Talking Basement-Dwellers With Jordan Peterson, Reddit’s New Favorite Philosopher

[Anonymous No.10646028]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/jordan-peterson-reddits-new-favorite-philosopher.html

>“Why not sit in your mother’s basement and eat Cheetos and play video games and watch pornography?” Jordan Peterson asks me. For the record, he means it rhetorically, as the existential plight of modern man; my mother doesn’t even have a basement. We’re on the balcony of an Airbnb in a luxury loft in downtown Los Angeles, overlooking an unpopulated swimming pool. “That’s a perfectly valid question,” he says. “It’s certainly pleasurable, and not very onerous, moment to moment.”

>We’re roughly four uninterrupted minutes into the answer to my first question: What about this particular historical moment has made Peterson, a University of Toronto professor in L.A. to lecture to a sold-out crowd at the Orpheum Theatre, a sudden celebrity as the author of a best-selling new book, 12 Rules for Life; the star of a wildly successful lecture tour across North America and Europe; a candidate, David Brooks says, for the title of the West’s “most influential public intellectual”? “I think the answer to that is actually to be found in an old story,” Peterson began. “There’s an idea that, especially in a moment of crisis, you have to go into the belly of the beast and rescue your father from the depths of chaos. Well, that’s what I’m doing.”

>The father in this parable is — I think — stable, individualist, Western democracy; the “depths of chaos” are (again, if I’m following him) the “postmodern neo-Marxist” attacking truth and meaning, and thus threatening the stability of prosperous industrial nations. At its core, Peterson’s basic intellectual project is a familiar conservative one: He stands for natural order, individualism, and responsibility in opposition to what he sees as the looming totalitarianism of the “radical left”; he says that, while responsibility must be balanced with “rights and freedoms,” we’ve been emphasizing rights “for, like, 60 years. Enough!”

[Anonymous No.10646060]

[Anonymous No.10646065]

>>10646028
>Reddit’s New Favorite Philosopher

Petersonfags will never recover from this

[Anonymous No.10646106]

>>10646028
What if I just want to rescue a qt6.5 and share doritos and mountain dew with her while playing vidya?

[Anonymous No.10646145]

Who is /our/ philosopher? Zizek? Land?

[Anonymous No.10646151]

>>10646145
Stefan Molyneux

[Anonymous No.10646165]

>>10646065
There's literally nothing wrong with being a redditor.

[Anonymous No.10646168]

>>10646065
It's a compliment

[Anonymous No.10646175]

>>10646165
t. reddit

[Anonymous No.10646176]

>>10646145

[Anonymous No.10646177]

>>10646106
You’ll die a virgin.

[Anonymous No.10646187]

>>10646165
Oh really?

[Anonymous No.10646189]

I seriously want to fucking kill myself this isn't even a joke anymore

[Anonymous No.10646197]

>>10646028
>Reddit's new favourite philosopher
I wonder what effect is this going to have on the psyche of /fit/itizens.

[Anonymous No.10646265]

>>10646189
Cheer up

[Anonymous No.10646487]

>>10646165
get out

[Anonymous No.10647314]

>>10646028
Stable individualist western democracy is what caused this problem to begin with. If you base your philosophy on "I'll do whatever I want", of course there are going to be a whole load of sodomites pushing for legitimising their disgusting fetish, and a whole bunch of people dropping out of society because they can't be bothered.

Why is he complaining now that his philosophy has reached it's logical conclusion? It's people like this that make me think liberals are honestly retarded. They are completely unable to see the consequences of their ideology.

[Anonymous No.10648313]

>NYMag.com

[Anonymous No.10648325]

>>10647314
>I'm living in my parents basement because gay people can get married

Truly powerful posting from the right

[Anonymous No.10648335]

>>10646028
If that's all it is, why care so much, anon?

[Anonymous No.10648355]

>>10646165
You should go back, then

[Anonymous No.10648362]

>>10647314
The structure of a society and the ideal way to live within that structure are not the same thing. Peterson's argument would most likely be that stable individualist western democracies are the best way to build a society, and sober, competent responsibility is the best way for an individual to live within that structure.

[Anonymous No.10648364]

>>10646028
hey anon did you know lit is short for literature

[Anonymous No.10648365]

>>10648325
The "right" have always been feeble neoliberal faggots that fold under imaginary adversities. It's not the modern world's fault you have no sexual value and woke up from a vidya coma at 26 with nothing to show for it.

[Anonymous No.10648369]

>>10648362
>sober, competent responsibility
has he not met people?

[Anonymous No.10648370]

>>10646028
He is a shill for productivism and the upper classes that make money off the poor sucker's work

[Anonymous No.10648377]

>>10648370
Which society is it that works well with a non-productive populace?

[Anonymous No.10648388]

>>10648370
i.e. a shill for wage slavery. He just wishes the world now to be like it was in his childhood, like every other boomer

[Anonymous No.10648425]

>>10648388
>He just wishes the world now to be like it was in his childhood, like every other boomer
It really is that fucking simple. Can't wait till they're gone.

[Anonymous No.10648428]

Imagine if leftypol hadn't completely lost the ability to honestly confront their opponents' arguments.

[Anonymous No.10648442]

>>10648325
these freaks don't want equality, they want cultural marxism, they want to be placed on a pedestal and rape children in the open street, they actively relish victimhood.
>muh politically correct victim lifestyle is subversive and edgy despite the fact it is agressively pushed by academia, Bill Nye and all major corporations

[Anonymous No.10648448]

>>10646028
I'm starting to think that Jordan Peterson is the antichrist at this point. What does he have to say on accelerationism?

[Anonymous No.10648452]

>>10648442
I think you're projecting

[Anonymous No.10648457]

>>10646028
Where were you when Peterson was BTFO by Sam Harris?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wWtqCwpFw

[Anonymous No.10648460]

>>10646145
Stirner, you fucking spook.

[Anonymous No.10648482]

>>10648362
The structure of society encourage the basis of thought of the populace. It is true a responsible individual will likely attain success under this system, but to criticise others because they want to live the NEET life is contrary to the very spirit of liberalism. NEETs are making a perfectly rational decision by doing exactly what they want. If think this is worthy of criticism, it is necessary to abandon Liberalism as the premise of your argument in favour of a more authoritarian, moralistic outlook.

It is logically impossible to shill for Liberalism and responsibility at the same time.

[Anonymous No.10648492]

>Max Read
Max Read what?

[Anonymous No.10648497]

Why is Peterson the new forced meme here and what are his philosophies?

[Anonymous No.10648515]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/949652812664799233

[Anonymous No.10648519]

>>10648497
He's just a watered down Jung. Its doubtful even he knows what he believes. Its clear his sole interest is appearing wise and erudite while hiding the fact behind a thin veneer of "aww shucks" self-deprecation in typical leaf fashion.

[Anonymous No.10648532]

>>10646065
Just goes to show how reddit this place has become

[Anonymous No.10648557]

>>10648377
Not all societies were based on the maximization of productivity. Indians in the Pacific Northwest were "rich" by pre-industrial standards, meaning that it was easy for them to obtain adequate food, shelter, and other necessities. They spent a lot of their time devoted to fine arts and elaborate religious/social ceremonies, things which would be considered "non-productive" leisure activities today.

