Read actual Jungian psychoanalysis

>>11182497
>Why don't you suggest people to read the source material itself?
He does, he literally has reading lists on his webzone that include both the cats you mentioned

>>11182673
>by playing unfair, i don't mean playing unfair, but playing unfair
You're too retarded for tabloid format. That's not a hostile interview, and it's not the journalist's fault that Peterson went full babble while on the record.

Whenever that happens with a journalist, it's nothing to do with the journalist's desire to fuck someone over, it's the journalist's good luck they timed the interview during someone having a stroke. Plenty of journalists go into interviews looking to fuck someone over, and with a slant, and they don't get insane nonsense quotes like that back. Not even from the WBC would you get one of them on record saying that without making sure they were perfectly clear and badgering the interviewer with their "right to explain myself further". Peterson fucked up. Even people who are openly in racist cults promoting insurrection talk less inane nonsense and link their ideas and reasoning together better. You have to be a lucky, not a hostile, journalist to get someone that dumb. You can be hostile all you like with most public figures and they'll stop the interview rather than get flustered like that, and refer you elsewhere, or anything other than saying "it's obvious witches live in swamps" with no back-up. The only time you get that on tape is if you go to the fucking Congo or Amazon to interview the local witch doctor/high priest because everyone else knows that reads as retarded without any further explanation.

>>11183246
Wasn't meant as one. Bless your heart.

>>11182085
>he just omitted it for brevity

Yes, that must be it

It was inevitable that he'd have a few slipups in terms of expressing himself, considering how overexposed he's been lately. Does that invalidate his philosophy? No.

Imagine taking Jung (or Freud for that matter) seriously in 2018. Like holy fuck. Literally astrology for men.

>>11183277
What invalidates his philosophy is that he doesn't know what postmodernism is, hasn't read Heidegger (though he tries to pretend he has), doesn't know Jung and Heidegger are the basis of the postmodern idea of self, and that his fans have no concerns about that but use them like Peterson to validate their appeal to his authority through authorities they know nothing about and would be deeply troubled by if they did.

>>11182230
This makes me feel very anxious and afraid. Basically the only possible "solution" is holocaust 2.0?

>>11183288
Freud's right about a lot of shit though and necessary to understand a lot of lit crit.

>>11183295
I see postmodern crusaders saying this a lot, but I've yet to be presented with what exactly it is he gets wrong about postmodernism

I guess Jung's consistent lack of rigor, broad generalizations, flawed interpretation of religion and highly selective use of evidence were all archetypes that JBP decided to take up too. Top lel.

>>11183319
postmodernism doesn't exist, is just a tactic where you pretend to believe in nothing while you attack some other guy for believing in something

every single so-called postmodernist had a very clear grand-narrative if you just look in what direction he was pushing without explicitly saying it

>>11183327
>>11183319
wanna know how I know you two have never touched a book written by a french philosopher

>>11183307
he literally never cured a single person

>>11183319
It's his conflating of postmodernism with Marxism that is absolutely retarded. The whole "incredulity towards metanarratives" thing does not need to be repeated and explicated for the millionth time.

Also postmodernism is fucking dead. It's the post-internet age, not the 80's anymore. Literally all cultural theorists have moved onto metamodernism. JBP is tilting at windmills (as reactionaries are wont to do) and it's cringey as fuck.

>>11183335
Because their writing isn't tainted by gibberish

>>11183349
case in point

>>11183335
tell me about one french author that according to you didn't believe in grand-narratives and let me laugh at your face

>>11183352
baudrillard

>>11183327
I agree, and that's one of the things JBP has been pointed out repeatedly. Postmodern philosophy is used to deconstruct existing systems and then backhandedly replace them with new ones, without any real justification. A hierarchy of values is intrinsically necessary for any sentient creature to take action, so the attempt to go meta on the very idea of hierarchies is bound to leave a void.

>>11183347
>Literally all cultural theorists have moved onto metamodernism
there was never a postmodernist and metamodernists don't exist either

>>11183297
if a picture on an online finnish ski-waxing community makes you consider "holocaust 2.0" as a solution you should probably seek help

>>11183354
How could anyone read precession of simulacra and not recognize its grand narrative? I suppose the gibberish does make it a bit hard to follow, for some.

