What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
His theory of "Cultural Marxism" is that it's a reaction to the 20th century failure of "Marxism".

And this is what I mean when I talk about the conspiracy theory element of his speeches. Marxism was put together by academic white people as a counter to the aristocracy / business / whatever. To suggest that "cultural marxism" is some bizarre continuation of that is nutty.

Sure, there may be some apt comparisons to make between them, but he does lose me at that point.

But it's like a lot of these highly praised people you see on Youtube. Most of them have some decent points if you ignore the crap they also come out with.

I don't think I've made it sufficiently clear that his complaints about "Marxism" don't engage Marx at all. They just gesture at the Soviet Union and make an appeal to incredulity that anyone could do better than Stalin. Which is to fail to notice that the Soviet Union is also susceptible to critique by Marx; it had a very similar problem of concentration of power that capitalist countries have. More decentralized visions of socialism do not have that problem at all. And neither do centralized but actually democratic visions of socialism.

Catnip1024:
And this is what I mean when I talk about the conspiracy theory element of his speeches. Marxism was put together by academic white people as a counter to the aristocracy / business / whatever. To suggest that "cultural marxism" is some bizarre continuation of that is nutty.

Sure, there may be some apt comparisons to make between them, but he does lose me at that point.

Marxism is the political and economical vision of Carl Marx, and forms the basis of Communism and Socialism. It is based in the idea that private ownership is a falsehood perpetuated by the people with capital in order to maintain an exploitative social system in which the vast majority (the proletariat) are forced to sell their labor to those with capital, who control the means of production. Marx instead envisions a society in which a man's right (because Marx was not particularly concerned with gender or women's rights, being active in the mid-19th century) to the result of his own labor is integral. A society in which those that produce also control the means of production, which removes the parasitic bourgeoisie from the equation, and thus grants the proletariat freedom to do as they wish with their capacity for labor. This in turn would also grant the proletariat true freedom, because they would be able to truly control their own lives, instead of being chained to wage labor in the name of someone else's profit.

Why am I so particular in this? Because, as you point out, saying cultural marxism is a continuation of this is nutty. It shows not only a staggering lack of understanding of Marxism, but also of modern equality movements, which are the main targets when 'cultural marxism' is brought up.

Gethsemani:

Marxism is the political and economical vision of Carl Marx, and forms the basis of Communism and Socialism.

Well, Marxism had a tremendous (very possibly transformative) impact on Socialism, but it doesn't form its basis. Socialism pre-dates Marx, most notably in the so-called "Utopian" Socialists, such as Robert Owen.

Gethsemani:

Catnip1024:
And this is what I mean when I talk about the conspiracy theory element of his speeches. Marxism was put together by academic white people as a counter to the aristocracy / business / whatever. To suggest that "cultural marxism" is some bizarre continuation of that is nutty.

Sure, there may be some apt comparisons to make between them, but he does lose me at that point.

Marxism is the political and economical vision of Carl Marx, and forms the basis of Communism and Socialism. It is based in the idea that private ownership is a falsehood perpetuated by the people with capital in order to maintain an exploitative social system in which the vast majority (the proletariat) are forced to sell their labor to those with capital, who control the means of production. Marx instead envisions a society in which a man's right (because Marx was not particularly concerned with gender or women's rights, being active in the mid-19th century) to the result of his own labor is integral. A society in which those that produce also control the means of production, which removes the parasitic bourgeoisie from the equation, and thus grants the proletariat freedom to do as they wish with their capacity for labor. This in turn would also grant the proletariat true freedom, because they would be able to truly control their own lives, instead of being chained to wage labor in the name of someone else's profit.

Why am I so particular in this? Because, as you point out, saying cultural marxism is a continuation of this is nutty. It shows not only a staggering lack of understanding of Marxism, but also of modern equality movements, which are the main targets when 'cultural marxism' is brought up.

It also shows lack of knowledge about the origins of the term. Cultural Marxism is the continuation of Cultural Bolshevism (a propaganda term used by certain critics in the 20's and 30's to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic or surrealist forms of expression like the ones made by Max Ernst and Max Beckmann).

Chewster:
What do actual academics and other practicing psychologists think of his rambling lectures?

Given the level of citation his work gets within the field, it's hard to imagine they'd not at the least hold respect for him professionally.