Their economic system centered around feasts known as Potlatches. These feasts were venues to conspicuously destroy or give away wealth (storeable food, slaves, canoes, etc.). The more you let go, the more respect you gained from the community. It was a display of power, like conspicuous consumption. Of course, if you had more wealth in the first place you'd be able to destroy more of it, but holding onto such resources for an extended period of time would have been seen as a source of shame or weakness. This resulted in a strange dynamic when they began to work for the British. Depending on the season, they were either extremely hard workers (preparing for the upcoming potlach) or could not be motivated to work at all.

This practice was banned in Canada at the start of the 20th century because it was "contrary to Christian capitalist" values. A government official named Gilbert Sproat, convinced that potlatches could not continue, wrote to the Prime Minister saying "It is not possible that the Indians can acquire property, or can become industrious with any good result, while under the influence of ... the potlatch".

So, their economic system was outlawed because it was not based on the accumulation of wealth.
This is not to romanticize their lifestyle, as I already mentioned slavery was widespread and some tribes were quite violent. Just wanted to provide an example of an alternate, "non-productive" economic system for you.

[Anonymous No.10648582]

>>10648557
>some tribes were quite violent
nigger where I'm from there are vast bogs filled with slaves who were buried during these ceremonies, they would almost always consecrate good-faith dealings with their neighbors by killing their slaves in honor of the agreements and mutual respect between them, and you, as big man, always stood the most to gain from throwing the party in the first place. It was about as oriented towards wealth redistribution as a food drive or a charity ball.

[Anonymous No.10648600]

>>10648582
Never said it was about wealth redistribution, I said it was closer to conspicuous consumption than anything "charitable." It was a display of power. If you can cavalierly slaughter a bunch of slaves, you'd be doing well by their standards.

[Anonymous No.10648606]

>>10648600
But that's not why it was banned, it was banned specifically because it didn't motivate them to be "industrious"

[Anonymous No.10648609]

>>10648497
1. On the surface he's the only human being currently willing to attempt pulling of a semisuccessful interpretation of an academic that indirectly defends the many points of outrage and disgust directing the opinions and beliefs of young reactionaries.

2. Self-improvement, individualism, defense of hierarchies.

[Anonymous No.10648625]

>>10648609
>reactionary
>is a democrat
umm, no sweetie, try again

[Anonymous No.10648653]

>Interview with a former Gawker editor.

[Anonymous No.10648666]

I wish most online ""journalists"" would fucking stop, take a look at what they've been doing, then never have any interaction with any human being, online or otherwise, again.

[Anonymous No.10648732]

>>10648515
I defended the Peterson reddit meme until this tweet

[Anonymous No.10648745]

>>10648482
Interesting, this is an argument I haven't heard before

[Anonymous No.10648765]

>>10648457
Not wasting my time listening to idiots argue about things they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.10648771]

>>10646145

Considering you all abide customs and barely can hold an argument without finding counter arguments, even when you say you hold some belief, I could be convinced most of you would fit in with Pyrrhonian Sceptics. But given enough time, I'm sure there are other possibilities for y/our thinker.

[Anonymous No.10648818]

>>10646028
>“Why not sit in your mother’s basement and eat Cheetos and play video games and watch pornography?” Jordan Peterson asks me. For the record, he means it rhetorically, as the existential plight of modern man; my mother doesn’t even have a basement. We’re on the balcony of an Airbnb in a luxury loft in downtown Los Angeles, overlooking an unpopulated swimming pool. “That’s a perfectly valid question,” he says. “It’s certainly pleasurable, and not very onerous, moment to moment.”
What a fucking idiot. The hedonists slam dunked this one 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.10648824]

>>10646145
Probably Zizek, since he's a tortured, reviled figure from all sides, who writes hideous books filled with excessive jargon.
First as Tragedy was really good though.

[Anonymous No.10648837]

>>10646065
There are no "petersonfags". It's autistic, massively spergy centre-left posters throwing ironic le epic trole temper tantrums at other posters in an attempt to bait them, all to foster discussion about how /pol/TARD pissbaby dudbero neckbeard chud bigots are such virgin incel FUCKING RACIST SEXIST etc etc. The average right winger on this board is more knowledgeable than the average left winger, especially after the slow mass-memeification of stirner zizek etc that started as niche in-jokes at the beginning of the life span of this board. Now every retard and their mother is a legal epic doggo seize le MEMES of production reddit communist. No one here likes peterson or sam harris or rupi kuar or whoever people pretend to defend to get a rise out of posters and troll le epic style.

[Anonymous No.10648839]

>>10646028
He's attempting to fix the problem that Nietzsche prescribed, though he should elucidate that the dearth of meaning in the 21st century comes at the hands of both faux-Marxists and Dawkinsites alike. He's also doing a good job of making Jung relevant, which is direly needed in a social order that truly puts self awareness and mental health last.
>>Foucault and Derrida wrote as poetic philosophers in direct response to the scientific rationalism that arose out of the Enlightenment. Their entire approach is one of non-action so to use their ideas to push a power-relations-based political force is an error of interpreting them (Peterson misses this, to be fair)
>>Jung also saw the fundamental limitation of scientific rationalism and introduced personality types, a concept that greatly expands the empathy-focused moral relativist stance within said poetic framework

Industrial society is only preposterous until you actually live within it. Then the absurdity is ultimately directed at you, the individual, because it's inescapable.

His whole point is we need to be existentialists and drill into the ineffectiveness of our social order as exemplars of moral awareness. (if you have any ambition, at least, you should proceed through life mindfully and in pursuit of clarity above anything).

[Anonymous No.10648852]

>>10648837
Unfortunately there are a lot of people here who unironically like Peterson

[Anonymous No.10648853]

>>10648765
Fair enough, they are both idiots but Sam Harris is at least sapient enough to understand Peterson's bullshit and pull off a serviceable immitation of it.

[Anonymous No.10648858]

>>10648852
Literally no one does? Are you unable to detect facetiousness and bad unfunny bait threads?

[Anonymous No.10648863]

>>10648448
Palindromes confirms, Peterson for antichrist

[Anonymous No.10648871]

>>10648839
>making Jung revelant
Using Jung of all people to prop his existential Christianity is not making anyone revelant

[Anonymous No.10648876]

>>10648362
>>>10647314
>The structure of a society and the ideal way to live within that structure are not the same thing.

What do you think society is made of? It's an aggregate of people making life choices concurrently. You have to start from a bottom-up approach otherwise you risk lending us the collective fate of a dictatorship.

Xi seems decent enough at running a ship but how often do you find an auteur social architect not turning their land into a dumpster fire? Peterson's approach accounts for the internal and external/social dynamisms of psyche that such a position inherits at the end of the revolution.

[Anonymous No.10648885]

>>10648852
I've read most of Jung's work and I think Peterson gets a 90.