>>11183368
oh please tell me what's the grand narrative of simulacra and simulation lol

>>11183364
I'm not considering anything, just folowing his line of thought. Any intelligent rebutal to it?

>>11183352
derrida

your argument could definitely be applied to foucault though

>>11183373
I could, but don't you think you should read it yourself first before you talk about French philosophers?

>>11183373
Western Marxism

>obsessed with "the narrative"
>throws out objective truth the second he needs to talk about religion
>is super vague and his greatest defense is "you just don't understand it"

is Peterson the biggest post-modernist of our age?

>>11182604
Has yet to be refuted.

>>11183397
; )

>>11183383
derrida explicitly spoke about his "justice to come" meme, you don't even have to extract it by omision

>"enforced" actually means blah blah blah
it's clear what he said, fuck off with this bullshit
he's signaling to his incel subscribers that he's with them while giving himself enough leeway to claim "oh that was a scientific term"
dishonesty is the prime trait of the petersonfag, it's what draws him to weepy kermit because he's found a way to say gross shit and then criticize others for "misunderstanding" it

>>11183409
The term existed before he used it.
Calm down, you paranoid woman.

>>11183386
I have but you clearly haven't
>>11183393
Wrong

>>11183416
Keep avoiding any definite claims and confusing one essay with the entire book. It really produces the impression that you know what you're talking about.

>>11183415
its descriptive use being harmless doesn't mean using it as a prescriptive term in a liberal society doesn't break all pre-suppositions about individualism

>>11183393
all marxism is western marxism

>>11183357
>metamodernists don't exist either

andreas hussyen, boris groys, tao lin, timotheus vermeulen, robin van den akker, the latest work of fredric jameson, lil b, young thug

>>11183415
>The term existed before he used it.
this is a non sequitur, it has literally no connection to the topic other than whatever explanation you've cooked up in your head

>>11183427
>Keep avoiding any definite claims
But that's what you're doing, retard.

>>11183434
you are just saying names

>>11183319
He thinks postmodernism says there is no objective truth for one. Postmodernism, like modernism, says that there is objective truth, but unlike modernism, does not believe that we're making as much progress towards it as we claim. He calls trannies postmodernists, when they are a modernist group, which believes in gender essentialism and the scientific "correcting" of bodies, both of which postmodernism eschews. He calls postmodernism neoMarxist, when most of great postmodernists are multimillionaires who fuck bitches and get money, or who denounced Soviet Russia as being the closest thing to essence of modernity as we'd probably ever know and called Chomsky a shill for telling people gulags aren't that bad. These are all major political, social, and literary moments of the 20th Century which Peterson is ignorant of, and the only reason he picked postmodernism as his insult is because he hoped everyone listening was as ignorant as him.

>postmodernist have grand narratives
Criticism of grand narratives isn't doing away with them necessarily, nor providing one that you think is more workable. Postmodernism isn't saying that they're in possession of a more true grand narrative, they're saying so many grand narratives claim to be the one true way, it seems like one of the millions of them would have proved itself if it could. There is a lot of internal criticism of the authors chosen grand narrative since the start of postmodernism - from Heidegger's criticisms of ontology and his questioning of the ontic, to Flann O'Brien's books tending to have several narrators and the author rarely wins out in narrative direction despite his overarching plan for the tale. These criticisms themselves arise out of modernity, and acknowledge their debt to previous writers in the modern era or earlier (Huxley, Nietzsche, even Wilde's idea that a man will tell you the truth from behind a mask). Postmodernism has an ambiguous critical relationship with modernity, and doesn't intend for it to be black and white, because the main problem it has with modernity is it's idea of uniform solutions: neither Peterson nor the SJWs have "cracked" gender. That's about as likely to ever happen as someone "cracking" the system of which horse to bet on. Neither of them should be the grand high arbiter of gender, because anyone filling that office would be a dumb idea and you probably don't want to live by their rules for what to do with your dick.

>>11183397
I mean he's a Nietzschean and claims that there are many kinds of truth, so yeah, he's a postmodernist

>>11183434
>tao lin

>>11183438
names of people whose work can be described as metamodern, yes

>>11183344
Ha, you know he considered charging high fees to be therapeutic because so long as rich people can spend a lot of money every month "getting better" they feel they're getting better? That's called sunk cost and used to explain stock markets now.

