/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10884535]

Why does he hate Postmodernists so much lit?
What happened did Focault or Derrida fuck his wife or something?
And why would anyone in the academy hate Postmodernists?
They literally did nothing wrong!

JP literally calls postmodernism a murderous ideology?
WTF
Here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVbw4m--NaA

[Anonymous No.10884550]

>>10884535
There is literally nothing good about post-modernism, and it is often used as a tool to destroy just about anything that matters.

Like classical art? Well you can't define what's good art. He's a bucket of piss, this is good art too. It goes beyond just the cultural decay of beauty, but also leads to all sorts of attacks on traditionalism and basically allows people to justify doing literally anything cause

>Fuck it bro, nothing matters anyways

Post modernism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

[Anonymous No.10884557]

>>10884535
because he is a classical modernist

[Anonymous No.10884559]

>>10884550
classical art has been dead since the impressionists you turboplebian

[Anonymous No.10884570]

>>10884550
>Post modernism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

You can apply that statement to everything brain-let look

>Religion wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

>Science wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

>Philosophy wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

>Feminism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

>Enlightenment wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

>Free speech wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

....

[Anonymous No.10884573]

Mainly because postmodernism is unreasonable and manifests in destructive ways. People here call it boogeyman and that memerson doesn't understand it but he sees all the suffering people with muh "do everything ur spacedust in an uncaring universe" and how difficult it is right now to choose something that remotely works and will lead to some sort of wisdom. Postmodernism's discoveries are great for an already somewhat established person, not for a hatchling of any age trying to find their place in life.

[Anonymous No.10884575]

>>10884557
More than that, I have seen lots of classical techniques utilized in interesting ways by postmodern artists. When people talk about hating post-modern art they usually mean modernist.

[Anonymous No.10884576]

>>10884535
Post-modernism is done for its own sake.

You don't pretend a urinal is art because you sincerely believe that it is art, you do it to (get attention) make a "statement" about art.

i.e. postmodernism is wank given legitimacy.

If you're doing art for the sake of making art, but are instead doing art for the sake of COMMENTING on art, you're not really an artist.

You're a commentator.

And that's what post-modernism is. It's not PART of the medium, it's just a commentary by people who failed to hack it in the medium.

Cry more, "artists," but if you were worth half a shit you wouldn't have to tear real down art to the level you're comfortable engaging it on.

[Anonymous No.10884577]

>>10884576
>If you're doing art for the sake of making art
NOT* doing art for the sake

[Anonymous No.10884580]

>>10884557
In what sense anon please elaborate?

[Anonymous No.10884583]

>>10884550
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.10884588]

>>10884576
>Postmodenism
>Duchamp
>>10884573
>Postmodenism
>Rick and Morty tier scientism
kek "postmodenism" has basically become a codeword for "everything I don't like". A very american thing this phenomenon of taking something and scapegoating all of your problems on it, first it was "communism", now it's this and "fascist". What can I say, thanks for unleashing an army of retards on the internet Dr. Peterson.

[Anonymous No.10884590]

Postmodernists are the living manifestation of pure evil. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10884593]

>>10884590
>Evil
According to you buckoo

[Anonymous No.10884601]

>>10884590
LMAO

[Anonymous No.10884607]

>>10884590
>>10884593
Evil in what stance? According to whom? What is Evil? How would you define evil? Is there a such thing as absolute Evil?

[Anonymous No.10884609]

>>10884580
Peterson is a classical Modernist, because he unironically believes in the empowerment of the individual, in Jungian psychoanalysis and in willful, autonomous self-improvement.

Postmodernists no longer believe in any of that, their truths are much more cultural and sociological, rather than individual.

[Anonymous No.10884610]

pomo is valueless
in the void one can create their own values
the masses tho are retards
when pomo infiltrates culture which it has steadily since the 60s
it reaches the masses
thus the masses create retarded value systems i.e. identity politics

[Anonymous No.10884613]

>>10884590
damn, better remember this the next time I'm talking to an eight year old who's been repeatedly raped over several months

[Anonymous No.10884614]

>>10884535
>They literally did nothing wrong!
They took Heidegger's ideas, took the most insightful things including his concept of authenticity away from them, and made them fashionable enough to be hijacked by the mainstream. Derrida did some good work but he also fucked the western civilization even if it was involuntary.

[Anonymous No.10884616]

>>10884607
Prepare to die, postmodernist.

[Anonymous No.10884623]

>>10884614
Please point out 1 (one) instance in which Derrida's fairly obscure ideas have made it into the mainstream. I'll wait.
>>10884613
>>10884607
IT'S A FUCKING HARRY POTTER QUOTE YOU ABSOLUTE RETARDS
>petersonfags literally get indoctrinated by Foucault photos with Voldemort quotes on it

[Anonymous No.10884624]

>>10884616
>Prepare to die, postmodernist.

Ok

*Gulps hemlock*

[Anonymous No.10884626]

I'm still wandering if the jukebox meant the death of live music.

[Anonymous No.10884637]

>>10884623
The whole subverting narratives in pop culture came from people trying to monetize a reductionism of his ideas. Also don't be so pedantic, you autistic piece of shit. Did you forget to take your pills?

[Anonymous No.10884642]

>>10884637
>The whole subverting narratives in pop culture came from people trying to monetize a reductionism of his ideas.
wot

[Anonymous No.10884715]

Post-Modernism is sufficently nebulous in the mainstream to create a bogeyman to explain away the systemic failures of liberal capitalism allowing him access to the booming self help industry.

[Anonymous No.10884718]

How did "Post-Modernism" become such an incredibly potent target for projection?

[Anonymous No.10884731]

>>10884623
kek

[Anonymous No.10884733]

>>10884559
It didn't die back then, and impressionism held standards too.

[Anonymous No.10884735]

Since I'm bored and know a thing or two about the subject, I'll chime in.

In this clip, Peterson (I believe unintentionally) misrepresents postmodernism as an ideological tool which is used to gain power by collapsing commonly held notions of race, gender, class, etc (the mistake, if not clear, being that he believes the purpose of postmodernism is to gain power). He then mistakenly bundles postmodernism with an unwieldy strawman of traditional Marxism—oppressed vs. oppressor—and sets fire to the whole project to cast light on his own supposedly more wholesome, unifying, humanistic, empirical psychoanalytic perspective of people and power, which is bullshit.