[Anonymous No.10648888]

>>10646028
>“There’s an idea that, especially in a moment of crisis, you have to go into the belly of the beast and rescue your father from the depths of chaos. Well, that’s what I’m doing.”

I get that it's his first soft profile in NYmag, but must he use the same allegory every time?

[Anonymous No.10648894]

>>10648888
He already knows his followers will lap it up

[Anonymous No.10648897]

>>10646028
>Reddit’s New Favorite Philosopher
LMAO. We actually mock him non stop on reddit. Just see what happened to /r/badphilosophy to get what I'm talking about. We mocked Peterson so much that we had to make an special subreddit (/r/enoughpetersonspam) to keep doing it because badphil was starting to become pure Peterson bashing. If anything people on /lit/ and /pol/ are the ones defending him.

[Anonymous No.10648898]

>>10648871

Can you explain?

[Anonymous No.10648908]

>>10648897
>implying bad philosophy is representative of reddit as a whole
One great sub doesn't mean the rest of the site isn't shit.

[Anonymous No.10648921]

>>10646165
Why does this place have such a huge complex about Reddit? It's clear by how often it's mentioned that more people on here use it then they'd like to admit. If they truly didn't like it then they would ignore it.

[Anonymous No.10648926]

>>10648898
Jung's psychoanaylsis have no oughts, it isn't a lifestyle. And indeed it is molded by Jung to explain (not advocate) Gnosticism in his later years. Something that is a literal antithesis of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.10648928]

>>10648894
In truth I actually do like Peterson and appreciate him introducing disaffected youth to the western canon in a time when we have serious university classes devoted to Harry Potter, but the fact that he uses that same example in many of his lectures, plus the introduction of his most famous book, Maps of Meaning, and he's using it once again here in such a clearly rehearsed manner just makes my eyes roll.

[Anonymous No.10648931]

>>10646145
Zizek or Stirner

[Anonymous No.10648939]

>>10648897
/r/badphilosophy is a trash heap echo chamber for pathetic, resentful, and bitter philosophy students and dilettantes who want to feel superior without doing anything. I bet you like Existentialist Comics too.

[Anonymous No.10648945]

>>10648897
>We
GO BACK

[Anonymous No.10648951]

>>10648858
>everyone is pretending to be retarded
Now this is damage control

[Anonymous No.10648956]

>>10648897
> because my commie verysmart friends don’t like him, all of Reddit doesn’t like him
/r/badphilosophy is such a fucking cesspool.

[Anonymous No.10648967]

>>10646165
there's a lot wrong with being a redditor. you wouldn't know anything about it because you're a redditor.

[Anonymous No.10648974]

>>10648897
You get that the point of the badsomething subs is to ridicule how dumb the other subs are when trying to be intellectual, right? /r/badphilosophy literally exists as an antithesis of the rest of reddit.
>>10648939
>>10648956
/r/badphilosophy is perhaps still a bit too reddit, but at least most of them know what they are talking about, unlike the /pol/tards here who think they get postmodernism because they saw a video of Peterson talking about it.

[Anonymous No.10648988]

>>10648818
how

[Anonymous No.10648995]

>>10648897
From a look at /r/badphilosophy it seems like a bunch of average philosophy students who seem to all agree with each other making fun of anyone mentioning stuff they don't like
In other words, it's reddit and like all other parts of reddit, only thinks it's superior to the rest while being just as shit
The ONLY good sub was /r/fatpeoplehate.

[Anonymous No.10648998]

>>10648988
Read up on the Cyreniacs and Epicurians

[Anonymous No.10649010]

>>10646145
Plato desu

[Anonymous No.10649017]

>>10648482
This reads like Notes from Underground I want more

[Anonymous No.10649018]

>>10646145
Aristotle, Nietzsche and Heidegger. If you don't agree with this, you don't belong here. FACT.

[Anonymous No.10649020]

>>10649018
>Aristotle
>not Heraclitus
wtf is wrong with you and your understanding of the latter two?

[Anonymous No.10649029]

>>10648582
What color slaves we talking here?

[Anonymous No.10649044]

>>10648921
>this place
run on back would you

[Anonymous No.10649048]

why does it feel like this board gets worse by the day

[Anonymous No.10649067]

>>10649048
It's been unironically raided by leftists.

[Anonymous No.10649079]

>>10649029
Red, like them

[Anonymous No.10649081]

>>10649067
Oh, yeah, the leftists, sure, and not the /pol/acks and their jewish boogieman or the Petersonfags complaining about postmodernism without having a clue of what they're talking about. If anything the leftists are the only ones that care about literature anymore. Not that it's a surprise though.

[Anonymous No.10649083]

>>10649067
I think I’ve established from this board that actual academics > unironic 4chan posters > Catholics > normies > fedoras > /pol/tards > fucking progressives

[Anonymous No.10649085]

>>10648995
That doesn't sound so different from /lit/, except that they have actually studied philosophy unlike most of the people here.

[Anonymous No.10649094]

>>10649067
>the commies are raiding muh imaginary safe space

Imagine this solipsistic paranoia

[Anonymous No.10649100]

>>10649067
b8? This board, among others, has been ruined by ignorant /pol/tards who just can't seem to be ignored. They're just pseuds with limited life experience who, upon realizing that the argument is going to be lost, revert to antisemitism and soy-related posting

[Anonymous No.10649101]

>>10648897
I don't like Peterson too much, but if /r/badphilosophy thinks he's so bad then he must be doing something good.

[Anonymous No.10649106]

>>10649067
LMAO look at this dumb piece of shit. Do you think you're so smart? You're just a brainlet like your daddy Peterson. Now go back to /pol/ and don't come back.

[Anonymous No.10649123]

>>10649067
>hurr durr the leftists are ruining a literature board
No, dumbass. The reason why this board is getting worse day by day is for brainlets like you who want to push their right wing shit over everyone's throat. There's a reason why virtually every intellectual is a leftist and it's not some jew conspiracy.

I'm really getting tired of your kind. We should start making people like you to feel unwelcome. You already have /pol/. Go there. This place doesn't belong to you.

[Anonymous No.10649137]

Any other good lecturers on youtube? At this point I don't care about the subject. I need it for background while I do other stuff. The only condition is that you are not required to write. Math is cool and all, but I can't do all the calculations in my head.

pls respond

[Anonymous No.10649142]

>>10649067
Are you this fucking retarded or you're just this deluded?

[Anonymous No.10649150]

>>10649081
>>10649094
>>10649100
>>10649106
>>10649123
>>10649142
t. rattled

[Anonymous No.10649158]

>>10649137
1177bc the year civilization collapsed by cline/Klein something is good
Yale has a lot of courses on YouTube

[Anonymous No.10649165]

>>10649150
t. impotent projection

[Anonymous No.10649166]

>>10649150
t. /pol/tard brainlet getting triggered because his shit doesn't fly around here anymore

[Anonymous No.10649168]

>>10649067
>he doesn't know about pre-/his/ /lit/
We were here first

[Anonymous No.10649171]

>>10649150
> i said something dumb and people thought i was dumb. this has worked in my favor somehow

[Anonymous No.10649173]

>>10649158
arigatou

[Anonymous No.10649176]

>>10649067
This was a lefty board before all the /pol/tards came. Why don't you make us all a favor and kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.10649187]

>>10649171
Chuds like that would be getting their ass split in prison be like "haha I'm actually raping you so bad right now"

[Anonymous No.10649199]

>>10646028
>the star of a wildly successful lecture tour across North America and Europe

Nope. Not a thing in Europe. He's unknown here.

