What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

He's the phrase "know-nothing know-it-all" personified.

altnameJag:
"Postmodernist" has become one of those nonsense words used to denote "the bad people". Seriously, Adorno (the Cultural Marxist), was not exactly a favorite of the post-modernist movement.

Like, they didn't like each other. At all.

Not much of a coincidence that it sounds almost identical to fundamentalist Christian's assertion that the science world is one massive atheist unified front when the science world is so dog-eat-dog that each pooch is issued a menu at birth.

Agema:

CM156:

Side note, but that depends on a lot of factors such as the jurisdiction they are in. Where I live you're not allowed to discriminate against people for reasons related to any protected class they belong to. But short of that? Yes, it would be legal not to hire someone accused but never convicted of a serious crime. In some states that might not be the case.

Accepted: they may indeed vary by state. It may also differ whether the employer is public or private sector.

Broadly, I think an employer would have an onus to show that hiring was specifically refused on grounds relevant, reasonable and proportional to the job in question. Bearing in mind in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to consider spent criminal convictions (albeit with some exceptions), it seems to me inconceivable that employers could legally consider mere accusations in those jurisdictions.

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

CM156:

Agema:

CM156:

Side note, but that depends on a lot of factors such as the jurisdiction they are in. Where I live you're not allowed to discriminate against people for reasons related to any protected class they belong to. But short of that? Yes, it would be legal not to hire someone accused but never convicted of a serious crime. In some states that might not be the case.

Accepted: they may indeed vary by state. It may also differ whether the employer is public or private sector.

Broadly, I think an employer would have an onus to show that hiring was specifically refused on grounds relevant, reasonable and proportional to the job in question. Bearing in mind in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to consider spent criminal convictions (albeit with some exceptions), it seems to me inconceivable that employers could legally consider mere accusations in those jurisdictions.

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

Yeah, I've heard in battery egg farms in America where humans aren't allowed to have a break for their shift. Including toilet breaks. The suggestion is the employees wear nappies to get through the day...

And, as far as I'm aware, in the US, many business owners are concerned about employees having too many rights. I just shake my head. IDK - how the above example doesn't lead to stricter laws? The only way to get lighter laws is to treat employees nicely so they aren't necessary.

I think it's important to clarify a little issue of terminology.

Modernity, in philosophical terms at least, describes a sensibility or attitude characterised by a stadial awareness of time as heterogeneous, as well as the period of time in which this attitude prevails. What this means in simple terms is that modernity is a state of being in which someone perceives a break or rupture between the "modern world" and the past, or between new ideas and tradition, which cannot be reconciled into a stable overarching order. In Europe, modernity can be linked to end of the renaissance and questioning of the truth of classical learning towards the end of the 17th century.

Modernism is a philosophical, literary and artistic tradition dating to the late-19th century (sometimes called the fin de siecle period) and marked by a general dissatisfaction with the bourgeois society of the time and thus with the values and ideals of both the radical enlightenment and the reactionary counter-enlightenment, both of which modernists saw as dogmatic and archaic. Modernism was strongly associated with anti-rationalism and the rejection of reason as the absolute determinate of truth and morality. Philosophically, modernists were often strongly critical of the society they lived in and conventional or traditional morality, and pessimistic about the future and the direction in which the world seemed to be heading.

The point here, and one I sort of hinted at earlier, is that many of the features people tend to project onto postmodernism are actually features of modernism. Edward Said did not invent postcolonial theory. Frantz Fanon was doing it long before him. Judith Butler did not introduce the idea of socially constructed gender, if anyone did it was Simone de Beauvoir. These people are modernists (specifically they are existentialists), not postmodernists. Friedrich Nietzche was a modernist. Sigmund Freud was a modernist. Max Weber was a modernist. The entire Frankfurt school are modernists. Ultimately, Michel Foucault is a modernist. These are not people who would agree with the rationalist, Enlightenment account of the autonomous human subject who can know the truth of reality through reason alone.

But "modernism" doesn't mean that.

Postmodernism is, depending on how you look at it, either a continuation of a reaction to either modernism or modernity or else (according to Lyotard) a latent tendency within modernity itself present from its inception. It is marked, ultimately, by a rejection of the central thesis of modernity itself (that our society is in transition, and that this is an exceptional state). Postmodernists, like Jean Baudrillard and Jean-Francois Lyotard argue that society has no coherent motion and that there is no coherent objective towards which it is moving.