He then falsely equates postmodernism with identity politics, which he incorrectly defines as the ideology of those who insist "that the most important element of any student or any person for that matter is whatever racial, gender, or sex identity happens to be flavor of the month" instead of more accurately as an exploration of the tendency of people to align themselves with and promote those aforementioned and other limited ideological factions, which philosophers and even statesmen have been exploring for hundreds of years.

He then expresses an unironic authoritarian lament for authoritarian control of identity categories for which he wishes there were more simplistic guidelines: see his discussion about fractional blackness. He sees, in inversion, the trees for the forest.

Peterson then throws out a homily of questions about who, in the absence of "authority," is going to question, demarcate, catalog, and promote the "correct" solutions to these problems. This shit goes on and on and on, and so that I won't bore you any longer, I'll get to the point.

Peterson confuses contemporary outrage for postmodernism. He sees in uninformed keening the foghorn of a postmodern boogeyman. His outlook seems to be based on viral videos (and, admittedly, experience) of misguided university students screaming for attention. From this he's constructed perverted misinterpretations of their youthful ignorance as stonewalls of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is not ideology. It's not authoritarian. It's not identity politics. It negates all of that, and it's not anything that Peterson or any mission-driven clown says it is. It's a mode of questioning how and why we believe what we do. Its purpose is to probe the assumptions we unwittingly bestow on leaders, institutions, media, and even seemingly minor shit such as "authentic" Mexican recipes. It's a current by which you can bypass the crashing waves and bottomless depths of traditional ideologies. It embraces the type of critical questioning Peterson claims it doesn't, and it employs the type of skepticism of movements and their individuals for which Peterson squawks and burps.

The ultimate irony is that Peterson's goofy little talk in this clip likely wouldn't be possible without postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.10884783]

>people bashing Dadaism 100 years after its relevance and somehow linking it to a grand pomo conspiracy

Peterson is just a self-help writer who's vocal about being an asshole and somehow that makes you a philosopher in the 21st century.
I don't understand why so many non-artists treat art and academia like some sort of secret club, least of all Peterson since he's an academic himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qeouQwb1w
In this video he's having a "dialogue" with the perfect pomo boogeyman, a contemporary academic classical composer. But he seems to be in awe of him, constantly needing to show his own skin-deep knowledge of music. He constantly interrupts Samuel and fails to understand even the most basic of music theory/history, instead perspectivating everything to "the decline of western values", and other of his well-known topics.

It's really just white guys getting angry at imaginary secret clubs they deep-down want to be a part of, nothing new.

[Anonymous No.10884795]

>>10884557
>he is a classical modernist
>perpetuates Jungian ideology and boomer tropes
lol

[Anonymous No.10884802]

>>10884735
I would say that he may have half a point. I've noticed that a lot of the kind of people he dislikes frequently base their ideas on 'Postmodern' theory, just a really retarded biased reading of it. They do all the questioning of why we believe what we do, but not for their own views.

[Anonymous No.10884803]

>>10884735
>The ultimate irony is that Peterson's goofy little talk in this clip likely wouldn't be possible without postmodernism.
You don't whine about twigs getting into your eye in an urban setting.

[Anonymous No.10884812]

>>10884535
Postmodernism is the breakdown of the value systems that have been developed since the dawn of mankind. Why the fuck do you think hedonism, depression, suicide, mass shootings, terrorism, and utter disregard for other humans and the self is so rampant. Not saying that any of these things are new, but postmodernism doesn't hold humans to a set of moral values and virtues. Say what you will against Peterson but he does see that we are playing a dangerous game when we casually throw away virtue. However, this is something that has been developing since idk the industrial revolution? At least since the end of WWII.

[Anonymous No.10884817]

>>10884802
Exactly. He seems, if I'm not mistaken, to be interpreting modes of critical postmodern dissection through the distorted reversed telescopes of self- or movement-promoting ideologues. He's seems concerned not with postmodernism per se but rather with agenda-driven appropriations of strawmen, and therefore he appears to me to be nothing more than a modern manifestation of critics from the '70s and onward who don't really have expertise in the topics in which they claim to be authorities.

>>10884803
I don't know if you're referring to a philosophical metaphor or making just a vague rebuttal. I'm willing to talk at length about it, but just try to be clearer in your intention. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10884820]

>>10884535
Because they are godless monsters whose relativism is destroying the moral foundation of the world and perpetuating misery and injustice. They have killed god but worship money and degeneracy in his stead.

[Anonymous No.10884823]

>>10884535
>TRUTH is the most important tool we have in a world of bloody postmodern marxists
>s-sorry about lying that I was part of an indigenous tribe

[Anonymous No.10884827]

>>10884783
there is a talk of him with another person about science, the person says something reasonable and jordan answers with "yeah but, did you know what the japanese did in china"

no one fucking asked him about that and it wasn't even important in the context of the conversation

[Anonymous No.10884829]

>>10884820
Many of them tend to be godless, sure, but why are they monsters? You'd have to be remarkably naive to think that questioning the origins and foundations of morals necessarily creates misery and injustice. That process has been going on since recorded dialogues. One can question yet uphold.

No one has killed god. You know from where that silly 136-year-old comes, and I'm sure you can see how many billions of religious people still exist. That's nonsense.

The only degeneracy so far introduced is that which your lack of critical thinking has brought to this discussion.

What's your problem?

[Anonymous No.10884830]

>>10884823
I really can't blame a critic of our contemporary discourse for lying in order to gain the cultural capital (academically recognized status as "oppressed" ) to have a meaningful position in that discourse, and I'm saying that as someone who by and large thinks he's full of shit.

[Anonymous No.10884840]

>>10884783
>white guys
excuse me sweetie, it's white MEN thank you very much ~

[Anonymous No.10884843]

>>10884840
dumb sissy whiteboi

[Anonymous No.10884845]

>>10884830
Why not blame him? Is he exempt from blame? Even if his mode of opportunistic discourse is commonplace, which I think isn't necessarily true, at least in real academic contexts, does that mean he shouldn't be reprimanded?

[Anonymous No.10884847]

>>10884829
Moral relativism is the death of the god. The recognition of no absolute authority and the ability to rationalize anything as good or equal is a descent into the inhuman. Hence, monsters. And they are responsible for the dominant politics, personal and otherwise, of the day. They are to be hated.