Because last I checked, his first tome Maps of Meaning sold like 500 copies before he took the ever so brave stance of refusing to use unconventional pronouns.

That's not what he did and it's impossible to look at what he said that caused all this and rationally come to that conclusion. He took exception to the fact the state is trying to force us to use made up pronounes, despite not only going against the explicit intent of the founding values of this country, but violating section 2 b of the Charter of Rights (which means that if C16 isn't overturned by the courts on a constitutional challenge, it'll be an act of the judiriary illegally passing an amendment). There are so many things wrong with that at the simple conceptual level from a legal standpoint that it goes into the territory that anyone who is either liberal or conservative cannot claim to follow their own stated ideals and support the bill, and that's before we get into the disgusting idea that the state has the right to force you to act in any such way, the fact it sets precedent that opens the door for people with serious medical problems to force others to act in abhorent ways (abuse will happen, anyone who makes these legal documents and doesn't assume they do does so because they are included on the list of future abusers), or the fact it is to be enforced by the illegal Human Rights Tribunals.

Not that the Tribunals have any real power, they only manage to extort money from people because those who get dragged before them don't realize they can't enforce anything they rule on and the courts can't legally force anyone to follow their rulings either. Even North Korea has a lower conviction rate then "100% save for 1 lone example where the Parliment invervined and overturned it".

On the topic at hand, Peterson's alright, he's better at destroying regressives then most because he's as smart as the regressives think they themselves are, and speaks in a language everyone can understand clearly. He also gives great dadpill advice that many young men need and didn't get due to the current nature of society.

That all being said, I don't know why he's associated with the Alt-Right, or right wingers in general, given his overtly left leaning philosophy. I guess he's like Sargon, the current zietgiest of the left is so focussed on collectivism that any form of individuality is seen as right wing, no matter how overtly liberal it is. I don't know about other nations, but by American, Canadian and British standards, there is no argument that Peterson is right wing (just as the same is true for Sargon), and claims that he (and also Sargon) are tell you more about the person making the claim then Peterson himself.

Oh well, Peterson is the face of civil rights activism up here in Canada right now, much to the anger of radical collectivists from what I've seen. Then agian it's easy to become the face of that when the government is attacking our constitutional rights and his message is one that most conservatives, liberals and NDP supporters all agree on.

Seanchaidh:
More decentralized visions of socialism do not have that problem at all. And neither do centralized but actually democratic visions of socialism.

Out of curiosity, are there any actual examples of this in action (that didn't end up as yet another Maoist or Stalanist state that is), or is this another itteration of the "real socialism has never been tried" line that only exists in the West and is laughed at in
both post and current socialist states?

Dude believes that debates between men only remain civil because of the underlying threat of physical violence between the two parties

and that he can't debate against "crazy women" because he can't use physical violence against them if that time were to ever come

undeadsuitor:
Dude believes that debates between men only remain civil because of the underlying threat of physical violence between the two parties

and that he can't debate against "crazy women" because he can't use physical violence against them if that time were to ever come

Don't forget about his fantasies of beating up children.

Zontar:
He also gives great dadpill advice that many young men need and didn't get due to the current nature of society.

Who the hell actually needs to be told "clean up your room"?

Also I gotta wonder what basic fatherly advice isn't being passed down due to the "current nature of society"

I feel like this is either going into a toxic masculinity angle

Or a custody angle

Zontar:
Out of curiosity, are there any actual examples of this

Bolivia.

Silvanus:

Well, Marxism had a tremendous (very possibly transformative) impact on Socialism, but it doesn't form its basis. Socialism pre-dates Marx, most notably in the so-called "Utopian" Socialists, such as Robert Owen.

In practice, socialism as we understand it starts with Marx et al.

Obviously, pretty much no ideologies spring fully formed from the head of their originator(s); there are usually long histories of elements of them, or similar ideologies, that pre-exist. At some point, you realistically have to draw a line for novel creation at a clear and distinct vision, and in terms of socialism that's Marx. Before then, we could perhaps better use terms like "pre-socialist" or "proto-socialist".

The term "socialist" itself was, I believe, coined by a guy who was talking about a system very signficantly different; a sort of capitalistic meritocracy. It's an influence for socialism, but socialism as we understand it now it surely wasn't.