>>11183453
>memerson invented sunk cost fallacy

>>11183107
>scientific magic in service of God again

>>11183464
Read the quote chain, we're talking about Freud discovering it.

>>11182174
> thinks pinocchio is a profound metaphor
> eggshells
> thinks ancient art shows a double-helix
> eggshells
> thinks there should be forced monogamy
> eggshells
> denies climate change
> eggshells
> thinks the birth control pill is destroying the west
> eggshells

>>11183429
>term already means x
>well you see he clearly meant y by that

>>11183478
but you see he totally didn't mean those things he said, (except when he did) so you should just listen to him more until you understand

>>11183482
he is talking about what to do, not about something that currently exists in western societies, the difference is clear

>>11183493
At this point you're the one trying to make him sounds confusing.

>>11181893
I'm one of (((them))) who loves JBP and Heidegger

Postmodern end-of-history thinking does not envisage a future for us much different from the present, a prospect it oddly views as a cause for celebration. But there is indeed one such possible future among several, and its name is fascism. The greatest test of postmodernism, or for that matter of any other political doctrine, is how it would shape up to that. Its rich body of work on racism and ethnicity, on the paranoia of identity-thinking, on the perils of totality and the fear of otherness: all this, along with its deepened insights into the cunning of power, would no doubt be of considerable value. But its cultural relativism and moral conventionalism, its scepticism, pragmatism and localism, its distaste for ideas of solidarity and disciplined organization, its lack of any adequate theory of political agency: all these would tell heavily against it. In confronting its political antagonists, the left, now more than ever, has need of strong ethical and even anthropological foundations; nothing short of this is likely to furnish us with the political resources we require. And on this score, postmodernism is in the end part of the problem rather than of the solution.

>>11183436
You brought up Baudrillard as an example of lacking a grand narrative. Baudrillard's grand narrative is laid out in the precession of simulacra, where he argues that simulation has come to precede reality and intermix with it to form hyperreality, where signs and referents are indistinguishable and history is effectively over. It creates the impression that you've never read Baudrillard, or, at best, failed to understand him, which I can forgive because he used mass amounts of gibberish in his terrible writing. Carry on, brainlet.

>>11183478
> thinks the birth control pill is destroying the west
It is.

>>11183511
apparently i didn't write in enough stupidity to warrant leaving out a /s
which is kinda sad in its own way

>>11183515
>le spooky fascism word
it's just so lazy

>>11183525
I don't like it when women have agency and bodily autonomy, either!

>>11183524
>Baudrillard's grand narrative is laid out in the precession of simulacra, where he argues that simulation has come to precede reality and intermix with it to form hyperreality
That's not a grand narrative. A grand narrative is a narrative that tries to organize all knowledge towards something and thereby justifies all the power relations in a society. You fucking retard.

>>11183533
>le snarky reddit response BTFOing republitards XDDDDD
Women can have "agency" and "bodily autonomy" without the pill.

>>11183543
lol this is the most dishonest shit

>>11183541
>and thereby justifies all the power relations in a society
you just casually introduced another grand narrative you fucking retard, you seem even unable to write a sentence without doing it

>>11181986
>I grew up outside of whatever causal chain allows people to think differently from the way i do
>kek why is everyone but me a retard?

I bet you're rock hard right now

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

>>11183555
There's nothing dishonest about it.
The dishonest thing would be to deny that truth because of idiotic definitions of "bodily autonomy" and "agency" that are the fruit of the retarded cartesian tree.

>>11183504

>Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

He is talking about the calming effect monogamy has on men and why it emerge in society.

Today society pressure to get into a sucessful mariage is much less than what it was in the past. So encouraging monogamy again could help the incels but this would surely bring about all kind of other effects.

If discord trannies and Fedora-tipping atheists hate him, he must be doing something right.

>>11183559
why is no one addressing this?

>>11183556
That's the definition of grand narrative, sorry if it hurts your feeling.

>>11183574
>If discord trannies
Discord trannies is one the most beautiful cladistic terms I've ever heard.