[Anonymous No.10884852]

>>10884840
>>10884843
Dumb, derivative shit. What are you trying to accomplish?

[Anonymous No.10884853]

>>10884823
This reminds me of a TLP post. It doesn't matter if your accusation is true, just making it is powerful.

>>10884830
>I really can't blame a critic of our contemporary discourse for lying in order to gain the cultural capital
The irony is staggering.

[Anonymous No.10884856]

>>10884852
Sorry I'll start taking this super serious thread seriously, Mr. Important. Please don't cane me sir.

[Anonymous No.10884858]

>>10884845
Because as an action it it demonstrates the poverty of a discourse mediated by standpoint epistemology. He can really only be blamed for apologizing. What this indicates is that we as a society should seriously reprimand academics for the manner in which they operate.

[Anonymous No.10884861]

>>10884550
Imagine being this braindead

[Anonymous No.10884865]

>>10884847
Okay now. A few things.

You do realize that the history of what I'm sure you're referring to as God (that being the Judeo-Christian God) is based on debates around "His" moral prescriptions, right? Theology, Biblical hermeneutics, etc? None of that is shut and closed.

Postmodernism isn't about a recognition of absolute authority. It's about questioning the premises of authorities that claim to be absolute. Moreover, it doesn't rationalize anything as good or equal or inhuman but instead probes the metrics by which we measure those categories.

>Hence, monsters
No. If anything, your rejection of critical inquiry is a monstrous misinterpretation of skeptical discourse.

>they
Who?

Your entire post reeks of uninformed, conspiratorial misreadings of secondhand polemics.

[Anonymous No.10884866]

>>10884853
I'm not ine of his acolytes, so his personal inconsistencies don't really nother me.

[Anonymous No.10884867]

>>10884623
toppest kek

[Anonymous No.10884869]

Stop blaming my boi Deleuze and start blaming the right people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

[Anonymous No.10884870]

>>10884817
>I don't know if you're referring to a philosophical metaphor or making just a vague rebuttal. I'm willing to talk at length about it, but just try to be clearer in your intention
To speak or not to speak...

You can only whine about the problems you meet, and you only meet the problems you greet. If you see something, it is in your mind. If you have named it, you have structured it. If you have structured it, it is a tool in your disposal; but what has been seen can not be unseen.

[Anonymous No.10884879]

>>10884735
>collapsing commonly held notions
>exploration
>He sees, in inversion, the trees for the forest.
>contemporary outrage
>keening
>stonewalls of postmodernism
>negates
>mode of questioning how
>probe the assumptions we unwittingly bestow
>bypass the crashing waves and bottomless depths
>squawks and burps
You type like a fucking faggot.

Fuck off back to r/books.

If you can't write concisely and meaningfully then don't fucking write.

Your post was a waste of my time.

[Anonymous No.10884880]

>>10884856
Be on your way, son. I'll spare the cane this time.

>>10884858
But he isn't apologizing. He isn't defending the modes of thought against which he rails. He's actively misunderstanding, promoting, and undermining legitimate forms of critical postmodern discussion and making a killing off it. We can speak, as you do, about "academics" in a general manner all day long and accomplish nothing, but the discussion is about Peterson, and as I hope my and other posts show, he is profoundly mistaken about the topics in which he claims expertise.

[Anonymous No.10884881]

He uses the word postmodernism, but in reality he's just annoyed at closet nihilists and cynics.

[Anonymous No.10884882]

>>10884817
>He seems, if I'm not mistaken, to be interpreting modes of critical postmodern dissection through the distorted reversed telescopes of self- or movement-promoting ideologues
How can somebody write this fucking sentence?

How can you spend your spare time presumably learning about how to write and still vomit out an abortion of this fucking magnitude?

Are you retarded, anon?

[Anonymous No.10884888]

>>10884869
What's wrong with intersectional discourse? It's merely an extension of established analytical frameworks whereby thinkers can consider more carefully the influence that public and private discourses have on the lives of those who operate within their parameters. There's nothing inherently wrong with the field, even if you might harbor antagonism against certain practitioners who publish within it.

[Anonymous No.10884891]

>>10884888
JESUS
FUCKING
CHRIST

YOU'RE MAKING MY FUCKING EYES HURT

[Anonymous No.10884892]

>>10884888
It completely ignores class and ecomic dynamics, thus making it the perfect tool of the liberal elite.

[Anonymous No.10884895]

>>10884888
It's biggest problem is that it's language isn't explicit enough, so it exacerbates the oppression olympics it was designed to prevent.

[Anonymous No.10884897]

>>10884892
economic*

[Anonymous No.10884898]

>>10884888
>intersectional
>extension
>established
>analytical
>framework
>thinkers
>field
>parameter
>nothing inherently wrong
I could not write more totalitarian rubbish if I tried.

[Anonymous No.10884899]

>>10884588
>Postmodenism
>Duchamp
Wasn't the whole point of Dada to shit on established objective standards?

[Anonymous No.10884900]

>>10884870
I agree with you, anon. I don't see any issue here.

>>10884879
Great post, anon. Fuck metaphor and style. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

>>10884882
I'll keep it simple for you. He seems to understand postmodernism through misinterpretations. You seem to be unfamiliar with specificity and jargon in academic discourse and thus point to style instead of context.

[Anonymous No.10884901]

[Anonymous No.10884908]

>>10884901
You should have Solzhenitsyn as Sheev, and Peterson as Anakin. The meme should read; "You ever hear the tragedy of 200 years together?"
>I can't do it

[Anonymous No.10884913]

>>10884900
>Fuck metaphor and style.
Your metaphors are fucking dead (and unnecessary - you're writing an analysis not a fucking novel) and your style could best be described as oblique.

So yes, fuck your metaphors and fuck your style. You're a shit writer. Git gud.

>I'll keep it simple for you.
Complex ideas necessitate simple writing you fucking retard. If you can force me to spend 50% of my brainpower deciphering your stupid fucking metaphors and I can still grasp the content besides then clearly whatever you're writing about can't be that fucking groundbreaking.

>You seem to be unfamiliar with specificity and jargon in academic discourse
Nigger, it's not that I can't understand you're writing. It's that your writing is so offensively bad that I am forced to complain about it.