Postmodernism is also associated with the rejection of "grand narratives" or "metanarratives" (Lyotard's term, although you will very seldom see self-appointed critics of "postmodernism" cite him for it because they generally don't know who he is). A metanarrative is the idea of a kind of overarching goal for society itself, or a story which we tell ourselves about society which vindicates its existence. Marxists, for example, might see the goal of society as the achievement of communism. While liberals might see the goal of society as one of maximizing freedom and view society as a progression towards human emancipation. These "metanarratives" propose a kind of utopian dream of what the future will or should be like, and postmodernists ultimately reject the idea that society should have (or indeed can have, given that as mentioned society has no clear trajectory) any such unifying goal, often equating such a thing with attempts to force or coerce a goal onto society itself.

In this sense, and despite the laughable occasional claim that postmodernism is analogous to "cultural Marxism", postmodernists are extremely critical of Marxism. For postmodernists, both the left and the right have failed to realise the utopian ambitions they promised, and the conclusion is that such utopian ambitions are either impossible or undesirable. Instead, we need a model of cultural and political action not dependent on such utopian ambitions at all. Note that this does not necessarily mean dispensing with ethics, just that ethics will (like everything else) have to become microcosmic in a world without clear universals.

I am not a postmodernist.

evilthecat:

Postmodernism is, depending on how you look at it, either a continuation of a reaction to either modernism or modernity or else (according to Lyotard) a latent tendency within modernity itself present from its inception. It is marked, ultimately, by a rejection of the central thesis of modernity itself (that our society is in transition, and that this is an exceptional state). Postmodernists, like Jean Baudrillard and Jean-Francois Lyotard argue that society has no coherent motion and that there is no coherent objective towards which it is moving.

Postmodernism is also associated with the rejection of "grand narratives" or "metanarratives" (Lyotard's term, although you will very seldom see self-appointed critics of "postmodernism" cite him for it because they generally don't know who he is). A metanarrative is the idea of a kind of overarching goal for society itself, or a story which we tell ourselves about society which vindicates its existence. Marxists, for example, might see the goal of society as the achievement of communism. While liberals might see the goal of society as one of maximizing freedom and view society as a progression towards human emancipation. These "metanarratives" propose a kind of utopian dream of what the future will or should be like, and postmodernists ultimately reject the idea that society should have (or indeed can have, given that as mentioned society has no clear trajectory) any such unifying goal, often equating such a thing with attempts to force or coerce a goal onto society itself.

In this sense, and despite the laughable occasional claim that postmodernism is analogous to "cultural Marxism", postmodernists are extremely critical of Marxism. For postmodernists, both the left and the right have failed to realise the utopian ambitions they promised, and the conclusion is that such utopian ambitions are either impossible or undesirable. Instead, we need a model of cultural and political action not dependent on such utopian ambitions at all. Note that this does not necessarily mean dispensing with ethics, just that ethics will (like everything else) have to become microcosmic in a world without clear universals.

I am not a postmodernist.

I'll debate that. Postmodernism, particularly in terms of replicating artistic renditions of the world as if to communicate an artist's sense of alienation, is an inherent part ofa shared material reality crippled by a purely personal, subjective view of our humanity and the relationship to the universe. In a manner of speaking the great disillusionment(s) of the Great War/Communism/The Great Depression/WW2/The Cold War. You could also describe it in terms of cult members feeling disenfranchised by their own beliefs. Like being sold a metanarrative of apocalyptic carnage, and yet when the clock hits 0-hour... nothing happens.

Like the after-effects of drug use, and all you have left is the fleeting sense of euphoria you've lost... and rather than chasing another high, deciding to dwell on that emptiness.

Dadaism, for instance... and what became of Dadaism after the fact.

And postmodernism also helps create a 'spike' in the feed. Like one of my favourite movies of all time is The Life Aquatic (with Steve Zissou).

The movie is absurdist, and the second you might get swept into the colours of the world, immersed into the blend of fantastic and mundane, the movie purposefully reinforces the point of reminding the viewer that they're watching a fabrication of storytelling. The movie actively fights you being immersed, no matter how much you might want to. Arguably it's an extension of Nietzsche's idea of pure escapism being kind of wrong. And there is a good critique there that escapism, metanarratives, are inherently simplifications of what is an existence with only self-constructed meaning. And that's not wrong...