Zontar:
On the topic at hand, Peterson's alright, he's better at destroying regressives...

It's fascinating how you alt-righters are obsessed with the rhetoric of destroying people you disagree with.

What I might hope angry white men get from Peterson is a way to develop internal self-fulfillment that puts them in a happier place, so they have less desire to talk and think about other people in terms of annihilation.

That all being said, I don't know why he's associated with the Alt-Right, or right wingers in general, given his overtly left leaning philosophy.

Probably because the alt-right are the people enthusing over him.

I guess he's like Sargon, the current zietgiest of the left is so focussed on collectivism that any form of individuality is seen as right wing

By my experience, many so-called "individualists" have pretty mixed messages on individualism. Sure, they don't like the government telling them what they can or cannot say, but in practice tend to display considerable contempt and opprobrium to those who are different. The right, for instance, has hardly a good record on favouring individual expression of (say) homosexuality, or (more topically these days) transexualism. It's not just the government, after all. It's also pervasive societal attitudes, religious morality, etc. that constrain individuals. When you support blanket bans on Muslims (thus irrespective of their individual natures), I find it hard to think of that as "individualism" that you otherwise seem to boast that you believe in.

In essence, I think you (plural, i.e. right-wingers) do a great deal of picking and choosing about what you consider individualism to be. It's not that you're wrong that elements of the left can be excessively restrictive, so much that you're blind to your own weaknesses in this area.

Peterson is I guess interesting in that he seems to think self-esteem and self-respect - well, psychological security, really - should lead to an orderly and civil society. If alt-righters take anything from him, hopefully this might be it, and they will spend less time thinking they need to "destroy" people they disagree with.

evilthecat:

No, I'm not confusing them, and you should not be confusing "structuralism" with the idea that there is a natural order or meaning to concepts themselves, which is in fact the opposite of what structuralism implies.

A structuralist binary opposition consists of arbitrary and contingent concepts which achieve temporary meaning through their relation with each other. The idea is that binary oppositions themselves form the universal grammar of human culture, not that any given concept forms of the universal meaning of human culture. Big difference.

"Deconstruction" in the sense you're attempting to use it is not the process of unmaking structures, but is rooted in the contingent nature of the structures themselves. A text deconstructs itself through the lack of an external referent, precisely because each individual sign within it is arbitrary. Grammar alone, ultimately, cannot grant meaning to the meaningless, and thus to preserve the meaning of our thought we have to try and look beyond structuralism itself.

This is the same issue Peterson has with "postmodernism" (he doesn't seem to know what poststructuralism is). He assumes that the "post" implies an opposition and that postmodernism is the intentional rejection of meaning, whereas in reality it is the failure of modernism to substantiate its own meaning that makes postmodernism necessary at all.

That's quite a convoluted way of confirming what I suggested. And the problem that Peterson has with postmodernism is precisely with how it's strategically deployed to negate all good-faith attempts at establishing meaning. That's very much intentional, in service of goals other than meaning.

CaitSeith:

It also shows lack of knowledge about the origins of the term. Cultural Marxism is the continuation of Cultural Bolshevism (a propaganda term used by certain critics in the 20's and 30's to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic or surrealist forms of expression like the ones made by Max Ernst and Max Beckmann).

Ah, this old thing again. Behold the works of ignorance and Nazi conspiracy theories:

image

image

image

'Nuff shown, I trust. Of course it's not orthodox Marxism, and Karl Marx himself would reject the primacy of "cultural intervention" as getting the Revolution completely backwards, not to mention the identitarian divisions undoing the solidarity of the working class. But it's all deeply informed by Marxism, and thus "post-Marxist" at the very least. "Cultural Marxism" isn't exactly Marxism, but then, "Social Justice" isn't exactly Justice either.

There are very complex theoretical constructions behind the boneheadedly simplistic praxis, derived from multiple sources. So you have to have some kind of shorthand for identifying the common starting points.

StatusNil:
snip

Not that any of that stops dumb Youtubers to misuse it as a fearmongering term (in other words, applying it to work not influenced by Marxism). Their audience knee-jerks to anything that it's declared Marxism or Communism. You want to behold works of ignorance and conspiracy theories, that's the best place (after 4chan).