>"b-b-b-but it's not bad"
Then why is it full of jargon, dated and dead metaphors, and written in a style so oblique it's very nearly perpendicular?

[Anonymous No.10884915]

>>10884892
As far as I'm aware, it doesn't. Intersectional discourses promote inclusive consideration. Class and economic dynamics are welcome considerations, and they have been since Marx (and his forebearers).

>>10884891
Then get glasses, pleb, or go back to school.

>>10884895
Interesting thought. Could you elaborate upon that irony?

>>10884898
You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary. Do you really have nothing else to offer? At least try to direct your comments to the OP and subsequent criticisms of Peterson. Why are you even here?

[Anonymous No.10884919]

>>10884915
>You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary.
Your language is so unclear it disguises its totalitarian nature even from its author.

Which, I think, is why you use it. You're a tinpot dictator at heart, you fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.10884920]

>>10884915
>You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary.
No, those concepts are way too vague, but are used as if they were 'obvious' and precise. Then they are used to push mechanisms on us.

[Anonymous No.10884923]

I can see how the destruction of boundaries and of established standards could be empowering in a society ruled by crusty old men for several thousand years. But it's been 50 years since the 60s. Shitting on objective morality is not edgy anymore, there is no risk (but plenty of reward) in it. Merda d'artista is 57 years old, Piss Christ is 30 years old. It's getting harder and harder to seem out there and cool with this shit and right now it just shows you're angry at your dad because he wanted you to become a lawyer. Social hierarchy is not an evil plot devised by Rupert Murdoch. People have differing ability and get sorted into differing strata. Pretending that everyone is the same and everything is relative is a cancerous ideology. When people say that postmodernism is about questioning and that's positive, I think of the annoying toddler who justs asks "why" 50 times in a row because he doesn't want to do something

[Anonymous No.10884925]

>>10884913
How would prefer that I write? If you understand what I wrote, as you claim, then why haven't you responded to the content of my posts in relation to the OP? Even if you view the style and metaphors as "dated and dead," you've only expressed your own limited preferences instead of contributed to the overarching discussion. Why are you here?

[Anonymous No.10884937]

>>10884915
>Interesting thought. Could you elaborate upon that irony?
Rather than facilitating an understanding between different "oppressed" groups, the participants try to gain authority by claiming the greatest number of intersecting oppressions. It's among the reason in the discourse that class is so often dismissed for oppressions of a higher priority .

As it's grown in popularity, many of the recognized states of oppression that have been lumped in can only lead to conflicting liberations. Any coalition formed under this paradigm will be inherently unstable. Ultimately it fails to be genuinely challenging and works best as a philosophy/social theory for marketers, middle managers, and those who aspire to become them.

[Anonymous No.10884940]

>>10884919
I'm sorry that the language is unclear to you. Nothing I've written deviates from common academic discourse about these topics, yet you seem hellbent on crucifying style instead of propping up substantial criticism. Sorry?
>dictator
>faggot
Just boring shit all around.

>>10884920
My mistake. I thought I was in a thread with people who recognize these concepts as obvious and understand the language used to describe them. It seems you're not one of them. So what do we do when a thread isn't for us? Move on, anon. No one is pushing mechanisms on you.

[Anonymous No.10884941]

>>10884923
99% of retards, including (very much so) the supposed "postmodern neomarxists" this thread's about, are moralists who act as if objective morality is real.

[Anonymous No.10884943]

>>10884940
>My mistake. I thought I was in a thread with people who recognize these concepts as obvious
Western imperialism at work, everybody. He should have used his intersectional analysis and subsumed the local culture before writing a single word. Shame on him!

[Anonymous No.10884945]

>>10884865
>You do realize that the history of what I'm sure you're referring to as God (that being the Judeo-Christian God) is based on debates around "His" moral prescriptions, right? Theology, Biblical hermeneutics, etc? None of that is shut and closed.
>literally post-modernist obscurantist flimflam drivel
You are the problem.
>hurr durr god's will is open to interpretation, my professor said so in my women's studies 101 class

[Anonymous No.10884947]

>>10884900
>style instead of context
Didn't they teach you to deconstruct dichotomies like this in school?

[Anonymous No.10884951]

>>10884888
>What's wrong with intersectional discourse?

It's a power discourse. Do you think it's a coincidence that the same people who teach intersectional discourse are the same people who whine about the 1%, think that all white people are racists, and support increased immigration into Europe and the United States?

It's not a coincidence. It's a discourse entirely constructed to support a specific political and economic agenda.

[Anonymous No.10884952]

I have finished eating my spaghetti and now I'm sad
>>10884915
>As far as I'm aware, it doesn't
In theory, no. In practice? Yes. I have yet to see an intersectional thinker analyze the very obvious mechanism of mass immigration as a creation of an underclass of cheap workers, or the dynamics of a multicultural society like Singapore where voters divide themselves according to their race (this is happening in the US too) or how seemingly "revolutionary" ideas such as feminism are becoming shallow products like with BuzzFeed (the guy who created BuzzFeed is a marxist and I have my theory that he's an accelarionist trying to meme capitalism to its logical end, but I digress). Instead a good deal of them seems to focused on "dismantling whiteness", patriarchy, rebranding racism to be only an institutionary thing and other similiarly shallow position which serves the capitalist elite very well by virtue of
1-creating a climate of divisiveness
2-creating the perfect consumer, an a-historical subject conditioned only by the forces of the market

[Anonymous No.10884955]

>>10884945
>hurr durr god's will is open to interpretation
Not that guy, but one of the most persistent and lively traditions of Western and Near Eastern religion is DEBATE. Those faggots couldn't stop debating and theorising and arguing to save their lives. A debate about some fucking word split the continent in half.

[Anonymous No.10884956]

>>10884945
To elaborate slightly, although it's surely wasted, it isn't about any formal scholarly conception of authority. It's a fundamental belief, an underlying conviction, that ultimately nothing is true and subject to modification as per your convenience. Derivation of facts from conclusions rather than the reverse. It's not far removed from mental illness in fact.

[Anonymous No.10884969]

>>10884925
>>How would prefer that I write?
Like this:

>>10884735
Since I'm bored and know a thing or two about the subject, I'll chime in.