I would argue The Life Aquatic is a beautiful, tragic, solemn, wonderful example of anti-art ... a rejection of storytelling and narrative formation that does everything it can to distance the viewer from connecting with anything but asense of a shared, flawed, egotistical human condition and experience that is uncomfortable ... but fairly important question aboutour humanity to confront.

Peterson's fucking stupid commentary about grasping at straws of postmodernists, and cultural Marxists, and the Left, and the importance of religion.

It's stupid ... it's cultist talk about yet another zero hour that will never happen. And the reason why it won't happen is precisely because a postmodernist will tell them it's a fantasy. Bursting his little bubble of conspiratorial threads. And arguably that's the only reason why he lumps them together as if 'the enemy'. Arguably postmodernists focus on the human condition of alienation, and of existential angst. And it's a bit hard to pretend like these don't exist.

Even existentialists like Kierkegaard danced around the idea of a 'cure' for it all. A global panacea of our sapience ... but what if there isn't any? And this idea of rejecting the metanarrative is kind of important in history, philosophy, scientific inquiry, all facets of academic disciplines. You need to recognize that if you're creating artificial narrative bubbles to recognize your coerciveness over how it is displayed and analyzed.

Like a big issue of Second Wave was quite literally 'White, wealthy woman's academic feminism' ... The Greers, the Jeffreys, etc ...

It's hard not to see coercion of the narrative, the bridling of the narrative, and the faux utopianism that it described that shielded itself from criticism by all the women who needed 'the feed' the most yet pretended it was speaking for even as they were silenced.

Postmodernism is a natural reaction to European, colonial ideas of "rationality" and "modernity" ...

And Peterson is the perfect explanation and example of why that is bad. For example hisideas ongender mired purely on European and Christian ideas of gender and sexuality. Not other cultural ideas of gender and sexuality... So much so he misappropriates 'science' and compares humans to lobsters, and ignores everything and everyone else that tells him he's wrong.

And how convenient that he then wraps them all up in a convenient ball of targets and pretends they all share as if similar traits (and as if sharing one agenda) beyond different people telling him he's full of shit for different reasons.

Postmodernism is merely a reaction to the assumptions of modernism. It's the quintessential question of; "and yet ... why is it do I think you're lying?"

trunkage:

CM156:

Agema:

Accepted: they may indeed vary by state. It may also differ whether the employer is public or private sector.

Broadly, I think an employer would have an onus to show that hiring was specifically refused on grounds relevant, reasonable and proportional to the job in question. Bearing in mind in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to consider spent criminal convictions (albeit with some exceptions), it seems to me inconceivable that employers could legally consider mere accusations in those jurisdictions.

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

Yeah, I've heard in battery egg farms in America where humans aren't allowed to have a break for their shift. Including toilet breaks. The suggestion is the employees wear nappies to get through the day...

And, as far as I'm aware, in the US, many business owners are concerned about employees having too many rights. I just shake my head. IDK - how the above example doesn't lead to stricter laws? The only way to get lighter laws is to treat employees nicely so they aren't necessary.

Combination of factors, including a labor surplus that makes people desperate for any job they can find, and the fact that unions have earned a bad rap (deserved or undeserved) and unionized labor is on the decline.

But yes, the labor law in most states is worse than what you'd find in most of the developed world. For example, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Which puts us behind Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, France, and Luxemburg.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Dadaism, for instance... and what became of Dadaism after the fact.

I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that dadaism is also an extreme example of modernism.

This is part of my point. It's a misconception to think that modernism is always positive about life in modernity or indeed about where it's going. Modernism too was a reaction to failures and atrocities. One of my favourite examples of literary modernism will always be Heart of Darkness, a book about the perfect European white man who goes to Africa with lofty ideals of civilizing the natives and spreading European values and comes back a broken, diseased wreck who dies whispering "the horror, the horror". It's a profoundly, profoundly nihilistic story which ends with the narrator literally perceiving the night around him as an immense, swallowing darkness. If the enlightenment was the "maturity" of mankind (as Kant claimed) then modernism is in some ways the consequent loss of mankind's innocence, the realisation of being a very small speck in a very big universe.

At the same time, some modernist art (particularly the avant garde) was genuinely excited about the possibility of creating something genuinely new to fill the empty space of that cosmic void, so I'm not saying that modernism was all depressing all the time, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more depressing than postmodernism. Postmodernism really isn't an angsty position, because it entails a kind of comfort with and acceptance of the inadequacies of the world, of moral systems and ultimately of human beings. I just think in reality that kind of acceptance is difficult to grasp in a world that is still overwhelmingly dominated by liberalism. The "end of history" is looking more Fukuyama than Baudrillard to me.

evilthecat:

I get what you're saying, but it's worth noting that dadaism is also an extreme example of modernism.