Samtemdo8:
But I like to see any other opinions regarding him.

Well, poop. I wrote a big long post on the topic, and then the browser crashed and it got eaten. Fuck it; here's version 2.

Jordan Peterson is a reasonably intelligent and qualified professor of psychology who has a long career and a few books under his belt. I have no reason to doubt his credentials or his intelligence. Unfortunately, like many academics (including myself, on occasion), he has fallen into the trap of assuming that because he is a smart person, he can saunter into subject matters that he has no education or experience in whatsoever and begin speaking authoritatively on the matter. Like most academics (including myself, on occasion) who fall for this trap, he has often proceeded to say some incredibly stupid and ill-informed nonsense.

The best example of this was his criticism of a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, called C-16. This was what first got him on the internet's radar; he posted some of his lectures on Youtube, and after they went viral, he got a lot of media attention where he repeated his criticism, which was essentially that C-16 would criminalise speech to the extent that Peterson would face legal penalties for things he'd said in previous lectures, and that it compelled people to speak in a "politically correct" fashion or risk jail time.

The problem is that - as you'd expect from a professor of psychology commenting on a matter of law - Peterson got the law wrong. C-16 didn't do that. All C-16 did was add "gender identity" to the list of categories that are permitted protection against unfair discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. It did not alter the administrative tribunal behind the CHRA, which has been operating smoothly since the 70s with no major violations of due process. It did not expose anyone to criminal penalties - the administrative tribunal arm of the CHRA, like all other administrative tribunals, is not a court and does not have the sentencing powers of a court. It cannot sentence people to jail time or hold people in contempt. It can, at most, impose a small fine, and anyone upset with the fine can appeal their case directly to a federal court, so no-one is being denied due process. C-16 was passed into law by the Canadian Parliament and has been in effect for over a year now; no-one has been arrested or thrown into jail as a result. Jordan Peterson was making unsubstantiated, alarmist claims about a piece of legislation that he clearly did not understand, and in the process made himself look a whole lot stupider than he probably is.

There's other things I can criticise Peterson for. I went on and on about this in the original post. I haven't even gotten into his grand unifying theory of cultural Marxism (which is batshit crazy) or his ill-advised use of lobsters as an analogy for the psychological foundations of human social hierarchies (lobsters don't have brains). But I haven't the energy to recreate the whole thing, so the tl;dr about Jordan Peterson is that I have no reason to doubt the quality of his work in the field of psychology, but whenever he ventures out from his own field - into questions of law or postmodernism or marine biology - he puts his foot straight into his mouth.

Unfortunately, he's discovered that there's a lucrative business to be made in appealing to the anxieties of disaffected young men, so he's not likely to stop any time soon.

He's an SJW snowflake. Just his idea of Social Justice is being extremely disrespectful to other people.

Sonmi:
A traditional religious fundamentalist opportunistically turned cynical self-help guru upheld by young right-wing men and women in the Western world as a beacon of reason against """Leftism""" and "SJWs"/substitute father figure.

I get the feeling that substitute father figure really nails it here.

Of course, the trouble is that if you believe that to be true, you're also stimultaneously admitting Jordan Peterson is completely right about some of his more hardline views on family, parenting and how society fails young adults. The very fact that there are millions of people desperately searching for such a father figure - so desperately that they'll take a Canadian who uploads videos to Youtube and has a bit of a stricter tone, mind - proves it.

undeadsuitor:
Also I gotta wonder what basic fatherly advice isn't being passed down due to the "current nature of society"

I feel like this is either going into a toxic masculinity angle

Or a custody angle

You should really talk to some children who grow up without father figures or adults who spent their childhood like that. It wreaks havok. In my view this topic deserves roughly 10 times the attention it currently gets but alas, its always hijacked by people who either want to bring back the 50's nuclear family or/and people who want to completely dismantle gender.

Oh, right, and my views on Peterson.

Well, I like him a lot although if I spent an hour talking to him he'd probably consider me one of those evil cultural marxists because of my views on class.

And my God I cannot understand the hatred he gets from my leftist bretheren. Now here is a guy who undeniably comes from the heart of the "new right", who you could argue has helped shaped it. But he doesn't shy away from debating other intellectuals in favor of dismantling 17 year old college students. He encourages people to read Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Jung instead of retweeting "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS 8 year old kid at debate on minimum wage EXPLICIT BRUTAL COMPILATION #5176". He attacks arguments instead of people, he makes those arguments as strong as possible before attempting to dismantle them instead of making them as weak as possible.