[Anonymous No.10649216]

>>10649158
>when my memes work
>>10649173
check out gresham college's lunchtime lectures too. they tend to be fun of the same order.

[Anonymous No.10649225]

>>10646028
*dons fedora*
Women never go for the nice guys
https://youtu.be/OeL-Fn0V8iU

[Anonymous No.10649238]

>another thread where people dismiss philosopher x as silly and stupid without giving examples and refutations
you guys are so boring

[Anonymous No.10649247]

>>10649067
How are you this new?

[Anonymous No.10649248]

>>10648325
>leftist tries to read
Lmao

[Anonymous No.10649252]

>>10648457
is sam capable of anything but strawman arguments? I couldn't get past chapter 5 in Waking Up because he kept beating the dead horse of "dogma is bad mmkay so all religion is dumb therefore..."

[Anonymous No.10649254]

>>10649067
It has always been a left wing board, you dumb imbecile. You're the one raiding it.

[Anonymous No.10649260]

>>10648897
Wtf i love peterson now

[Anonymous No.10649264]

>>10649176
>>10649254
lolno
There have always been plenty of leftists, but as usual you never did much besides land on your asses in every discussion. Remember those cancerous leftybtripfags who would get btfo almost hourly?

[Anonymous No.10649268]

>>10648974
>Marxists
>Knowing what they're talking about

[Anonymous No.10649273]

>>10649216
thanks

[Anonymous No.10649281]

>>10649268
>Chuds don't know what Marxism even is
>or liberalism
>or neoliberalism
>or socialism
>or communism
>or even their new buzz-spook "postmodernism"

Every time

[Anonymous No.10649283]

>>10648921
>>10646165
>>10648897
reddit

[Anonymous No.10649287]

>>10649264
>Remember those cancerous leftybtripfags who would get btfo almost hourly?
all tripfags are retarded. it doesnt mean anything.

[Anonymous No.10649288]

>>10649264
>tries to revise history
>fails
>repeats it but on a lower magnitude
Sad!

[Anonymous No.10649291]

>>10649281
>Chuds

[Anonymous No.10649296]

>>10649187
>Chuds

[Anonymous No.10649299]

>>10649291
>>10649296
Obvious samechud

[Anonymous No.10649304]

>>10649291
>>10649296
>>10649299
>tfw at birth of meme
include me in screencap and so on and so forth

[Anonymous No.10649306]

>>10648364
he wrote a book you know

[Anonymous No.10649324]

>>10646145
Stirner, Heidegger, Zizek, Land, Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.10649339]

Peterson is a preacher who doesn't follow his own teachings.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kLQ0XFkc3zGy/

[Anonymous No.10649358]

Peterson seems pretty boilerplate to me. I don't understand why /leftypol/ types have such a special animus against him.

[Anonymous No.10649369]

>>10649358
I'm pretty right, especially on academia, and I think he should be shot for not knowing what postmodernism is. It offends my prescriptivist inclination, like people who use "contact" as a verb.

[Anonymous No.10649371]

>>10646165

[Anonymous No.10649378]

>>10649369
Hypothetical situation: Peterson understands postmodernism to your satisfaction. How do his lectures change and what new message does he impart on his followers?

[Anonymous No.10649382]

>>10649378
That Jung is postmodern, for a start.

[Anonymous No.10649386]

>>10649369
I think what you really mean is "I want his basement dweller fans to be shot".

[Anonymous No.10649389]

>>10649386
No, that does not address the source of his ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10649391]

>>10649378
He doesn't need to change his overall message by understanding a single nuanced and complex idea. he can still have at marxism and victimhood culture.

[Anonymous No.10649394]

>>10649391
>marxism
You think anyone he's fighting has read Marx or a Marxist? You're giving his enemies too much intellectual credit for a pack of idiots.

[Anonymous No.10649397]

>>10649394
>Marx
>intellectual credit

Where do you people even come from
What is the life course of the unironic marxist

[Anonymous No.10649398]

>>10649252
Fuck you, its hilarious. That's all that matters

[Anonymous No.10649408]

>>10649398
>arguments are supposed to be hilarious
okay

[Anonymous No.10649410]

>>10649394
>You have to read primary sources to have attitudes inculcated by the culture they have formed around you

Most Christians haven't read the Bible either

[Anonymous No.10649414]

>>10649397
Marxist writings are especially dense and replete with technical terms. Marx isn't right, and anyone who is a Marxist will tell you there is no illustration of communism in his works, and that what Peterson is offering is rather close to many Marxist ideas of "progress" through history. If he weren't a blithering idiot, I would assume he's a Marxist operating under a not very convincing false flag. He issues transitional demands like a filthy Trotskiite.

[Anonymous No.10649415]

>>10649408
No, but its great when they are.

[Anonymous No.10649418]

>>10649410
I don't think any tumblrwhale is going to put down her fourth treble shot made up milkshake coffee blend, return her blue hair dye, and stop looking at tiny houses on her "necessary expense" of internet to start the dictatorship of the proletariat, no. That seems as likely as them having a stable relationship and raising healthy children.

[Anonymous No.10649421]

>>10649414
You didn't answer my question. How is the Marxist born and bred?

[Anonymous No.10649428]

>>10649421
By reading Marxist theory and accepting it as a valuable course of action. For the record, I don't think Peterson could read Marx either. It's as though he's joined a book club where nobody read the book and is insisting he's read the book better than everyone else who also hasn't read it.

[Anonymous No.10649431]

>>10649378
He would shut up?

[Anonymous No.10649447]

>>10649431
did you think this post would convince him of anything? LOL
my first day on /lit/ and it will be my last, you retards don't even know what an argument is

[Anonymous No.10649450]

>>10649447
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

>it will be my last,
K keep me posted

[Anonymous No.10649454]

>>10649450
what was stupid about that question? it's literally a question of "what is wrong with what peterson is saying" and you couldn't come up with anything
snarky comments aren't arguments

[Anonymous No.10649461]

>>10649454
>responds to what he considers troll posts but not the two other posts in response to the hypothetical
really makes me think

[Anonymous No.10649467]

>>10649461
so what's your argument? you're deflecting instead of giving one

[Anonymous No.10649470]

>>10649467
I'm not the anon who posted any of those three posts, out of which you picked the troll post to respond to, but I can follow a quote chain. I'm not presenting an argument for or against, an interest which I share with (you), who responds only to troll posters. :^)

[Anonymous No.10649471]

>>10649454
Asking someone to play along with a hypothetical isn't one either, since it is an exceptionally loaded question. I don't think that anon was making an argument either.

[Anonymous No.10649474]

I like Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.10649475]

>>10649474
I like Jordan. Phwoar.