>>11183512
hello hannah

>>11183573
another traditional solution is forcing unmarried men into an army and sending them to die somewhere, why not propose that too? it's a well known phenomena so it's ok to propose it, just asking questions man

>>11183580
>>11183559
they'd rather attack strawmen

>>11182745
tbf what he's saying is only ambiguous if your attention span is rivaled by the length of time it takes you to read a sentence. I see the word brainlet thrown around a lot these days but all I see on 4chan, the most vocal of this pathetic mass, are the one's who let the more cycnical among us do the thinking for them. Learn how to use your brain, kids. The first, second, or third conclusion you come to about anything might not be correct. Keep searching, don't take your own opinions for granted.

>>11183596
>https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
He's attacking a strawman himself, you dumb fuck.
> My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.
> hinted at

"I talked myself into a corner and the mean chaos reporter lady reported it! Of course I didn't mean the words that came out of my mouth!"

>>11183605
>he must be talking about state enforced monogamy, as he clearly isn't against authoritarianism despite describing himself as a classic British liberal, being pro free market and standing against compelled speech legislation
>he needs state enforced monogamy because he can't get laid himself, as he is a Incel, despite being married and having children!1!!

>>11183583
if even to define grand narrative you have to swallow piles of meaning and pre-suppositions, i don't see what's the point of even talking about postmodernism in the first place

>>11183607
Are you seriously thinking he means "women should be forced at gunpoint to marry people?" you moron?
It's clear as fuck he means the same thing any conservative means: encourage monogamy over hookup culture or whatever the fuck we have now through social and cultural means.
Like, how is this difficult?
The man isn't hard to understand, he's a pseud.

>>11183607
>" I didn't mean the words that came out of my mouth!"
But he meant exactly enforced monogamy, and in the article, proceeded to explain what is enforced monogamy in the anthropology literature.

>>11183607
Did you not read the part where it said this is completely standard terminology for describing socially as opposed to evolutionarily determined monogamy? He meant the words that came out of his mouth, but in the typical "gotcha" fashion of the intellectually dishonest, they did no research and assumed it meant what they wanted to hear.

>>11183559
>evolutionary psychology
dropped

>>11183607
I hate discord trannies so much

>>11183605
>>11181853

>Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

>>11183619
Where did I even imply any of that, you fucking knuckle-dragger?
I'm reveling in this people sperging out that someone recorded his words and printed them. If you have to jump through this many intellectual hoops to defend what someone knowingly said on the record, then you've goofed.
I hate them, I hate, you, and I hate him (almost as much as he hates women).

>>11183615
you're fucking retarded and that's not the point of the discussion, stop posting.

>>11183607
You are a cretin. He completely meant the words that came out of his mouth, it's just that those words don't mean what his critics want them to mean. They have a meaning that is independent of your journalistic agenda and political leaning. I also suspect that his utterance about that anthropological term was precede by a larger discussion contextualising it and making it abundantly clear even for those laymen who aren't familiar with the terminology. But it was conveniently left out in favour of erratic truncated quote mining done so as to enforce the oped journalist's personal opinions.

>>11183632
>evolution dont be real cos it dont work with my leftist dogma

>>11183637
>many intellectual hoops
>literally trying to understand what a basic bitch conservative means by his words
I know trannies are mentally ill but jesus fucking christ I didn't know you were also cognitively impaired.

>>11183593
that already happens. but if monogamy stops being a thing, thinks desestablize and get violent. if you don't think that's true, what about addressing the articles JP referenced?

>>11183646
everytime, this same shitfucking argument
can't wait for this meme pseudoscience to disappear forever

>>11183637
>someone recorded his words and printed them
I don't think he has a problem with that. His problem is people misrepresenting what these words actually mean..

>"women must be forcibly married to the incels to keep them from sperging out into violence"
>".... but it's not the governments job to enforce it."

wow that makes it all ok, because we all know it's only bad if the government does it

>>11182676
>Michelle Goldberg was the star of the Munk debate

All she did was highlight her inability to keep up with the social discourse. She still think it's 2010.

>>11183656
It's not an argument, just a true statement.

>>11183656
Have you presented any argument yourself? Address the literature if you believe it's fallacious.

>>11183650
>what about addressing the articles JP referenced?
"enforced monogamy" is not going to help self described incels because they mostly are misanthropic retards that have trouble even having a conversation with the opposite sex

>>11183643
How the fuck is this titan of thought, master of mentalism, illuminator of intelligence, teacher of truths unable to speak clearly whenever he appears in the limelight.