Peterson misrepresents postmodernism as a system which is used to undermine our faith in what he perceives as biologically derived hierarchies so that the underminers can usurp the hierarchy and take the power. He then combines this misrepresentation with a strawman of the modern "radical" left (whom he terms Marxists, because he believes their ideology is a direct continuation of Marxism). He contrasts this ruthless, power-seeking (postmodern) and historically calamitous (Marxist) combination with his own ideology to make the point that his is better because it's neither of those things, which is bullshit.

He then falsely equates postmodernism with identity politics, which he incorrectly defines as the ideology of those who insist "that the most important element of any student or any person for that matter is whatever racial, gender, or sex identity happens to be flavor of the month" instead of correctly defining it as the politics of identity - i.e. how our understanding of identity affects how we distribute resources and treat each other.

Then he whines in one breath about identity politics authoritarians forcing their stupid categories on everyone and in the next breath complains that everyone should just use his own simple categories (the "fractional blackness" part).

This unwitting appeal for authoritarianism so long as its his dogma in place repeats frequently and I won't cover all examples.

The main thrust of Peterson's problem is that he confuses dumb college students for serious intellectuals and reads far too much into their views and opinions, then mistakes what he sees there as the entire field.

Postmodernism is just a term we use to refer to the process of questioning things that might seem too "obvious" to be questioned to make sure they're really right. It's basically just thoroughness. You might think you want to be alive, but have you REALLY thought about it? That's the postmodern argument.

[Anonymous No.10884975]

>>10884940
>common academic discourse
Garbage. All of it.

If your best defence of your writing ability is that it's no worse than what is "commonly" known to be the worst writing in all of society (political academics on the left) then that's not a defence, that's laughable.

[Anonymous No.10884979]

>>10884952
I think it also encourages the artistic sterility and the celebration pf bad media as great works of art.

[Anonymous No.10884987]

>>10884969
you cant be serious thinking this is better explained. (im not the guy who you are "correcting")

[Anonymous No.10884989]

>>10884987
I am completely serious.

[Anonymous No.10884991]

>>10884969
Not that guy, just interested in one of your points.

I would say postmodernism represents a certain stage in that argument. Otherwise we can trace the postmodern traditon back to Socrates, which, while not entirely unrelated in spirit, does little to help us understand much about either Socrates or about the postmodern condition. If I were to follow your definition, I would say postmodernism represents a line of questioning (not just questioning the obvious, in itself) occurring in the light of events, conditions and assumptions of the pre- and postmodern period - modernism, the Enlightenment, WWII, science, industry, capital, media, the failure of Marxism, discontent with liberal democracy and so on.

[Anonymous No.10884992]

>>10884937
Fair point in your first paragraph. I agree that those people are problematic and block meaningful discourse. However, I'd argue they'd have to lack so much self-awareness to view themselves as engaging in postmodern discussion. Same for your second paragraph. People will inevitably choose their anchors and cordon off the surrounding waters. If they claim they are postmodernists, then they are mistaken. If anything, they're using buzzwords as fashionable alternatives to dismissed notions of nationalism, racism, etc.

>>10884943
k, there's no point in continuing. You're offering nothing worth discussing.

>>10884945
Others have already responded to you adequately enough. You seem like a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, though, whew. I don't know if I can bridge that gap in a few posts.

>>10884947
Fair point. They're bound together. I should have been more specific and emphasized the focus on the anon's criticism against the style being unbalanced and their not progressing multiple points of discussion.

>>10884951
I don't care what they do and how they misuse modes of thinking for their own agendas. I get what you're saying, but you're confusing philosophy for authoritarianism and academic politics. Just because an ideologue claims a philosophical basis does not mean that person is a representative of those who champion the benefits of that approach.

>>10884952
Those are (unfortunately?) the fashionable subjects, and therefore they get more attention. I don't keep up with contemporary developments these days, but I'm sure if you had sufficient access and knew where to look and knew more languages, you would be able to find answers to the examples you list. Fair criticism, though. Perhaps things are unbalanced.

[Anonymous No.10884998]

>>10884992
>>Others have already responded to you adequately enough. You seem like a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, though, whew. I don't know if I can bridge that gap in a few posts.
Literally my first post itt, keep acting victimized you dunce.

[Anonymous No.10885005]

>>10884989
you have to understand is only your taste. is not like you have the universal way of "good writing". im sorry.

[Anonymous No.10885011]

>>10884969
Thanks for sharing your take on things. That certainly is one way to express what I wrote. Your interpretation misses the thrusts and pulls of the original, but if it works for you, great. I'm glad you got some practice out of it. Congratulations.

>>10884975
Yeah, you're not worth talking to. Check the OP and other posts to get back in the game.

>>10884987
Thanks. It's quite amazing how egos can go unchecked. Even if my writing is unclear, that anon's post is roughly just as long and merely squeezes the sentiment into what they think is a more digestible pill. This is a ridiculous path to go down.

>>10884991
I am that guy, and I think you're right. Postmodernism has very specific historical impetuses even if we can recognize strains of similar thought in the past.

[Anonymous No.10885015]

>>10884991
>Not that guy, just interested in one of your points.
They're not my points, I actually disagree with most of that. I think its characterisation of Peterson's arguments is lazy and wrong and I think its defence of postmodernism is positively trite (but I think all defences of philosophy are trite).

But I'll answer as best I can.

The thing that distinguishes postmodernism is (in my view, obviously) that it's skeptical of reason itself. Pre-Enlightenment philosophy was an exercise in rationally interpreting the word of God, and Enlightenment philosophy was an exercise in rationally deriving natural law in the absence of God.

Postmodernism says that reason ain't gonna help us.

But you see echoes of this forward in time, because philosophy has been going in circles for 5,000 years. You only ever see a snapshot of the historical philosophical zeitgeist when you look back, not the sum total of everything everyone thought at the time. I'm sure there were postmodernist thinkers hanging around in Greece, but they're ideas didn't catch on because the context didn't support them so their work doesn't survive.

[Anonymous No.10885019]

>>10885011
>>Thanks for sharing your take on things. That certainly is one way to express what I wrote. Your interpretation misses the thrusts and pulls of the original, but if it works for you, great. I'm glad you got some practice out of it. Congratulations.
Utterly blown the fuck out.