If improving the world is within your interest this is the kind of guy you want to be facing, not another Milo or Shapiro who will repeatedly drag discussion to the lowest possible point and keep it there.

I get the feeling that Jordan Petersons clear cut, relatively well founded and (comparatively) easy to understand proposed utopia puts us on the left under pressure to also create something clear cut, well founded and accessible. But thats something we've failed to do for the past decades?which is why the left wing is starting to loose out in our little "left - right" battle. People would rather keep fighting the enemy they know because the enemy they know - Trump, Milo, Sargon, etc - well, lets face it, they're complete and utter morons and easy to argue against. I'm not the smartest guy out there but I can watch a Milo video and confidently dismantle his bullshit worldview in about 5 minutes. Peterson, now, that takes a little bit more work.

bastardofmelbourne:
I haven't even gotten into his grand unifying theory of cultural Marxism (which is batshit crazy) or his ill-advised use of lobsters as an analogy for the psychological foundations of human social hierarchies (lobsters don't have brains).

Lol, Wikipedia. One of the gaggle of people there who got the previously existing "Cultural Marxism" page deleted and rerouted to the "Muh Conspiracy!" page instead used to call himself a Cultural Marxist in his own profile. But then people started talking about it (2014, I believe), and they went on an erasing spree. Watched it as it happened, there was even a vote. Some of us used to study that stuff, though, so we're not especially bamboozled.

And the lobster thing? That's the point. It's a counter to the claim that it was all culture/the patriarchy what dun it. Established hierarchies, that is.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

undeadsuitor:
Also I gotta wonder what basic fatherly advice isn't being passed down due to the "current nature of society"

I feel like this is either going into a toxic masculinity angle

Or a custody angle

You should really talk to some children who grow up without father figures or adults who spent their childhood like that. It wreaks havok. In my view this topic deserves roughly 10 times the attention it currently gets but alas, its always hijacked by people who either want to bring back the 50's nuclear family or/and people who want to completely dismantle gender.

What does that have to do with the "current nature of society" though? Absent or emotionally distant fathers have existed for generations. It used to be the desired norm.

Agema:

In practice, socialism as we understand it starts with Marx et al.

Obviously, pretty much no ideologies spring fully formed from the head of their originator(s); there are usually long histories of elements of them, or similar ideologies, that pre-exist. At some point, you realistically have to draw a line for novel creation at a clear and distinct vision, and in terms of socialism that's Marx. Before then, we could perhaps better use terms like "pre-socialist" or "proto-socialist".

The term "socialist" itself was, I believe, coined by a guy who was talking about a system very signficantly different; a sort of capitalistic meritocracy. It's an influence for socialism, but socialism as we understand it now it surely wasn't.

No ideology springs fully-formed, and I certainly think a tradition of proto-socialism existed (mostly in European philosophical and industrial circles, and where those two intersected-- as with Owen's friendship with Jeremy Bentham).

Yet, I wouldn't call Robert Owen (or other "Utopians") proto-Socialist at all: his concept would be very familiar to philosophical socialists today-- communal input, and communal benefiting, in the industrial process; ameliorative, government-funded and government-run programmes geared towards the poor (a welfare state before the welfare state); communal, state-funded childcare. It was socialist in both spirit and name.

Marx, in drawing a line between "scientific" socialism and what he called "utopian", created a framework he believed more practical and applicable... yet it was Owen who was in a position to put his theories into practice, and did exactly that (to a limited degree, but nonetheless).

Marx's concept of Socialism as a necessary stage in society's development, inherently connected to communism, is pretty damn far from the concept of socialism as it exists in the majority of socialist parties in the world today. I'd go so far as to say theirs shares more with Owen. And, for that, I'd agree wholeheartedly that we have to draw a line for "novel creation", but I'd draw it under the feet of the Utopian Socialists.

He's a charlatan who preaches truism. He's not stupid though.

StatusNil:
That's quite a convoluted way of confirming what I suggested.

No, it is not what you suggested, and if you paid attention to the "convolution" you might see why.