This is part of my point. It's a misconception to think that modernism is always positive about life in modernity or indeed about where it's going. Modernism too was a reaction to failures and atrocities. One of my favourite examples of literary modernism will always be Heart of Darkness, a book about the perfect European white man who goes to Africa with lofty ideals of civilizing the natives and spreading European values and comes back a broken, diseased wreck who dies whispering "the horror, the horror". It's a profoundly, profoundly nihilistic story which ends with the narrator literally perceiving the night around him as an immense, swallowing darkness. If the enlightenment was the "maturity" of mankind (as Kant claimed) then modernism is in some ways the consequent loss of mankind's innocence, the realisation of being a very small speck in a very big universe.

At the same time, some modernist art (particularly the avant garde) was genuinely excited about the possibility of creating something genuinely new to fill the empty space of that cosmic void, so I'm not saying that modernism was all depressing all the time, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more depressing than postmodernism. Postmodernism really isn't an angsty position, because it entails a kind of comfort with and acceptance of the inadequacies of the world, of moral systems and ultimately of human beings. I just think in reality that kind of acceptance is difficult to grasp in a world that is still overwhelmingly dominated by liberalism. The "end of history" is looking more Fukuyama than Baudrillard to me.

But I don't buy rationalism and the rationalist awakening. It was nonsense romanticism, and the particular type of romantic nonsense that lead to Newton practicing occultism and researching Christian apocrypha and alchemy. It lead to mercantilism and the horrors of colonialism, butchering ideas of social progress and human hsppiness, reduction and forcible exchange of community and civil progress of human happiness and empowerment with a toxic wasteland and broken humans crushed under a false dichotomy of capital vs. labour that the West forcibly inflicted on the rest of the planet. An argument many native societies never had and were actually predicated on ideas of human happiness and collective wellbeing.

The early existentialists were just as bad, despite recognizing the problem (like Kierkegaard) ... and I love Kierkegaard. His writings on despair is just *perfect* ... I gel with it entirely ... but the answers he came up with highlight the problem of the 'Western gaze' equally well. "Filling the cosmic hole" and "sublime living" ...

Which is fucking stupid. We are the universe recognizing ourselves,and what we all see is as many shades of confusion, chaos, mystery, but also beauty as there are people on the planet. True appreciation for another person is recognizing the beauty of another person counting stars, seeing themselves and another in them like a reflection of one's face in the mirror. Not remarking on the void between them, for it is nothing compared to its beauty that is that inherent connectivity to eternity. And postmodernism is about celebrating that speck of light. Not dust, light.

Nietzsche was hopeful, but not utopian. And you do not need a metanarrative to see beauty in another person as that chaotic starlight. Just like I don't need a metanarrative as I drink a beer outside my campsite on the Blue Mountains, and stargaze at night laying atop a gumtree branch.

'Modernity' was an excuse in the horror that we inflicted on future generations, and we called it classicslly progressive. And it is fantastically obvious in historiography. Kantian classical progressivism born from the European gaze, is used to justify in very Les Annales School-esque ways even European colonialism to this day (Australia's history wars', etc).

Modernism isn't cheerful... because we have nothing happy left to see in Euro-school driven narratives (excuses) it has comstantly tried to justify the mechanics, the fabricated justifications, to which it colours people's histories and cultures. Paulo Freire is more truthful than Marx, even if not more factual than Marx or Engels.

And no... I'm not saying Freire was a podtmodern writer. Very much a socialist... but he always couched his ideas ftom the idea of the rejection of narratives of teaching. Arguably he wrote from the position of being post-socialism in the ideas that one's ideas do not cost the world its individual perspective of people. And the biggest problems of modernism has always been about the disappointment of individuals. None of us wake up each day and celebrste we were born and grew up in the 21st century despite thd horrors of the past... modernism tells you to remember the shoulders you stand on, and be just as strong in turn. Postmodernism has always been; "You're still stepping on me."

I think the benefits of having a Filipino mother, and having spoken to people across Southeast Asia, is the very distinct reminder that Europeans are still fighting a war that none of us had before, but nonetheless desires to involve us in such designs. And that is the biggest critique I can think of when it comes to classical progressivism. That conflict exists, and the narrative is purely one way whether people react or not.