[Anonymous No.10649476]

>>10649454
Peterson's guilty of intellectual cowardice. His whole shtick is claiming that the world is full of rigid, understandable, certain structures when that's demonstrably not the case. Our world is constantly in flux, everything's moving in relation to everything else. This is what postmodernism acknowledges and what Peterson's railing against. But while some things are moving like a school of fish, others are moving like glaciers - slowly enough that you can count on them to be features of a shared landscape. So it's still possible to talk about a shared reality from a pragmatic standpoint. However, this flux-reality is incompatible with all his theories about rigid hierarchy and structure that, for him and apparently many others, are the only way to make life navigable.
Basically, he's turning away because he's afraid, not because he actually has coherent arguments against postmodernism. He just doesn't like what he believes it implies. And if he acknowledged the validity of postmodernism, the rest of his arguments would fall apart.

[Anonymous No.10649480]

>>10649470
my attention was elsewhere when that conversation was being had
also
>troll posters
I didn't regard him as a trollposter when I first responded to him

>>10649471
When are questions ever arguments? LOL

[Anonymous No.10649481]

>>10649476
>Our world is constantly in flux, everything's moving in relation to everything else.

Its not though, in the grand scheme of things nothing really changes. All that happens is we're exposed to the flaws in our ability to grasp whats there in front of us

[Anonymous No.10649485]

>>10649480
>I didn't regard him as a trollposter when I first responded to him
Why not, when you claimed he did not fulfill the category of a genuine poster? Do you not know your own kind?

[Anonymous No.10649487]

>>10646028
>attacks postmodernism
>proceeds to engage in what is essentially a postmodern deconstruction of The Bible, synthesizing it with other texts, myths and even contemporary culture

Is he /ourpseud/?

[Anonymous No.10649489]

>>10649480
>When are questions ever arguments? LOL
You are the one who started bringing up the point of my answer being arguments
>>10649454
>>10649447
If it isn't about arguments, then I do not know what you are this upset about. My original post wasn't intended to convince him of anything, but give him my genuine answer to his hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.10649490]

>>10649476
> His whole shtick is claiming that the world is full of rigid, understandable, certain structures when that's demonstrably not the case.
I've listened to quite a bit of his stuff and I've never gotten this impression, give examples

>if he acknowledged the validity of postmodernism
My understanding of his views of postmodernism is that their view that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret the world is correct (and this would be the extent of the validity of postmodernism), but the moral relativist conclusion most postmodernists come to is wrong because there are NOT an infinite number of valid solutions to any given problem

If this is wrong then elaborate, you're being too vague to convince me of anything

[Anonymous No.10649491]

>>10649481
You're gonna have to explain yourself more than that. Social relations (Peterson's focus) are especially are changing all the time.
Even in the physical realm what you're saying isn't true. Just look at the history of the earth and it's different geological phases. Or the constant expansion of the universe. Nothing is the same moment to moment.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/615-is-the-universe-really-like-an-expanding-balloon-intermediate

[Anonymous No.10649493]

>>10649489
>My original post wasn't intended to convince him of anything
what is the point of answering his question then

[Anonymous No.10649501]

>>10649490
>the moral relativist
But he's not fighting moral relativists to the best of my knowledge. He's fighting people who want to impose a moral position, which he thinks is flawed, but they're not relativists. They're not claiming "xir" is legal because Canadians have their own words, they're claiming that it's a moral truth. His moral truth has a longer history, though he garbles it, but neither are relativists.

[Anonymous No.10649505]

>>10649490
>>10649501
btw not the guy you're responding to, I have problems with his definition of postmodernism too

[Anonymous No.10649509]

>>10649490
I'm not well versed in his lectures, I've only read some interviews and heard about what he thinks from fans. I hear about that lobster dominance analogy all the time, the whole point of which is to validate existing human social structures that anthropologists and primatologists know to be malleable. Social structures, social roles, and dominance hierarchies vary greatly depending on a group's immediate environment. This is not only the case with humans, but our closest primate relatives and many, many other animals.

All the other clips I've seen feature similarly simplistic arguments. I don't deny that many people have found his psychological insight and general life advice valuable. He would bolster his credibility if he didn't try to punch outside his field of expertise.

Feel free to point me in the direction of some talks where he offers a more nuanced viewpoint than his interviews+fans present.

Postmodernism =/= relativism. Peterson conflates the two when they're distinct.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

[Anonymous No.10649510]

>>10649501
they reject their opposition's moral claims on moral relativist grounds
it's a contradiction, I agree

[Anonymous No.10649512]

>>10649510
>they reject their opposition's moral claims on moral relativist grounds
They don't though. They call you a racist sexist shitlord, all of which are moral absolutism.

[Anonymous No.10649514]

>>10649491
The things we reference don't change though. The beings we call men and the beings we call women are here today as they ever were since the first sexually reproducing cells billions of years ago.

Just because things are not literally identical doesn't mean EVERYTHING has changed. There are always commonalities and constants for us to speak about, elsewise we wouldn't be able to speak at all.

[Anonymous No.10649521]

>>10649493
for the (You)s from retards like you. But seriously I felt like responding to his ridiculous hypothetical so I did. Not every post has to be an argument

[Anonymous No.10649524]

>>10649487
Not to mention that he things truth is SUBJECT to utility. He may even be a worse philosopher than Memelyneux

[Anonymous No.10649532]

>>10649524
>truth is SUBJECT to utility
Holy shit, really? Pls cite source because that's just beyond dumb when trying to "fight against moral relativism". Even though I know he's a dumb shill, being that dumb seems implausible.

[Anonymous No.10649539]

>>10649509
>the whole point of which is to validate existing human social structures that anthropologists and primatologists know to be malleable
no, the point is to demonstrate that there are old structures that strongly influence our behavior
that doesn't mean we aren't also shaped by our environments

in the Cathy Newman debate for example she strawmans him in a similar way -- that he's saying we should just give up trying because we're all just products of our biology, he makes it clear that he's just saying that there are going to be parallels between our behavior and the behavior of animals because we evolved from common ancestors
I don't know why that's controversial and it definitely doesn't deny that culture plays any role, it DOES deny that humans are blank slates to be shaped and molded by our culture, though

>Postmodernism =/= relativism. Peterson conflates the two when they're distinct.
alright maybe you're right. I can't read all of that in a short enough time to respond, I have a life :)))

[Anonymous No.10649540]

>>10648448
Quite a bit actually

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrpvNmPs5RY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HecCmCPLiGs

[Anonymous No.10649545]

>>10649524
I haven't heard this one either
He refers to good literature as "true" but makes it clear that this form of "truth" is not the same as scientific fact
If you're a hardcore materialist I can see why you'd have a problem with this

[Anonymous No.10649550]

>>10649539
>that he's saying we should just give up trying because we're all just products of our biology
Not that anon, but what he appears to be saying is that the social, not the biological, structures are so malleable that his proposed social structures won't work outside specious and very cherry picked cases. Kind of like how the Nazis modelling themselves on Rome didn't give them the lifespan of Rome: it's a formula for dominance which only worked because the Romans were Romans when Rome was big, and isn't applicable or successful even if the Nazis had been better copyists, because they're not in a position to dominate an environment in which the Red Army will slaughter everyone.