Structuralism originated in linguistics, and in particular in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure is most famous for his work on the internal structure of the linguistic sign (the way in which objects which exists are rendered as linguistic concepts). For subsequent structuralists, however, the most important thing is that no part of the sign includes or even relates to the "referent" (the object which exists in reality and to which the sign refers). In other words, there is no intrinsic or causal relationship between linguistic meaning and reality. Language does not reflect reality, but in fact shapes the way in which we perceive and divide up the confusing matter of reality into discreet concepts.

But this leaves a problem which was already present at the origin of structuralism. If the linguistic sign is arbitrary, if concepts don't have inherent meaning, then where does meaning come from? To answer this, Saussure was instrumental in creating a discipline called semiotics, which looks at the way in which meaning is created through the relationship between concepts, as opposed to being semantically contained within those concepts itself. Semiotics was hugely influenced by his structuralism, and in turn subsequent structuralists and post-structuralists tended to be interested in semiotics. That's why Levi Strauss was so interested in binary oppositions, it's also why Derrida came up with the idea of "differance" (that the meaning of concepts is always dependent upon a network of other concepts from which they differ). It is not because Levi-Strauss believed that certain binary oppositions of concepts contained inherent or transcendental meaning, but because as a structuralist he understood that no concept could contain meaning on its own, only the underlying substructure of relations between concepts could allow for meaning.

The idea that order is inherently "masculine" and chaos is inherently "feminine" is nonsense from a structuralist perspective. We could talk about logocentrism, and of the inherent tendency of structural binaries to operate in an unequal fashion (and thus to create networks of assocations between valued and devalued concepts) due to the cognitive preference for presence over absence, or sufficiency over lack, but to make this argument this would require us to draw on the very people (the dreaded "postmodernists" who aren't actually postmodernists) that Peterson hates. In short, it's not his argument, his argument is not a structuralist theory. It's a Jungian theory, and it's as weak, lazy and saturated in magical thinking as all Jungian theory.

StatusNil:
And the problem that Peterson has with postmodernism is precisely with how it's strategically deployed to negate all good-faith attempts at establishing meaning.

Except again, that's not true of the people he accuses of being postmodernists.

Anyone whose actually read and understood Foucault, for example, will be able to see the clear ethical baseline in Foucault's own writing. He is not writing for no reason.

In fact, Peterson himself routinely seems to notice this, right before making the undergraduate mistake of assuming any form of critical ethical baseline must be some form of coded Marxism. See also, the absurd contradiction that on one hand "postmodernism" is destroying all value and on the other hand "postmodernism" is turning people into insane cult-like fanatics forcing their values onto everyone else.

StatusNil:
Ah, this old thing again. Behold the works of ignorance and Nazi conspiracy theories:

And again, behold as people point out to you as they have many, many times that there are multiple meanings of the term "cultural Marxism", that the examples you've brought up are disciplinarily specific and have absolutely no relationship to what Jordan Peterson is talking about when he and his fans talk about cultural Marxism.

Also watch as you completely fail to listen.. again.. like you have all the times before.

The irony, of course, is that "Kulturbolschewismus" was ultimately a label the Nazis applied to any form of culture or media they didn't like in order to denounce and discredit it as degenerate or un-German, whether its targets were were related or not, whether they had anything to do with Marxism or Judaism or not, whatever its national or cultural origin. "Kulturbolschewismus" didn't actually mean anything, it just meant "stuff the Nazis don't like".

So at least modern critics/accusers of "cultural Marxism" have got that right, because even they don't seem to be able to decide amongst themselves what it actually is, only that whatever it is it must be bad.

undeadsuitor:
What does that have to do with the "current nature of society" though? Absent or emotionally distant fathers have existed for generations. It used to be the desired norm.

If you want to have any decent discussion here you'll have to be more specific than that. I don't know what time period you're referring to for a start so its impossible for me to agree or disagree with what you're saying.

evilthecat:
Anyone whose actually read and understood Foucault, for example, will be able to see the clear ethical baseline in Foucault's own writing. He is not writing for no reason.