>>11183593
>another traditional solution is forcing unmarried men into an army
>that already happens
>forcing
of course it's destabilizing and happens, but none of the solutions are defensible if you are a liberal, he would be more interesting if he swallowed the reactionary pill and stopped playing games around

>>11183676
>none of the solutions are defensible if you are a liberal, he would be more interesting if he swallowed the reactionary pill and stopped playing games around
he's already swallowed it, his "clumsy" "misinterpreted" words are a way to stick reactionary thought into the public discourse and get himself more patreonbux

>>11183664
>enforced monogamy
>he must be saying that women must be forcibly married to the incels, because that's what monogamy is about
why strawman him so much?

>>11183324

Thanks for redefining Archetype you illiterate hick

>>11183673
i don't think they're born this way

>>11183344
It aint about curing people, homie. It's about getting them to accept the fact that they're fucked. So stand up straight and carry your cross you pathetic whoreson.

>>11183676
>enforced monogamy isn't defensible when you are a liberal
What do you think marriage is about?

>>11183675
Mate, you're a fucking cretin. End of. Please reflect and see whether this is how you want to live life.

>>11183636
So what? It's getting him shekels

>>11183664
Yes, that's clearly what he meant.
Are you just dishonest or are you dumb?

>>11183443
>confuses post-modernism with meta-modernism

>>11183442
>when most of great postmodernists are multimillionaires who fuck bitches and get money,
Koons is such a fucking chad. At least Warhol was a faggot.
>tfw you will never abandon finance to sell technicolor statues of you fucking your pornstar wife to financiers for more money
I see why Peterson hates them.

>>11183694
well he only said:
>the incels are angry at god because they get no pussy
>the pussy doesn't want them, they want the chads
>enforced monogamy is the solution here, so the women will be with the incels

of course the women who if they could choose of their own free will would never date the incels are of course not forced into those same relationships they don't want because uh... it doesn't count as being forced into it unless it's the government doing it?

>>11183715
Friend, violent and crass language is a sign of a small mind. Maybe another 100$ dropped into the good doctor's patreon will refresh those happy thoughts that seem to pass you by lately.

>>11183656
>can't wait for this meme pseudoscience to disappear forever
Chances are, you don't even know what evolutionary psychology is or what it actually says.

>>11183713
liberalism destroyed marriage

>>11183734
the proud tradition of dislocating your wife's shoulder because she wants to learn to read is lost forever

>>11183737
i never said marriage is good, just that it's incompatible with liberalism

>>11183737
>leftypol thinks this actually happened

>>11183257
Stop being a retard. I've said multiple times that I think its Peterson's fault. Why are you ranting to yourself like a demented crone?

You can have journalists who are sympathetic to you ( in Peterson's case Tucker Carlson, The Spectator, the old Australian guy) and those who are not (Cathy Newman, NYT, VICE). Being smart is telling the difference between the two and acting accordingly. For Cathy Newman, he did but for the latter two he got cocky and went full retard.

This is very simple stuff, I'm surprised that you're not getting it.

>>11183743
and you were wrong

>>11183733
No you cretin, it's needed to jolt mouth-breathing droolers such as yourself into reality. Need I remind you, you were the one addressing that other anon as a "dumb fuck". Not only are you a cretin, but you're also a self-victimising hypocrite.

Your claim was about him "not meaning the words that came out of his mouth". This is objectively false. It's just that the meaning of words and terminology is independent of your political agenda. Also, that same term was preceded by a conversation that contextualised it and made it completely self-explanatory to those not well versed in anthropology jargon, but the context was conveniently excluded by the journalist.

You are an absolute cretin mate.