>>10885005
It's simply not. Purple prose is just bad writing. It's not suddenly acceptable in an "academic" field. Writing densely and incomprehensibly is not a stylistic choice it's a fucking mistake. The only point of writing is to communicate meaning - if your writing actively impairs that, you've fucking failed.

[Anonymous No.10885021]

>>10884998
I don't think I'm a victim; I'm just bored with what you have to offer. We agree fundamentally on belief, and I can't address your point if we have to go through the dance of disproving gods. That shit is old hat.

>>10885005
Simply but beautifully put.

[Anonymous No.10885023]

>>10885015
>I'm sure there were postmodernist thinkers hanging around in Greece
The Sophists bear comparison. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. That said, as >>10885011 says, we shouldn't be too eager to project our current doctrines and assumptions onto thinkers who lived in a very different intellectual and cultural context. There are important distinctions and evolutions that need to be recognised. Philosophers from different eras, though they may use the same words, are not always precisely talking about the same things.

[Anonymous No.10885024]

>>10885023
If you say it I'll believe it. I don't really give a shit about philosophy. It's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10885027]

>>10884992
>Those are (unfortunately?) the fashionable subjects, and therefore they get more attention. I don't keep up with contemporary developments these days, but I'm sure if you had sufficient access and knew where to look and knew more languages, you would be able to find answers to the examples you list. Fair criticism, though. Perhaps things are unbalanced.
As I said, I have yet to see it, and I doubt I will ever see it since the thinkers in this area are collocated in a very specific position on the political spectrum. Another thing which I find quite irritating is this sort of notion of gnosological incomunicability between races and genders according to which one is doomed to not understand the plights of the others by virtue of being born of a certain race or a certain gender.

[Anonymous No.10885028]

>>10885005
>Joyce is just as good as the patterns on used toilet paper, it's just your opinion man

[Anonymous No.10885036]

>>10885019
>blown the fuck out
k

I'm surprised you don't realize that your own perspective is what's limiting you here. Do you think purple prose has a fixed definition? Do you think clear writing is a constant? Do you really think that there are established ways of communicating meaning? You didn't prefer how I wrote something, threw a fucking hissy fit instead of addressing my points, and then actually rewrote my post to fit your own taste.
>your
>own
>taste
This is actually the type of shit against which postmodernists would argue: your ironically codified forms of presentation. Come on now. What do you think about my criticisms of Peterson? I'm genuinely curious if I can get something more substantial out of you.

[Anonymous No.10885037]

>>10885036
yeh man gud writting is lik subjektiv

postmodernism rools

[Anonymous No.10885038]

>>10884992
>Fair point in your first paragraph
That post was about the flaws I've found in intersectional discourse. I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily pomo in anyway.

[Anonymous No.10885044]

>>10885028
i think Joyce would like that simile.
i know maybe is hard for you. but if somebody think like that and feel sincerely like that with her own reasons, what exactly is the problem?.

[Anonymous No.10885047]

>>10885027
Lee Edelman has criticisms about the walls of authenticity we put up to keep out others. By presupposing purity of origin and rights of exclusivity, he argues, we enforce a destructive fantasy of "pure culture" and end up producing Others who are objects of abjection and discrimination.

I agree with you. Some people have used postmodernism is fetishize people and identities, but it's telling of the potency of postmodernism that we can still use it to deconstruct their own positions. Those people think they have it right, but they are just pawns of their own biases and misunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.10885057]

>>10885037
k

>>10885038
My apologies. I've gotten mixed up with so many people responding. I didn't necessarily mean to attribute undue pomo to your post. Good point nonetheless.

>>10885044
I feel sorry for the anon for losing their footing and having to go from discussion of style to full reductivist defense. I wish we could have had more meaningful discussion.

[Anonymous No.10885072]

>>10885057
>k
Beautiful.

Now we see the postmodernist in their true form.

When confronted with shit writing that should justifiably be laughed at, they are utterly unable to make a complaint about it on the basis of their dumb ideology.

Postmodernism is the death knell of society because, whether they want to know it or not, humans do have constraints which we need to live inside and these constraints do create optimal behaviours. They even create things like an optimal way to write - to a certain extent.

We know this to be true intuitively. That's why he disparages my counterargument while simultaneously failing to provide an answer to it. His reflex is disdain but he is unable to express disdain intelligently because he has adopted a dumb ideology.

And finally we come full circle, because THIS is all that Peterson said.

[Anonymous No.10885074]

>>10884853
What is TLP?

[Anonymous No.10885081]

>>10885074
the life of pablo

[Anonymous No.10885109]

>>10884735
Very good post.

[Anonymous No.10885110]

>>10885044
Their opinion is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10885117]

>>10885074
TheLastPychiatrist. An extremely patrician blog written by a psychiatrist.

>>10884866
>keeps doing it
Pretty pathetic desu.

[Anonymous No.10885129]

>>10885072
Interesting. When I finally ignored you, you then decided to bite. You contributed nothing of substance when I tried to engage you, but when I declined your offer to participate, you suddenly jumped out of your seat and spouted a nice tirade. Great! Glad you're doing something now.

I'll address each of your points.

This isn't even my final form, but in all seriousness, your generalization is telling: it reveals prejudice, animosity, and a lack of openness for discussion.

I did make complaints about your confrontations. Multiple times. I wrote that you simplified my writing but missed its thrusts, that you made a reductive mess so that you can better understand it according to your own taste, and, most importantly, that you missed the irony of that process in light of your criticisms.

Your claim that postmodernism is the death knell of society puts you in a long line of hysteric reactionaries who repeat what you've heard at rooftops and spit on anyone who dares to speak up from below. Your insistence on an optimal way to write ignores the hundreds of years of history of the language in which you're writing, and that you can't see the irony there is just sad.

I'm not disparaging your counterargument. Well, yeah, I guess I am insofar that I think your criticism is of how I wrote instead of the ideas I put forth. My reflex isn't disdain but rather one of boredom because you're the type of commentator people loath to engage. You present your subjectivity as objective critique and expect others to conform to your limited language instead of engaging their ideas.

Have we come full circle? It seems like we're going in circles. I honestly don't know what to tell you. I hazard to say please revisit my original response and address the points instead of the style you don't like, but I doubt you'll deign to do that.