Whether it is Hegelian dialectics, existence precedes essence, Orientalism and Occidentalism, labour vs. capital, or structuralism vs. libertarianism.

When will people understand the Enlightenment is in name only. For it was brutsl, dark, horrific, soul-crushing, and an extension of Europe bringing that darkness to the rest of the planet? To colonize not merely people and lands, but to forever destroy entire cultures that had alien distinctions of self thousands of years older than when Europeans even hsd concepts of monarchies and organized religion?

Europeans divorcing themselves of Christianity, does not implicate 'wrongfulness' of Native American traditions of community childrearing and funerary practices and their grieving processes. It speaks nothing of Aboriginal Australian songlines, the oldest known form of cartography in existence, that imparted geographical knowledge, connection to the land, laws, and linguistic understandings of many different nations that helped them survive and navigate the entire continent for millenia with unerring accuracy.

And postmodernists recognize the claim of truth is subjective.

The 'loss of innocence' was Europeans writing poetically as they robbed it of others and inflicted sicknesses on the mind and body in turn. Modernism was a European reaction to European constructs... but for some reason given an international stage with international dialogues no one (else) was having. It historically lacks self-awareness. Modernism is a Western painter making a fantasy depiction of my mother and her family's ancestors incorporating aspects of their native artistic process to create faux authentic convention, not my grandmother aping European art styles in depicting her family using traditional skills or materials to their homeland.

Talking specifically about liberalism, however...

There is something inherently fucked up there. Modernism, by definition, is an inequal exchange of culture and precedence. It makes fashionable, not relativistic, the cultures of the people it has incorporated unwillingly into its gaze. Like Aboriginal art and how European buyers write discourse about it without even bothering to talk to the artists about it. It's fucking frightening, to be honest. There's already a metric fuckton written on Modernism and the idea of colonized expression of others and losing their capacity to 'express' clearly. Which ould be fine if the colonizers saw them as equals in the exchange. But modernists are guilty of trespassing that no less through cultural appropriation.

Like, say, Paris faux porcelain and lacquerware trade of the 18th & 19th century. Aping East Asian designs, marketing it as East Asian goods, while altering its symbolism to suit thr styles of European sensibilities... and it is no less problematic. Given modernism is a lie and its insulting when it applies to treating foreign ideas of art and culture as if in a European focus.

You can tell the difference between an art historian and an artist purely in these regards. Because the historian is going to get fucking uncomfortable describing how such colonization of evolving European artistry reflected their actions and ideas of and on the nature of foreign lands and peoples. More than enough hints the modernist perspective had good intentions by still awful mindsets born from colonialism. Faux authenticity. Faux 'master culture' dynamics.

It's garbage. Postmodernism at least addresses this patronizing element of modernity yhe West had colonized by observing a world it brutally subdued by force and robbed of its cultural identities.

And no... I'm not saying people who do this are automatically awful scum. But self-awareness is a credit to any artist. To put it bluntly... the roots of modernism lay in colonialism, war and brutal murder of self-authenticity in favour of European universalism (which is factually wrong) ... and pretending that it's both reasonable and desireable that it should do so. And postmodernism was a reaction to it all after the horrors of European wars and colonialism, to remind us reality and the future is what we see it as and eurocentrics are arseholes monopolizing its discourse. And it's hard to argue with either.

The irony of structuralism is it should make no excuses for the European gaze. But why is it modernists are overwhelmingly eurocentric telling the rest of the world about economic determinism? I don't remember the colonized signing that agreement.

And if you haven't guessed it by now, I'm not a fan of rationalism or structuralism. Structuralism is useful only when a theorist is 'self-aware AF'... applied anyway else, it's tailoring a question solely to find an answer... and that is never helpful.

You can be a scientist and still see art and beauty (tragic or otherwise) in everything that is human. And while a modernist will tell you that's wrong, a postmodernist willtell you but at the very least no less wrong than being incapable of such.

CM156:

trunkage:

CM156:

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

Yeah, I've heard in battery egg farms in America where humans aren't allowed to have a break for their shift. Including toilet breaks. The suggestion is the employees wear nappies to get through the day...

And, as far as I'm aware, in the US, many business owners are concerned about employees having too many rights. I just shake my head. IDK - how the above example doesn't lead to stricter laws? The only way to get lighter laws is to treat employees nicely so they aren't necessary.