>>11183755
you just spoke about dislocating shoulders of women though, not about marriage and liberalism

>>11183728
>uh..
fucking discord trannies,

>>11183754
I'm pointing out that is not a hostile journalist. You keep trying to make out it's her slant. It's not. It's that Peterson is a fucking goldmine and she got lucky. You don't need a slant to print that, you need one to take it out and edit it so you don't have to use direct quotes. That's the problem with direct quotes from an idiot, and Peterson is an idiot. He needs someone who is aware of how retarded he is going to sound in print, like a PR agent who will stop him mid-sentence and explain to the journalist and tell him to explain further when she isn't getting it. She can't edit out his quotes without a good reason, like him or his management saying something to clarify before print, and she probably sent him copy for further comment before going to print. He needs someone who will save him from himself because he approved this shit going out. Again, she can't edit out his words without the article becoming slanted. She can't change a direct quote, she can only give it context, which she did. That's not bias, that's Peterson needing an agent who will manage his retarded ass because he's any journalist's dream right now regardless of their political opinion. It's like finding some guy who's been fucking his cousins because angels told his grandpa and getting him on camera, even atheists will buy that copy.

>>11183728
>of course the women who if they could choose of their own free will would never date the incels
True. They tend to have polygamous relationships with the high status man. But if the high status man can have only one partner, and woman are socially coerced into having monogamic stable relationships, the low status woman will mate with low status men and they don't get violent. This is well documented.
That's why we have such things as marriage and stigmatize promiscuity

>>11183760
No, friend, I am afraid the actual cretin here is you. I apologize for the strong language but it is apparently the only way to "jolt you into reality".
For proof of your cretinuosness I submit the following: my claim about him not meaning the words that come out of his mouth cannot be objectively false since we would need an insight into JBP's actual thought, which we will never have since telepathy isn't real.

jokes aside, no, the convo didn't contextualise shit, it's his usual verbal diarrhea
what contextualizes it is his recent tweet about enforcing monogamy through state tyranny
there have been too many cases of him playing motte-and-bailey to discount it as him being misconstrued
he's a smart man and I'm treating him as such, you're the one who infantilizes him

>>11183810
Get a load of this autistic retard. If you can't identify sympathy, antipathy, or mere neutrality skewed by opportunism in prose then what are you doing on a literature board?

>>11182572
We really have to ask?

>>11183836
I can, and I can do it even better in print journalism specifically. That is not a hostile journalist. It's very clear you've never met any journalists, and I'm unsure if you read newspapers or are aware of many espionage stories of the past few years, and that you think that most journalists wouldn't sell their politics, soul and second wife down the river for a story that sells like this is naive to the point of being cute. Right wing newspapers who believe in sex only in straight marriage would sell him down the river too, because they don't want to be associated with the swamp witches man. Or they'd at minimum make sure he had some agent or massaging during the interview, and probably exclude many parts he thought were self evident, like swamp witches.

>>11183833
>I apologize for the strong language but it is apparently the only way to "jolt you into reality".
You dumb cretinoid nigger, I am using this language because you set the linguistic register and then complained about being a victim when someone returned the favour. Absolute mongoloid mate.
>my claim about him not meaning the words that come out of his mouth cannot be objectively false since we would need an insight into JBP's actual thought, which we will never have since telepathy isn't real.
What? We don't need access to his consciousness because he didn't backtrack on shit you verbally incontinent ape. He meant what he said (ie:'enforced monogamy'), but it's an established anthropological term whose meaning is independent of your political agenda so it doesn't mean Handmaid's Tale dystopia. The journalist also left out the context in which it was uttered and that would have likely made the term self-explanatory even for retards such as yourself.
>recent tweet
2016 mate, not recent. I will grant you that the tweet is ambiguous, but it refers to increased rates of promiscuity. He is also outspoken against any form of totalitarianism, so by state tyranny in relation to promiscuity and a lack of responsibility could mean shit as trivial as compulsory 'monogamy training' classes for students. Again, the tweet is old and I don't plan on digging up his older tweets or activity around that period to establish its context.

>>11182769
>>11183810
> Constantly refers to him as Mr Peterson rather than his proper title (which is fairly common knowledge so it must be on purpose).
> Makes him out to look like a shady paranoid creeper who never smiles and has "suspicious eyes."
>snide comments misrepresenting position "why won't women just behave?"
>AHA MR PETERSON UR ROOM HAS A LOT OF THINGS IN IT, THEREFORE UR ROOM IS NOT CLEAN, WOT A HYPOCRITE RIGHT?
>suggesting that because his dress sense has changed recently, he is putting on an act.
>saying that the Canadian Association for Equality and Canadian Centre for Men and Families is a "musty space.