[Anonymous No.10885131]

The mods are deleting all peterson threads. Just telling ya.

[Anonymous No.10885140]

>>10885117
>TheLastPsychiatrist
It seems pretty good just on a cursory glance. Why did you bring him up?

[Anonymous No.10885141]

>>10885109
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10885149]

>>10885129
Oh look, an entire paragraph of irrelevancy.

The central point is that humans have biological constraints that govern how we must live - in particular, which govern hierarchies.

Postmodernist "thought" dissolves in the face of this simple, inarguable truth.

Everything you've said so far is ankle-biting based on your own lazy and wrong characterisation of Peterson's argument, so I wouldn't try to play "contributions of substance" Olympics if I were you. You're too retarded to grasp the central point without someone like me fucking leading you to it.

[Anonymous No.10885152]

>>10885140
For the reasons I stated, you fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.10885156]

>>10884550
you're the tool desu

[Anonymous No.10885157]

>The Last Psychiatrist
dude everything is narcissism lmao...
like one of the earliest natural philosophers of Greece, who considered the world made out of one base element, in this case narcissism...

[Anonymous No.10885162]

>>10885149
>humans have biological constraints that govern how we must live
Not the guy you responded to. What are these constraints? That we need food and sleep to survive so we created societies centered around this fundamental principle? I think you'll find historically there have been many different ways to satisfy or even overcome our biological constraints (such as medicine towards disease).

[Anonymous No.10885170]

>>10885152
>It doesn't matter if your accusation is true, just making it is powerful.
What does this have to do with that anon's snide remark and why did you bring up TLP?

[Anonymous No.10885171]

>>10885047
I'll check him out.
>>10885162
>What are these constraints?
LOBSTERS

[Anonymous No.10885175]

>>10885162
Food and sleep are the least of it.

Unironically lobsters.

[Anonymous No.10885199]

>>10885149
A paragraph of "irrelevancy" in direct response to your own drawn-out bullshit. Don't be smug.

I agree with you that humans have biological constraints. Was that ever a point of disagreement? No, it wasn't.

Moreover, only you brought up hierarchies. Again, as I wrote, you're shaping the discussion away from my points—by literally rewriting what I wrote—to fit within Peterson's narratives and terminology: I wrote about the categories of identification with which Peterson engages, and you mistranslated my post.

I'm not ankle-biting; I'll go for the throat.

I agree that there are hierarchies of human experience. That's not the point. The whole purpose of my post is that Peterson misunderstands postmodern approaches to questioning those categorizations. Not only that, he projects onto them a conspiratorial fatalism that makes it seem that any engagement with those thoughts is degenerate and destructive.

At this point, now that you've contributed something worth discussing, I fail to see where we disagree. You seem to think that my explaining Peterson's shortcomings means I'm a staunch cheerleader of everything pomo.

Why the generalization, anon? We're just engaging with ideas. I'm not trying to take your land or some shit.

[Anonymous No.10885218]

>>10885157
The modern world is like 75% narcissism, he's really not far off. There isn't a single post-modernist alive who isn't a narcissist, sampling their own farts and getting high off the stink deconstructing it against perfume.

[Anonymous No.10885223]

>>10885218
Peterson is a narcissist.

[Anonymous No.10885226]

>>10885170
He wrote an article dealing with the nature of accusations and how people knowingly make false allegations and why they work, and cannot be undone or corrected. This is in response to that dumb anon's intentionally repetition of libel against Peterson, who while something of an idiot, isn't a liar. More than I can say for those desperate to repudiate him.

[Anonymous No.10885230]

>>10885223
Is that why he's always saying "take a good look at yourself"

[Anonymous No.10885233]

>>10885223
Without a doubt. The man thinks his every deed is a battle between good and evil that brings the world closer to either salvation or perdition - - and that others should adopt this view too. I guess it's a useful bit of madness, but if you aren't as self aware as he is you'd be just another dangerous idiot.

[Anonymous No.10885238]

>>10885226
Peterson did claim he was inducted in an indigenous tribe and it was revealed recently that he wasn't and he misrepresented the meaning of the ceremony he participated in. Isn't that lying?

[Anonymous No.10885243]

>>10885238
As far as I know that's completely untrue and Peterson spoke truthfully. Feel free to post a source proving otherwise, else shut up already.

[Anonymous No.10885247]

>>10885226
Why bring up TLP then? Why didn't you just say that anon was making a false allegation so it would stick in people's minds? TLP wasn't the first to bring up this idea before.

[Anonymous No.10885248]

>>10885230
Not the anon to which you're responding, but I'd argue that even if that's what he argues, it always come with the caveat that you should look at yourself within his own limited framework. Since postmodernism radically questions those frameworks and the conditions under which they operate, Peterson comes off as supremely narcissistic by suggesting that that field of inquiry is perverse and that his own approach is a supreme ideal.

[Anonymous No.10885249]

>>10885233
Every choice has consequences up until the heat death of the Universe, and perhaps even beyond. He is correct on that position.

[Anonymous No.10885250]

>>10885238
>some butthurt leftist ideologue nobody writing clickbait to piggyback off famous names for his column makes Peterson a liar

[Anonymous No.10885252]

>>10885243
https://thewalrus.ca/the-story-behind-jordan-petersons-indigenous-identity/
>Peterson’s connections to the Kwakwaka’wakw people derive from his friendship and traditional bonds with the family of Charles Joseph, an accomplished Kwakwaka’wakw carver from Ma’amtaglia-Tlowitsis tribe. Earlier this year, I spoke to Charles Joseph—who confirms that Peterson is not a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw people nor the Ma’amtaglia-Tlowitsis tribe.

[Anonymous No.10885254]

>>10885248
It was a Narcissus joke

[Anonymous No.10885255]

>>10885247
I did say that. And I brought up TLP because it was an exceptional article and if anyone was actually interested, as opposed to making stupid replies asking for explanation, they could look it up.

[Anonymous No.10885258]

>>10885255
All I'm saying is that I think you're TLP and shilling for your dead blog.

[Anonymous No.10885259]

Should we make a Foucault reading group?

[Anonymous No.10885261]

>>10885252
Why would he lie about this?

[Anonymous No.10885264]

>>10885254
Fair enough. The criticism still applies.