Is there anywhere where Foucault is actually explicit on what such a baseline might be? Because when I read him he ussually seemed to prefer to keep his ethics implicit and to be rather non-committal on the matter when pushed (even though it was clear to anyone reading between the lines which way he was leaning). I've met some people who are fairly well versed in Foucault who still think that Foucault's work is essentially non-normative all the way down. That reading never struck me as all that plausible given the way he expresses himself, but I don't know enough about Foucault to be sure.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

And my God I cannot understand the hatred he gets from my leftist bretheren. Now here is a guy who undeniably comes from the heart of the "new right", who you could argue has helped shaped it. But he doesn't shy away from debating other intellectuals in favor of dismantling 17 year old college students. He encourages people to read Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Jung instead of retweeting "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS 8 year old kid at debate on minimum wage EXPLICIT BRUTAL COMPILATION #5176". He attacks arguments instead of people, he makes those arguments as strong as possible before attempting to dismantle them instead of making them as weak as possible.

If improving the world is within your interest this is the kind of guy you want to be facing, not another Milo or Shapiro who will repeatedly drag discussion to the lowest possible point and keep it there.

Sorry, I just don't get the point that people should like someone directly opposed to their political views just because he affects an outer veneer of intelligence.

Quite frankly, as a leftist, the people I want to be facing ARE the morons. Because they ARE easy to beat. Like, isn't that the whole point of a political ideology? To produce change as you see it is needed?

BreakfastMan:
Sorry, I just don't get the point that people should like someone directly opposed to their political views just because he affects an outer veneer of intelligence.

Quite frankly, as a leftist, the people I want to be facing ARE the morons. Because they ARE easy to beat. Like, isn't that the whole point of a political ideology? To produce change as you see it is needed?

I'm not asking you to like him exactly, I'm saying he deserves more respect than characters such as Milo. I don't think red hatred leading into a glourious revolution is the way to go anymore - its 2018, Leninist fantasies of a worldwide workers revolution need to die, it won't happen, so demonization isn't useful anymore. I suppose it worked well enough for the right recently but the problem is once the power switch has happened you're still stuck with that toxic hatred, not exactly the healthiest way to launch a just society.

The second part with all due respect smacks of poor character. If you're in politics or other influential areas to just "win" that's bad news. If you're in those areas and want an easy ride that's also bad news. And if you think the "morons" are easy to beat that's also bad news. (I mean, we are NOT beating them. Trump won the election, Le Pen got very far, Germany has a real right wing party again, Brexit happened, blabla. If you think the left is winning just because we can outmanuveur random right wing advocates in the occasional online debate, well, thats Ben Shapiro levels of delusion.) The left didn't find a decent answer to the alt-right when their prime figures were Milo and Lauren South, how exactly do you expect to find an answer to someone like Peterson?

It is my hope that Peterson will be useful in producing the change you speak of, even if he does so in an unintended way.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

undeadsuitor:
What does that have to do with the "current nature of society" though? Absent or emotionally distant fathers have existed for generations. It used to be the desired norm.

If you want to have any decent discussion here you'll have to be more specific than that. I don't know what time period you're referring to for a start so its impossible for me to agree or disagree with what you're saying.

tl;dr Zontar claims that speakers like Peterson imparting "dadpill" knowledge onto young men are necessary because, and I quote, the "current nature of society" prohibits or robs them of fatherly advice.

You said something about children who grew up without father figures, but that doesn't really explain the concept of "current nature of society" since missing dads isn't really a new thing.

undeadsuitor:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

undeadsuitor:
What does that have to do with the "current nature of society" though? Absent or emotionally distant fathers have existed for generations. It used to be the desired norm.

If you want to have any decent discussion here you'll have to be more specific than that. I don't know what time period you're referring to for a start so its impossible for me to agree or disagree with what you're saying.

tl;dr Zontar claims that speakers like Peterson imparting "dadpill" knowledge onto young men are necessary because, and I quote, the "current nature of society" prohibits or robs them of fatherly advice.

You said something about children who grew up without father figures, but that doesn't really explain the concept of "current nature of society" since missing dads isn't really a new thing.

Oh, right, I misread that sorry.

Well, just because missing dads aren't a new thing doesn't mean they're a good thing, right?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

BreakfastMan:
Sorry, I just don't get the point that people should like someone directly opposed to their political views just because he affects an outer veneer of intelligence.

Quite frankly, as a leftist, the people I want to be facing ARE the morons. Because they ARE easy to beat. Like, isn't that the whole point of a political ideology? To produce change as you see it is needed?