[Anonymous No.10649552]

>>10649532
just watch the Sam Harris debates where that is more or less the entire subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvqMHke4YI

[Anonymous No.10649553]

>>10649514
The things we reference do change, even though it's not often a dramatic shift. If you're referring specifically to the gender thing though, there's no biological reason to believe gender can't exist on a spectrum. Biological sex exists on a spectrum. Every part of the male body has a female analogue, and vice-versa. There is no rigid biological dividing line between male and female. For example, there's a large number of children in Haiti (and a few other isolated population) that are born "female," but during puberty they grow balls, penises, and develop into men. Intersex children can be born with ambiguous genetalia that appears to be something between male or female. Adult bodies, like Caster Semenyana for example, still retain intersex characteristics.

Why not accept that this may be the case for "lived" genders? Have you ever met someone in real life who demanded to be called by a made-up pronoun for attention? And if so, ...who really cares?

This is not to say that most people fall into the middle of the spectrum. Obviously most people fit just fine into one side or the other. And people who identify as some sort of furrykin or whatever the fuck they call themselves are genuinely crazy, because we have no reason to believe that someone may really be a dog "on the inside." But there is reason to believe that for some people, the labels "man" and "woman" do not work. And Peterson, against all biological evidence, denies that possibility.

You may also want to look into Wittgenstein's categories and family resemblances.

[Anonymous No.10649555]

>>10649296
>Chud
C-can I use this? Unironically? It perfectly encapsulates /pol/brianlets.

[Anonymous No.10649558]

>>10649553
Because the science behind Chromosomes destroys analogical notions of looking at the small wrinkly dick of a Somalian child and giving you a concrete answer.

Weirdo

[Anonymous No.10649559]

>>10649552
>that painful silence

[Anonymous No.10649560]

>>10649545
Oh so its the ol' semantic shuffle? Then who cares?

[Anonymous No.10649563]

>>10649559
Made worse by the painful non-argument.

[Anonymous No.10649564]

>>10649560
>Then who cares?
good question
people get really pissed off over semantics, they wouldn't be so pissed off if only they'd just ask "what do you mean by X?" instead of assuming the worst

[Anonymous No.10649567]

>>10649558
chromosomes would mean there's even more kinds of intersexes. (XXY, XXXX, XYY, etc)
even DNA can change between different parts of your body. there's a famous case of a woman who had given birth to a child, who had records of the birth, but her DNA swab did not match the child's maternal DNA, because they took it from part of her body which had a separate DNA code. it's called chimerism.

[Anonymous No.10649573]

>>10649067
why don't you go to /pol/ or better yet you kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.10649575]

>>10649564
No, I mean how does it warrant two hour long debates? Also you clearly didn't see the video I posted f you're saying Peterson upholds scientifc truth (and no I have no idea who that Kraut is at the end).

[Anonymous No.10649579]

>>10649567
Yeah, mutations my guy. You're trying to find excuses for the extreme minority like they are some magical majority.

There will always be freak occurrences because we are meat puppets. But our species as a unit has 2 ways to get shit done, the rest is (not trying to be rude) flesh horror fuck ups. We are literal David Cronenbergian constructs and we fuck up in the making at times.

I'm not calling these individuals with weird genetic makeups less valid, they are people too. But the science and general biological maps our DNA follows are clear. They have been clear for millions of years.

[Anonymous No.10649580]

>>10649539
But there are other lobsters that have no such social structures
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-psychologist-jordan-peterson-lobsters-human.html

And if you're looking at the behavior of animals to gain insights into human social structure, you'll get a lot more from primatologists. They have increasingly been finding that environment influences social structure in dramatic ways. So these "old structures" he's taking as a given may not (and probably wouldn't) naturally arise in the environment we live in today.

Peterson talks a lot about sex differences but he's not a biologist and he gets a lot of stuff wrong. Take a look at the book Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women. Cheesy title, but these are real biologists and it's not written to pander to gender studies types. Check it out for a (truly) unbiased look at human sex differences and what they realistically mean.

So there's two posts with assigned reading, plenty of homework for after you clean your room tonight :)

[Anonymous No.10649588]

>>10649575
>No, I mean how does it warrant two hour long debates?
people don't like the word "truth", which they view as only scientific, being conflated with the "truths" found in literature
personally I think "profundity" might be a better term for the latter, but I don't see what difference it makes when you know what each person means when they say "truth"
the two hour debate was all about semantics

>Also you clearly didn't see the video I posted f you're saying Peterson upholds scientifc truth
you'll have to elaborate or refer to what I said above, I don't know what your argument is

[Anonymous No.10649591]

>>10649579
Where did I ever say they were a magical majority? I literally said that most people fit neatly into one of the two categories. But people can fall in between, in many different ways (including chromosomal variations.) Yes, it's atypical. But they still exist. So, how do we deal with it?

[Anonymous No.10649593]

>>10649579
XXY alone is roughly 1 in 500 births. Most of them don't develop man boobs, and there's no reason to check everyone's chromosomes because it would mean that there would be a lot more people who know they're intersex, when they can live out their lives as male or female much more easily without the test. It's really not a good idea to rely on chromosomes because even if they're XXY, they probably still want to be treated, look like, and would without the test, act like XY men. They normally only find out when they get problems like manboobs or infertility, and then they have to deal with being intersex on top of that.

Arguing for chromosomes is arguing against seeing the majority of people as men or women. It makes for more known freaks. It's really better to argue for the bits we can actually see, because once you invoke DNA and chromosomes, it means there are way more freaks and you're potentially one who just hasn't been checked yet.

[Anonymous No.10649595]

>>10649593
1 in 500 *male* births
sorry fucked that up

[Anonymous No.10649597]

>>10649588
I'm not arguing. This is not a debate. I repeat this is not a debate. actually I consider reading things Petersonites post to be deleterious to my health.

>>10649552

[Anonymous No.10649604]

>>10649597
LOL
>it's not a debate! I don't have to be intellectually honest and I ain't gotta explain shit! Just believe me bro!
what is even the point of a conversation like this? you're acting like a child

[Anonymous No.10649608]

>>10649558
Everyone in this picture has XY chromosomes and none of them are trans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

[Anonymous No.10649610]

>>10649597
you also skipped over my first explanation, do you not have a response for that?
or are you just going to pretend to be a troll again

[Anonymous No.10649617]

>>10649610
Your explanation might be more sophisticated than anything Peterson himself could have come up with as evidenced by his complete mental breakdown in the aforementioned video.

[Anonymous No.10649619]

>>10649617
fucc u roasted me i concede on everything

[Anonymous No.10649625]

>>10649591
>How do we deal with it.

EXTERMINATI...joking. Let them live as productive lives as they can.

>>10649593
I see your point. But even then, the genetic lines can be drawn with your example. Even to the point that they are sterile and can't propagate offspring.