[Anonymous No.10885265]

>>10885252
I asked for proof. Peterson claims this Charles Person says otherwise, this "TheWalrus" writer claims this Charles Person doesn't. No reason to believe either in truth, except the latter is clearly an ideologically motivated assault via slander, so it strains quite a bit of credulity there.

[Anonymous No.10885267]

>>10884535
Postmodernism takes away standards from a field and makes everything entirely relative. It removes the idea of hierarchy because that requires more labor and work, which is unfair because some people have to work harder than others when everyone should work the same amount and get the same reward.

At least, that's what I see in it. Personally, I dislike postmodernism because it's so shallow and ironic. Plus, it's nihilistic, and I despise nihilism because it's a lazy man's way out.

>dude nothing matter bro lmao

There might be no inherent value to human life, but you should still strive to find meaning in the world. This is why I like Camus. He champions this idea of searching for meaning in an otherwise meaningless world.

On a final note, rejecting postmodernism has helped me in my own life. I've been reading more and more philosophy (especially the Greeks and Confucius), and I realize that I should strive for something in my life and not be a total shut-in loser all the time. I can't spend the rest of my days dicking around on a computer. I have a life to live and meaning to search for, and I suggest to anyone reading that you do the same. Because without hope, and without meaning, you have nothing.

[Anonymous No.10885273]

>>10885199
>in direct response to your own drawn-out bullshit
Direct response to all of it except the central point, you mean.

>you're shaping the discussion away from my points
This isn't a discussion about your points, it's a discussion about Peterson's. I am correcting your lazy and wrong characterisation of his argument.

>I agree that there are hierarchies of human experience.
That's not what I said. I said that humans form hierarchies. Hierarchies of human experience implies that some "human experiences" are hierarchically higher than others.

This is what I mean when I say your language is oblique it approaches perpendicular. It literally works at cross purposes to what you are trying to fucking say.

>The whole purpose of my post is that Peterson misunderstands postmodern approaches to questioning those categorizations.
How can you allege this when you misunderstand what Peterson is saying?

>I fail to see where we disagree.
Your characterisation of Peterson's argument is lazy and wrong.

[Anonymous No.10885274]

>>10885261
think about it

[Anonymous No.10885278]

>>10885252
>thewalrus.ca
lol

[Anonymous No.10885280]

>>10885265
>I asked for proof
kek

[Anonymous No.10885282]

>>10885267
>Then please tell me what happened to you one night on the quays of the Seine and how you managed never to risk your life.

gets me off my ass every time

[Anonymous No.10885283]

>>10884899
Dadaism was a reaction to the destruction of Europe after WW1. You could say it was to do away with the established ideas of what art is, and make way for innovation and modernity.

[Anonymous No.10885284]

>>10885265
what the fuck is wrong with you cultists

[Anonymous No.10885287]

>>10885280
>>10885284
not an argument

[Anonymous No.10885294]

>>10884735
>>10884969

granted that the PM he talks about is not what PM is actually about but anwer me this:
what's real Islam?
the one of scripture or the one currently interpreted and acted out?
you need to differentiate between what PM actually tries to accomplish, which imo is a very healthy, maybe highly skeptical approach to established ways of thinking, acting etc. and PM acted out by political activists right now.
the latter is what clashes with peterson IRL, he even often mentions that PM and hardline maxism is a contradictory union, acknowledging that identity politics grounded on the basis of critical theory isn't a tool generate a convincing argument but to make a call for political action.
I think his hate for real PM is the thought that you can deconstruct almost every part of human life, which makes sense but clashes with his religious views because they are supposed to be too deeply integrated (through a god or evolution he never really makes clear) into human life to deconstruct EVEN THOUGH in his bible series, that is exactly what he does (ironically he's a postmodernist himself).

While I can understand his criticism of political activism bent on tearing down instead of actually repairing a damaged system, the notion that supposedly "real" PM is the reason for nihilism I don't really get at all. Especially since much of his work (his theory on how meaning evolved through millions of years of evolutionary history and how abstract thought translates into microactions to generate a feeling of meaning is pretty interesting if you leave the memes aside) is PM to its core. Order into Chaos into Order, the deconstruction and the reconstruction of a given system indefinitely.

I'm just so fucking tired of all this worshipping or eternal hatred... just fucking filter out the good stuff, I think there actually is some and disregard the trash and then move the fuck on lol

[Anonymous No.10885297]

>>10885252
>trusting some drunken injun over one of the foremost intellectuals in the West
fuck off

[Anonymous No.10885299]

>>10885280
If I wrote a paper right now claiming Peterson was a diaper fetishist who steals priceless art from the louvre wearing only his huggies in the moonlight, would that be beyond the need for evidence? My claim is just as good as some random journalist who hates Peterson for his views and wants to run his name through the mud making shit up. I mean, this is basic stuff, journalistic integrity 101 here.

[Anonymous No.10885301]

>>10885287
There's no proof like that, retard. I suspect you are the ideologue here.

[Anonymous No.10885304]

>>10885297
>one of the foremost intellectuals in the West
The absolute state of the West desu

[Anonymous No.10885307]

>>10885299
>My claim is just as good as some random journalist
not at all, actually

[Anonymous No.10885309]

>>10885299
>Peterson says he's part of this tribe and his connection is Charles Joseph
>journalist asks Charles Joseph if Peterson is part of this tribe
>Charles Joseph says no

[Anonymous No.10885311]

>>10885265
>I asked for proof.
I don't like Peterson, there's no need for proof.

[Anonymous No.10885312]

>>10885248
in the lectures I saw from Peterson, I don't remember that he once said that they should look at themselves within his own limited framework, instead he repeats the value of their own interpretation

except if you are looking at the TV interviews, then I don't know, I don't watch these,

the way the west treat famous personalities like they need to be perfect and know it all makes me want to vomit

[Anonymous No.10885315]

>>10885294
>what's real Islam?
I don't care about sandnigger religions or ideologies.

Sandniggers are either at your boot or at your throat.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post. Peterson gets hate from "philosophers" and "academics" who have never left their cloistered campuses and stepped into the real world, who piss and moan about how what he's saying doesn't REALLY apply to the REAL postmodernism.

The real postmodernism doesn't exist.

Postmodernism is as postmodernism does.