Combination of factors, including a labor surplus that makes people desperate for any job they can find, and the fact that unions have earned a bad rap (deserved or undeserved) and unionized labor is on the decline.

But yes, the labor law in most states is worse than what you'd find in most of the developed world. For example, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Which puts us behind Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, France, and Luxemburg.

You'd might like to know that its $18.29 in Australia. NZ is usually around ours. Funnily enough, unlike the protestation of Classical Liberals, it hasn't really stopped people from getting jobs. Or jobs being created. (Although, a huge wage jump like they did in Seattle is crazy to me. Do it slow IMO)

trunkage:
You'd might like to know that its $18.29 in Australia. NZ is usually around ours. Funnily enough, unlike the protestation of Classical Liberals, it hasn't really stopped people from getting jobs. Or jobs being created. (Although, a huge wage jump like they did in Seattle is crazy to me. Do it slow IMO)

Because there's a direct connection between consumption and more jobs? It's not a mystery. Pay people more, the more people spend. The more people spend, the more work to satisfy increased demand. The only way to maintain capitalism without constant recessionary crises every 8-12 years is to maintain consumption and lending, and the best way to do that is to give people the means to consume more and have more money in more bank accounts.

When you get wage stagnation long term, you get less tax revenue to accommodate government spending and less consumption.

Then governments do the really fucking stupid thing of giving tax breaks to the rich, and cutting social services. All the while not realizing the rich don't leave their money in banks, they don't spend anywhere near by capita their paycheque the poor do, and by cutting government funding to medical care and education, you decrease the talent pool of otherwise middle class people who do things like buy and build houses, and brand new cars, and take on ridiculous debt.

And then you face a quintuple whammy of low government tax revenues, dwindling total consumption, wage stagnation, dropping land values, and defaults (most of the time on mortgages for land no one can sell to evencover the principle still remaining).

It's almost as if austerity is bad. There's also the option of negative interest rates... where you're basically robbing Peter to pay Paul and utterly crippling people's faith in bank maturation funds andthe bonds market completely. Which is problematic because, once again, the rich don't keep their money in banks ... only (relatively) poor people do.

Sometimes it works out ... which is probably the best proof that the universe is actually chaotic...

Which is also proof why A.I. will never truly understand equities and the financial market beyond something like Deutsche Bank forex supercomputers. Investment banking is the only sector I know that will be A.I. proof, because only humans can understand AND capitalize on arbitrary ideas of wealth generation, prosperity, and human consumption trends before they happen.

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why A.I. would think bitcoin would be a thing, nor do I reckon that A.I. will be able to comprehend why it will eventually not be a thing. Nor why an A.I. could comprehend why some analysts pretend like it will be a replacement for conventional currencies despite no regularly traded currency could survive that level of volatility.

For an A.I. to actively profit from trading, you would need it to evade such things like bitcoin when in comparison to something like equities.

It defies any logic. It's pure madness. Yet very smart people seemingly believe that pure madness can be a real currency. Plus arguably a market with no humans driving it is the end of the market. After all, if allthe best programmed A.I. decide to dump or buy equities at the same time, the only winner is the one with the fastest connection speed.

There is some validity in Ronald Reagan espousing the idea of the magic of the marketplace. It's romantic, and for the life of me I've been trading for 15 years and still think it's magic. Then again a part of me still thinks computers are magic... so it could just be latent ego providing an emotional shield against internalizing ignorance and truly endeavouring to understand.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

Look, mostly agree. For specific austerity measures, I'm going to point out some things that would have an impact. The baby bonus wasn't a big lump sum for certain people - they people Costello really wanted to have babies. It did encourage low-earners to have another baby so they could... buy a car or new shoes. I taught in high schools at the time and this was the state reason from parents and their children for having new kids.

The first home buyers grant just pushed up house prices, making it redundant. Because, if you're rich, what does $7.5K mean to you? about 5 mins? When Hawke (or Keating, I cant remember) temporarily got rid of negative gearing, house prices decreased. Which is bad for some, but good for others. I'm saying that "austerity" could show up in ways that might benefit the country. Depending on your definition of austerity. Because, while I'm on the Left, I still care about balanced budgets.

Another example is the reduced tax for super that Labour wants to get rid of was another Howard era bonus that sends us tens of billions into debt. It will hurt the economy but maybe it needs to be done to help government debt.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But I don't buy rationalism and the rationalist awakening.