I'm not asking you to like him exactly, I'm saying he deserves more respect than characters such as Milo. I don't think red hatred leading into a glourious revolution is the way to go anymore - its 2018, Leninist fantasies of a worldwide workers revolution need to die, it won't happen, so demonization isn't useful anymore. I suppose it worked well enough for the right recently but the problem is once the power switch has happened you're still stuck with that toxic hatred, not exactly the healthiest way to launch a just society.

Granted yeah, I don't think a 1917-style revolution is reasonable either. However, any political movement still relies on people taking action; either going into the streets to protest or showing up en-masse to vote. You don't get that by being all nice and respectful.

The second part with all due respect smacks of poor character. If you're in politics or other influential areas to just "win" that's bad news. If you're in those areas and want an easy ride that's also bad news.

I really don't get this point. Of course I want my political ideology to "win", why wouldn't I? If I believe this is the best course for society, why should I not want it to come about as soon as possible? If you march to the gallows with your head held high, you are still getting hanged at the end of the day.

And if you think the "morons" are easy to beat that's also bad news.

"Easy to beat" was probably bad phrasing, but they are definitely undeniably easier. They more readily expose the contradictions inherent in the system. Don't forget, Brexit did happen, but what happened afterward? Corbyn arrived as a real political player and is incredibly close to snagging the PM spot. I am not an accelerationist by any means, but it is undeniable that dumb right wingers are better for us.

The left didn't find a decent answer to the alt-right when their prime figures were Milo and Lauren South, how exactly do you expect to find an answer to someone like Peterson?

I would argue it is liberals (who have far more power and visibility currently than the actual left in most western countries) that don't have an answer to Milo, not the left. But that is a separate discussion entirely.

BreakfastMan:
Corbyn arrived as a real political player and is incredibly close to snagging the PM spot. I am not an accelerationist by any means, but it is undeniable that dumb right wingers are better for us.

Is the rise of Corbyn actually a consequence of Brexit? They could also be independent and coincidental. Or they could both be caused mostly by another variable. (I take the third view.)

Seanchaidh:

BreakfastMan:
Corbyn arrived as a real political player and is incredibly close to snagging the PM spot. I am not an accelerationist by any means, but it is undeniable that dumb right wingers are better for us.

Is the rise of Corbyn actually a consequence of Brexit? They could also be independent and coincidental. Or they could both be caused mostly by another variable. (I take the third view.)

I think there is a point to be made that the complete incompetence of the tories during the Brexit vote definitely helped Labour. At the very least, the Brexit vote caused the resignation of Cameron and the appointment of May, and May called the most recent vote that led to the Tories losing their majority and having to form a coalition with the DUP, and Labour gaining seats (which one could also argue is at least partially due to May's absolute failing during that campaign to make a case for the Conservatives and Corbyn's work to address people's actual concerns).

Seanchaidh:

Is the rise of Corbyn actually a consequence of Brexit? They could also be independent and coincidental. Or they could both be caused mostly by another variable. (I take the third view.)

The popularity of Corbyn certainly isn't solely a result of the referendum (or of the negotiations with the EU). It has its true origin in the alienation felt by left-wing Labour members (and voters) since the drastic shift towards the economic centre-right taken by the Labour Party since 1997.

This shift resulted in some electoral success (in 1997, to begin with), but also resulted in a feeling of partial betrayal. The UK has an exceptionally strong "tribal" tradition of party loyalty, meaning that long-standing Labour voters were highly unlikely to betray the party, but also likely not to feel represented by the direction the party took in the years following '97.

Hence, rather than leaving the party or supporting an external party, the Left-Wing galvanised around an internal candidate they felt represented a return to "Old Labour" values (such as nationalisation of utilities and the railways, or re-distributive tax rates; generally, policies broadly popular with Labour members, but neglected since '97).

At least, that's my take.

Silvanus:

At least, that's my take.

I'm of the (albeit speculative) opinion that Labour's Centre-Right leanings were one of the major driving factors in the rise of UKIP and Brexit support among the working class and Northern Regions myself. I;d also draw a parallel to the SNP and the Independence Referendum.

What would be your take on that along with Labour's state post-Brown until Corbyn's ascension?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here