These are defects. But let's be honest here when we talk about LGBT rights we aren't talking about the very few that come out of the womb with a weird looking baby dick and man tits. We are usually talking about people with perfectly functioning bodies, with their own well-timed million year honed hormonal timings.

If you FEEL like a woman if you are a man that is one thing, socially that is possible. But you can't scientifically claim to BE a woman.

[Anonymous No.10649626]

>>10649604
Because I don't care to get sucked into a debate on the relative merits of the philosophies Jordan Peterson espouses. The only question I have is Jordan Peterson, the man, a gibbering idiot and the answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.10649630]

>>10649619
thataboy

[Anonymous No.10649632]

>>10649524
I-t's not?

[Anonymous No.10649634]

>>10646028
>Be leaf professor
>Make internet videos of 201 level discourse to popularize learning
>A group of internet autists on /lit/ get eternally assmad that someone is trying to popularize higher learning
>Mostly by saying
>Abloo bloo you think that's higher learning
The amount of autistic ad hominems and tu quoques ITT lel

[Anonymous No.10649661]

>>10649625
But there are plenty of "normal" men and women who are unable to reproduce either. The point of the weird baby dicks and man tits is to give an easily visible example of ways sex doesn't always fit into neat categories. There's reason to believe that trans people's brains are different, too (more similar to their preferred gender). But it's harder to get that across in a picture that resonates with people.

You say we should let them live productive lives as we can. All the evidence shows that trans people lead happier, healthier, and more productive lives when they're socially accepted as their preferred gender. So if you want them to lead good lives, why not just call them what they want to be called and treated with respect? Most trans people would be thrilled if the world forgot they were trans and could just live a normal life as a man/woman. They themselves want to forget about being trans (or their past life as a woman/man). Is this really that difficult to accommodate?

[Anonymous No.10649670]

>>10648897
>/r/badphilosophy
Went there to see what was the deal. Fucking dreadful, but it's depressing how similar it's to /lit/.

[Anonymous No.10649672]

>>10649634
This post comes from a worldview so warped I could understand why the person holding it probably thinks the earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.10649678]

>>10649625
>I see your point. But even then, the genetic lines can be drawn with your example. Even to the point that they are sterile and can't propagate offspring.
Not all XXY are sterile, it's about 50/50, though, again, numbers are hard to come by because testing rigorously would have more bad psychological effects. You could go through life never needing to find out and with very few symptoms at all. The ones that get found are because they have problems usually.

>These are defects
Not necessarily. Many of them function fine under the "looks like a dude" rubric.

>But let's be honest here when we talk about LGBT rights
Look, chromosomes aren't going to affect that. In fact, if you test them, the chances are they would find some chromosomal support, just like if you tested everyone you would find more freaks than are apparent.
>We are usually talking about people with perfectly functioning bodies, with their own well-timed million year honed hormonal timings
Only it doesn't work that way, because they influence their hormones and then we get science saying "their brain seems to be drowning in oestrogen we didn't prescribe, their physical brain structure looks more female than male", when what's actually happening is they've taken off script hormones or things that influence their hormones and thus physical structure. There's hundreds of studies LGTB uses of brain scans that "prove" trannies now have opposite sexed hippocampi to their genitals.
Or to take a non LGTB example: if you have aplastic anemia and need a bone marrow transplant, your DNA will change. The police will no longer be able to match your DNA profile to the girl you raped before the transplant, and by DNA evidence, you didn't rape her. That's why the obsession with science is dangerous, because the video of the rape can be all over the internet and your DNA will still not match the girl you're clearly suffocating while fucking non-consensually.

It seems like a good avenue of attack if you know little about the science, but science really isn't a good way to argue against it, because there's no science on trannies who aren't sneaking hormones brains and there's loads of science from those that have.
>If you FEEL like a woman if you are a man that is one thing, socially that is possible. But you can't scientifically claim to BE a woman.
You can. Again with the transfusion problem, you can get a female donor as a male recipient, and for a while you'll scientifically be XX if anyone tests your chromosomes. That's another reason it's a dead end to pursue.

LGTB actually want the argument you're making to be made. It's how the first trannies in the age of hormonal testing got medical recognition. The "has a penis/vagina" or "looks like a dude/girl" arguments they're less fond of because it means going by genitalia or putting in enough effort to really pass.
The argument there are no ugly or mannish women, just lazy ones, pisses off a lot more bad traps too.

[Anonymous No.10649680]

>>10648325
Truly, the Cynics of our time.

[Anonymous No.10649685]

>>10649123
>We should start making people like you to feel unwelcome
Honestly I'm starting to think the same thing. Every time a /pol/tard posts something we should treat him like shit until he gets bored and leaves. It would be better if they were just banned though, but that's probably not going to happen.

[Anonymous No.10649697]

>>10649661
>All the evidence shows that trans people lead happier, healthier, and more productive lives when they're socially accepted as their preferred gender.
????
I've heard numerous times from sources in both political wings that the suicide rate is the same before and after transitioning

It doesn't even make sense that suicidality would be blamable on society either, trans people have to live with the fact that they look like freak shows 90% of the time and will simply never pass
Acceptance may be a fine temporary solution, but that doesn't come without its own problems, for example the number of transgender children reported has skyrocketed since it became acceptable in the mainstream to be trans

even homos in a society that accepts them have something to be unhappy about -- they can't make children with the people they love
trans people are in the same boat unless they're dating a tranny of the opposite sex and haven't made themselves infertile with hormones

I'm not for ostracization but this whole acceptance movement seems horrible for everyone involved in the long term
I'm a homo for the record, not some fundamentalist fucking white male boogieman

[Anonymous No.10649698]

>>10649685
Yay, safe spaces for everyone! Let's never confront someone who disagrees with our hivemind ever again

[Anonymous No.10649703]

>>10649678
Scientifically there's no hard line on what it means to be a woman or a man, though. It's tendencies. This doesn't mean we can't have women's health clinics or sell tampons as "feminine hygiene products" but we can recognize that not all women may need them. So if someone has a brain that subjectively feels feminine, exhibits feminine characteristics under brain scans, and they want to be acknowledged as a woman, there's enough to back it up for that to make sense.

[Anonymous No.10649707]

>>10649703
>Scientifically there's no hard line on what it means to be a woman or a man, though.
penises and vaginas

[Anonymous No.10649718]

>>10649697
>I've heard numerous times from sources in both political wings that the suicide rate is the same before and after transitioning
There's very bad collection on this. Some say more, some say less, some say the same. It's really a "nobody knows".
>, for example the number of transgender children reported has skyrocketed since it became acceptable in the mainstream to be trans
This one is most concerning, because interrupting puberty, even if they genuinely were consenting individuals enough to make that choice before puberty, let alone adding hormones during it should be so fucking rare that you shouldn't be able to form a study, and shouldn't be done for nonphysiological intervention. It's also a generation which is likely to find itself on all other kinds of drugs before their 18th birthday, so this is a broader medical restraint problem than just trannies: it's also things like birth control, acne medications, antidepressants, and amphetamines.

[Anonymous No.10649722]

>Peterson bad bcuz plebbit !!