Neither do I.

However, modernity is not rationalism and modernity is not the Enlightenment. Modernity is, as mentioned, simply that stadial consciousness of living in a modern era.

The Enlightenment was a social movement (actually, a whole bunch of different social movements with some related themes and concerns) rooted in modernity, because Enlightenment thinkers conceived of themselves as ushering in a new age, specifically an age of reason which would sweep away the old era of superstition and deference to unchallenged authority. In this sense, the Enlightenment was rationalist, but it also contained the seeds of what we would now call critical theory.. idealism and radical empiricism.

By the time modernism appears, however, the enlightenment had long since stopped being radical and become part of a new bourgeois status quo founded on rationalism and sentimentalism. The Enlightenment had promised to give a new universal basis for morality in the form of reason, but as far as the modernists were concerned it had failed, it had not created a new world, but had instead simply reproduced the old world, complete with all its failings.

Again, this is my point. Modernism was not the reaffirmation of the universalizing moral sentiments of the enlightenment. It was the collapse of those sentiments. It was the realisation of their profound and immense failure. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

But what the modernists and postmodernists alike understood is the impossibility of ever going back. You cannot "uncolour" history and culture, it has a colour now. To try and reclaim an "authentic" pre-modern history or culture is simply to invent a new colour. To say "you're still stepping on me" is to reference a universalising sentiment that it is wrong to step on people. We cannot hope to challenge the excesses of modernity without using the tools of modernity itself, and fortunately modernity has given us incredibly powerful tools. Even the enlightenment was once radical, its radicalism is there for us to claim. We can burn down the old world as many times as we need to, and in that sense I think postmodernism is kind of a cop out, it's a fun little fantasy of of transcendence and escape which absolves the ethical responsibility for engagement with modernity itself.

Which is not to say I can't see the problems with what I'm saying. The masters tools, and all that, but I think it's still the least bad option.

evilthecat:

Neither do I.

However, modernity is not rationalism and modernity is not the Enlightenment. Modernity is, as mentioned, simply that stadial consciousness of living in a modern era.

The Enlightenment was a social movement (actually, a whole bunch of different social movements with some related themes and concerns) rooted in modernity, because Enlightenment thinkers conceived of themselves as ushering in a new age, specifically an age of reason which would sweep away the old era of superstition and deference to unchallenged authority. In this sense, the Enlightenment was rationalist, but it also contained the seeds of what we would now call critical theory.. idealism and radical empiricism.

By the time modernism appears, however, the enlightenment had long since stopped being radical and become part of a new bourgeois status quo founded on rationalism and sentimentalism. The Enlightenment had promised to give a new universal basis for morality in the form of reason, but as far as the modernists were concerned it had failed, it had not created a new world, but had instead simply reproduced the old world, complete with all its failings.

Again, this is my point. Modernism was not the reaffirmation of the universalizing moral sentiments of the enlightenment. It was the collapse of those sentiments. It was the realisation of their profound and immense failure. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

But what the modernists and postmodernists alike understood is the impossibility of ever going back. You cannot "uncolour" history and culture, it has a colour now. To try and reclaim an "authentic" pre-modern history or culture is simply to invent a new colour. To say "you're still stepping on me" is to reference a universalising sentiment that it is wrong to step on people. We cannot hope to challenge the excesses of modernity without using the tools of modernity itself, and fortunately modernity has given us incredibly powerful tools. Even the enlightenment was once radical, its radicalism is there for us to claim. We can burn down the old world as many times as we need to, and in that sense I think postmodernism is kind of a cop out, it's a fun little fantasy of of transcendence and escape which absolves the ethical responsibility for engagement with modernity itself.

Which is not to say I can't see the problems with what I'm saying. The masters tools, and all that, but I think it's still the least bad option.

Modernism is, however, a claim to rationalism. I mean as I was hinting at before;"Whose critical theory?"

Marxist structuralism is still structuralism. Kantian classical progressivism of history is still rationalism. Even though it presupposes an inherent conflict with Marxist historiography, the problem is both are very Western ... and both of them birth products of European Enlightenment ... and both of them have their roots in European 'rationalism' movement ... and both of them are used to dictate the gaze of orientalism and cultural movements within 'Orientalism' ... and both of them assume a universal claim of truth that academically is considered factual by only gazing unto itself and using itself as the basis of truth.