>not hostile.

There are more but I can't be arsed. You haven't read the article so go away and do that before you come back you fucking retards.

>>11183867
You seem to be willfully obtuse but you can't be trolling because it's not funny. Are you autistic? Genuine question.

>>11183881
>and then complained about being a victim when someone returned the favour
lol you top tier moron that was a joke
how the fuck are you managing to breathe and type at the same time
do you shit your pants if you don't constantly repeat to yourself "hold it in"?

>>11183881
>The journalist also left out the context in which it was uttered and that would have likely made the term self-explanatory even for retards such as yourself.
WHAT
CONTEXT
?

>>11183810
>he doesn't know what hostile means.

>>11183867
I've written as a contributor for a newspaper (it's online offering), but that's not the point, nor is it wise for us to establish credentials on 4chan. There is a difference between being opportunistic and taking advantage of an interviewee's shortcomings while being politically/ideologically neutral about him (tabloid journalism) and having an agenda.

The subtitle is "He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?". Clearly a neutral agenda-free synthesis of Peterson's views, aye?

>>11183891
>Constantly refers to him as Mr Peterson rather than his proper title
ahahaha the state of petersonfags

>>11183891
>journalists describing someone's body language as nervous
>that's a BIAS
that's every introduction ever when they find the author/speaker/lawyer/rehab'd pop star in the hotel lobby they set up together. it's always
>i found him jumpy, half way through his second drink, smoking
it's because the journalist is usually late, and people don't like being interviewed. the alternative is
>waiting in the bar, i thought about ordering another drink before X showed up. X raised an eyebrow as i just ordered food and proceeded to get a double whiskey to start the interview
meaning the journalist is 5 drinks in and it's a 9pm interview where the journalist eats peanuts and rushes it in before print

>>11183891
>You will refer to my daddy by his proper title or else!

>>11183917
Kein Argument

>>11183921
ليس حجة

>>11183896
You seem to have a very high opinion of neutral journalists. Yes, they would absolutely use your retarded quotes about witches or dragonball Z if you went on record while the tape was rolling. It's what their job description is. What you consider hostile is journalism as a whole. It's like you think they're bastions of political and moral will when they're mostly drunken hacks with snooping fetishes.

>>11183929
She's not a neutral journalist tho, she's a hostile journalist.

>>11183900
I mention you being logorrheicly incontinent and your brain suddenly grabs onto a literal incontinence joke. Wew lad. Anyways, you were wrong about him 'not meaning what he said' and I'm glad I could point that out for you.
>>11183907
The context established by spending two days with the man. Do you think that utterance was preceded by nothing? He just postulated "Enforced monogamy!"? Not only is the whole conversation conveniently truncated, but the author goes on to build on the fake controversial nature of the statement "Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution."

Not that it needs to be contextualised. Enforce monogamy as has been established numerous times in this thread, is anthropological jargon with a set meaning that is independent from the reader's political proclivity and means nothing of the Handmaid's Tale dystopy sort. Also, it's not like monogamy isn't actually and quite literally enforced and state mandated in a way. Polygamous relationships are not recognised by Western states.

>>11183920
>>that's a BIAS
Yup.

>>11183950
>there HAS TO BE some context in which memerson looks like a normal person instead of an incel-adjacent retard

>>11183969
>there DOESN'T NEED TO BE a context in which Peterson looks like a normal person instead of an incel-adjacent retard, because "enforced monogamy" doesn't mean what you want it to mean and has a well established meaning in anthropological literature.

Maybe greentexting a synthesis of my actual point will boost your reading comprehension.