[Anonymous No.10649728]

>>10649697
The doctor who studied the suicide rate has written a lot about the results being misinterpreted by the media, have a look at this interview: http://transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm

>they have to look like freak shows
You notice the ones that don't pass well. Many people are perfectly passable, especially if they transition while they're still young (or have been taking puberty blockers). Besides, a good amount of the anguish comes from the ridicule they face when they're transitioning and social ostracisation/lack of acceptance. For this reason alone I always wonder why anyone thinks someone would do this because it's a fad.

Why is it necessarily bad that there are more transgender children? Maybe they just would have been closeted before.

[Anonymous No.10649729]

>>10649703
>So if someone has a brain that subjectively feels feminine,
No. That is mind problem, not a brain problem. Brains can be objectively scanned for femininity, which does happen in trans because of hormonal influence, but saying your brain feels subjectively feminine is as retarded as phrenology. Acknowledging them as women doesn't mean you feel their brain. It means you wouldn't look twice if you saw them buying a skirt or tampons or think it's a dude doing either of those thing, whether they need them or not, whether their brain scans as more female or not, whether they identify as female or not. How we acknowledge people socially is not by looking at their brain, and we don't subjectively feel our brains, even if someone is sparking our synapses with an electrode during surgery.

[Anonymous No.10649732]

>>10649722
I agree with this brainlet even if the full explanation is a bit more nuanced

[Anonymous No.10649733]

>>10649707
Have you bothered to read any of the recent posts in this thread?

[Anonymous No.10649734]

>>10649661
Look, I treat, to a reasonable degree, trans as their preferred gender because I know it means a lot for them and it doesn't cost my anything to be nice to them, so why not, but come on. Look, man, and I'm going to get a bit personal here, but I'm a little person, a dwarf, and I would love above everything just to be a tall, normal guy. In fact, in a way, I feel like a normal person on the inside, the real me, as silly as that my sound. Like, I feel my actual body is a deformed version of what my body should be. But in spite of that, I know how deluded it would be to get on some stilts and expect people to treat me as if I weren't a dwarf.

[Anonymous No.10649736]

>>10646165

[Anonymous No.10649747]

>>10649067
Damn son raking in those (you)s

[Anonymous No.10649751]

>>10649729
Who says you need to feel their brain? You just need to trust them when they tell you what's going on. And it's not like you're going to get just any guy on the street telling you he feels like a woman. Unless they know you VERY well they will already be wearing feminine clothing, have feminine hair, etc.. There will be some sort of cue as to what they're trying to do. At the very least they'll be androgynous

[Anonymous No.10649755]

>>10649728
>For this reason alone I always wonder why anyone thinks someone would do this because it's a fad.
I don't think adults who go through with transition are doing it because it's a fad
gender fluids on the other hand...

>Why is it necessarily bad that there are more transgender children?
it's bad because being trans would suck ass for the reasons I already stated
I don't want more kids to be gay either, even if I'm personally comfortable with being gay, I can assure you my life would have been easier if I wasn't
kids are impressionable though and can get caught up with fads without even realizing it, though I think it has more to do with parents excited by the prospect of having a celebrated minority child and/or misinterpreting fantasy play as signs of transgenderism

>Maybe they just would have been closeted before
maybe a teenager who has had time for dysphoria to actually manifest, but prepubescent children do not have a strong enough concept of gender much less their own gender to be making life altering decisions based on it, there is no need to put a label on that or reinforce it
why can't we just let kids be kids?

[Anonymous No.10649757]

>>10649734
Not the anon you're replying to but it isn't the same thing. Trans people have gender disphorya, I don't think there an equivalent for manlets.

[Anonymous No.10649760]

>>10648897
>>10648921
>>10648939
>>10648956
>>10648974
>>10648995
>>10649101

fuck off to reddit

[Anonymous No.10649762]

>>10649697
>for example the number of transgender children reported has skyrocketed since it became acceptable in the mainstream to be trans
Source?

[Anonymous No.10649765]

>>10649421
Upper Middle class, smart but doesn't apply themselves, more concerned with a theoretical Utopia then reality. The usual spiel.

[Anonymous No.10649767]

>>10649728
also I've been on /lgbt/'s pass threads, a large majority of them do not and will never pass
though that might not be representative of the whole since the ones who know they pass might not be asking if they pass

>>10649762
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11519603/Rise-in-child-transgender-referrals.html
this is the only source I know of
maybe it's overblown, I hope it is

[Anonymous No.10649770]

>>10649757
I'm not just a "manlet", and fuck off. I said something very personal and I don't feel like getting humiliated. Who says height dysphoria isn't a thing? I would bet that at some point in history gender dysphoria wasn't considered to be real either.

[Anonymous No.10649771]

>>10649767
>The trust, the UK’s only centre specialising in gender issues in under 18s said that in total, the number of under 11s referred to the unit has risen from 19 in 2009-10 to 77 in 2014-15.
I mean, it's still a basically non-existent phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.10649773]

>>10649771
I guess that's true, hopefully it won't get worse

[Anonymous No.10649779]

>>10649770
Sorry lol

[Anonymous No.10649783]

>>10649751
women have more subcutaneous fat so even their skin is different. props to you if you like men in women's clothing but there's no way to "fake" your skin.

[Anonymous No.10649784]

>>10649751
>Who says you need to feel their brain
>>10649703
>if someone has a brain that subjectively feels feminine
I'm referring to the person who thinks they feel their brain is feminine. That is as borked as phrenology. That poster also mentioned that their brain could scan as female, which is true, but does not mean they would present as female necessarily, or want to be identified that way either. You're trying to conflate feelings about the *mind* as feeling your brain, and then conflate it with scientific evidence for female brains that your social acquaintances will never see as evidence for social acquaintances. It can't be, unless you're hauling around your brain scan and interpretting it for laymen who don't know where the corpus callosum is. None of that affects your social gender. It is not evidence for your social gender, and the most it can be is evidence that a lot of oestrogen got into your brain.

What does define your social gender is nothing to do with your brain scan, and that poster is trying to pretend it does. They probably don't even have an fMRI section, or know what one would look like, since they are using terms like "has a brain that subjectively feels female", which is just nonsense. They have a mind which feels that way, and I covered how they could socially present as female. They cannot, however, feel their brain. Whether male/female/straight/gay/cis/giraffe, mammals aren't designed to feel their own brains. There's no way to do it, except maybe if you poked it with a finger and felt it through the nerve endings in your finger- you would not however, feel it through your brain in the way you would feel your finger poking your foot through both your foot and finger.

[Anonymous No.10649790]

>>10649734
>to get on some stilts and expect people to treat me as if I weren't a dwarf.
LMAO. Not gonna lie, It'd be very funny to see a bunch of dwarfs on stilts demanding to be treated like if they were tall. How come dwarfs aren't an active part of the oppressed left? They would fit right in. They may even have more reasons to complain than most of them.

[Anonymous No.10649793]

>>10649790
>It'd be very funny to see a bunch of dwarfs on stilts demanding to be treated like if they were tall.
fucking nightmarefuel

[Anonymous No.10649801]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/159436266