>>11183913
>he thinks it's hostile to print what Peterson actually said
Should I go tell Peterson to stop bullying himself?
>>11183916
>The subtitle is "He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?". Clearly a neutral agenda-free synthesis of Peterson's views, aye?
That is what Peterson views them as. It's not her fault that is how he characterizes them, and if she were talking to anyone else who came out with that stream, you know that's how you'd characterize them too. He's professing his beliefs about archetypes, and if characterizing them that way is fine for him, it's fine for the journalist. If you were writing about Islamic terrorism and interviewed someone who said "The problem is these jezebels are corrupting our pure righteous Islamic wives", you know a question would be "Why are these wives and jezebels able to corrupt each other one way and not the other", and any Islamic terrorist worth his salt would say "Because we bring our wives to Islam, and only men can do this for jezebels too". Peterson can't do that kind of reasoning on his feet to get his message across, and every journalist is going to expect him to know how a journalist handles that is to say, "Jezebels and wives aside, Kurdistan faces real difficulties from Russian funding..." That doesn't mean they're mocking, it just means they're using the interviewees terms as explained. It's not an agenda, any more than any news, it's just what happens when you get those quotes and explanations. I doubt any Jungian or even Freudian would object to being categorized that way either, as someone who divides archetypes that way, because a lot of them write books on specifically that being how one should categorize things. Peterson does think that way, and he does not have a problem with those ideas, either that there is a crisis in masculinity nor that wives and witches won't behave and need a reason not to. That's what his current work is aimed at answering. That's what made him famous. It's not biased or hostile, it's genuinely his view. It's retarded, but I don't think he would revise that part.

>>11183981
>taking peterson at his literal word is fucking dumb
here's mine, maybe you'll finally get a clue

>>11183943
Both you and Peterson are going to cry if he gets a hostile journalist, m8. That's nothing like a hostile journalist. A hostile journalist is like having Scientology after you before anonymous. Someone quoting your embarrassing comments isn't considered hostile in journalism. It's half the job, unless you're talking to Mariah Carey or Streisand.

>>11183954
Nah m8, that's just call journalists expense accounts at hotels and restaurants. They pick up the bill as proof of your alcoholism too.

>>11183983
But he never characterizes women as only wives and witches. Those are archetypes that he has spoken about but not ones that he has applied to all women. And he never demands they "behave." Where in the article does he allude to that?

Also re-read your reply, after the third sentence it stops making sense.

>>11184032
Are you drunk, m9, you're not making sense?

BASED PETERSTEIN
DONT FORGET TO SUPPORT ISRAEL
HAIL ZION

>>11184024
>he really doesn't know what hostile means.

>>11183983
>That is what Peterson views them as.
Within a certain archetypal context. Which renders a meaning that is entirely different to what an unfamiliar reader who isn't made aware of it could derive.

She knew what she was doing. Spending two days with the man probably widens the gap between what she actually took away from the interview and what she presented even further. I am not saying that peterson is a careful communicator. He clearly isn't. But the author had an agenda and he fell into her trap. If only the whole affair was recorded.

>>11184014
I don't know what you mean mate. I am taking him at his literal word. Since you don't seem to be aware of the meaning of certain words, you can't be expected to make anything veracious of his 'literal word' though.

>>11184043
The reason why those descriptions in all interviews always sound like those two is because journalists arrange these meetings like a date, and people get nervous like a date. It's very rare that you find an interview that starts
>Resplendent in her throne she descended stepping on the bent backs of footmen
because those are interviews where the venue and format are set by the interviewee (a fluff piece or paid content usually). Most print journalists will use it as an opportunity for a free meal and drinks if it's a good interviewee who'll draw a lot of attention, and most interviewees will find themselves in a restaurant/hotel/bar they aren't familiar with meeting someone they don't know. Saying someone looks suspicious when you approach them isn't biased, because that's how most people get described. That, or nervous or anxious or impatient are all pretty usual for an interview. It's not because of bias except that it hides that most people aren't used to that shit like journalists.
>>11184039
It doesn't stop making sense, you just have difficulty with getting past the third sentence. It continues with an analogous dialogue, and how even Middle Eastern terrorists understand how a news article is quoted better than Peterson.
It then goes on to say that, since Peterson, Freudians, and Jungians, all characterize archetypes of women as wives and witches, that I doubt he would object to categorizing all women as them. Neither do I think that any Jungian or Freudian would. Because they genuinely believe that, and I don't see why you object to him believing that. He said he does, so why would you think he's excluding some women from those archetypes? He does think that women are misbehaving and that men are too.
He thinks there is a crisis in masculinity caused by this, because males lack male role models. That is why he's famous and what he wants to address.
It's not biased to print his views, and saying it's not his views is very biased and seeks to censor Peterson. If you don't agree with his ideas does not mean he didn't say them. It's not how reality works. It seems you wish she had censored him so you wouldn't have to deal with his views.