I mean whose realization? Some of the worst atrocities of colonialism were committed well into the 19th century and 20th century. The Congolese lost upwards of a third of their peoples in 5 years. Eurocentric ideas of modernism gave rise to U.S. ideas of its exceptionalism, which birthed U.S. imperialism in the Philippines in the 20th century. Churchill's policies alone, the very end of what we call the 'modern era' as we enter into the initial stages of (yet another) 'disillusionment' of another global war, murdered more British subjects than the combined direct and indirect actions of Axis forces. Through purposeful starvation campaigns in India and Bangladesh.

These are hard facts and yet Churchill gets star treatment on Doctor Who and Belgians just quietly pretend it never happened.

The French are still in Mali ... the British are still in the Middle East making the situation worse ... and given how the Royal Navy are arming up particularly for the case of operating extended expeditions once more, one can only guess we'll be seeing that fancy new carrier of theirs pushing around 'the natives' in Southeast Asia again anyday now.

Modernism didn't teach Europeans shit about critical theory. It didn't impart anything.

What's more, the critical theory that merely arose, looks no different than the 'academically acceptable' dialogues it uses to continue to colour other people's histories, cultures, and political context of their postcolonialism. And you realize what the problem with that is? It's like you never left...

Postmodernism certainly says; "Sure ... you can't put the genie back in the lamp..."

But don't pretend as if modernism taught Europeans new ways to look at the world. It merely seems to have given them more excuses not to. This is why modernism is still set as placing its bedrock on European rationalism. Same fabricated dialectics, born from the same place, that regardless if you're a Marxist historiographer or les Annales School adherent ... come from a false divide.

Modernism merely makes excuses about Orientalism and Occidentalism. And I'm no less guilty of that, but at least I can recognize there is a distinct difference in my education of Southeast Asia in Australia, and travelling and talking with revolutionary pedagogy-style academics in Southeast Asia.

There is a reason why Freire, despite not specifically being postmodernist, is considered as one of the literary figures of the birth of the postmodern movement. Because there is a clear problem with Eurocentric 'critical theory' paradigms that are both not as extensive or as truly dialectical as they assume themselves to be... and the dialogue is hurting actual discussions of colonized people reclaiming their history.

There is not some miracle tool of the modernist era that I can see that actually armed Europeans with foresight to alter a damn thing...

And the Eurocentric idea of the Labour vs. Capital debate that polarizes political debate of the Western gaze of modern-day Orientalism is painfully dated. Like, say, European discourses on Indian socialism... compared to Indian socialists and what they were saying. These dialogues can take on [i]mammoth scales of world-altering histories.

Modernism is dead. Modernism remains dead. Long live Modernism?

It seems a bit weird to quoting Nietzsche in a discussion of the Modernist movement.

As I was saying before ... there is a very strong basis in postmodernism making the argument of; "Reality and truth is what we make it, and Eurocentrics seem to be monopolizing the discourse." And this can also be applied whether at the microhistorical and macrological variety.

Nietzsche is near-antithetical of [i]what the Modernist movement looks like once we view it as it were.

CM156:
But yes, the labor law in most states is worse than what you'd find in most of the developed world. For example, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Which puts us behind Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, France, and Luxemburg.

It's not all bad: broadly, the USA has lower taxation. In particular, at the low end of the payscale a lot of tax burden is sales taxes. In Europe this is about 20%; in the USA, it varies but is as far as I'm aware usually under 10%. Mind you, the USA also has generally worse public services.

The minimum wage is often a joke. It's so low, what the hell is anyone supposed to do with it except subsistence? In fact, it's even worse than that: the only reason the minimum wage is sustainable for many on it (and many earning more than minimum, too) is for the government to supplement it by increasing tax thresholds to remove them from taxation or providing direct benefits.

Ideally, I'd like a world where everyone with a full-time job could earn enough to pay their taxes, their basics, and then to an extent support dependants and/or have some luxuries. If for nothing else, for every man and woman to have the simple human dignity of supporting themselves by work instead of being viewed, often contemptuously, as charity cases.

So, my last post got lost somehow, so I'm going to keep this one pretty brief and cut right to what I see as the point.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Modernism is, however, a claim to rationalism. I mean as I was hinting at before;"Whose critical theory?"

Sure, but that would also apply to postmodernism too.. critique itself is a practice rooted firmly in European modernity, and the skepticism towards the metanarratives of modernity is ultimately just another form of philosophical rationalisation, even if it comes with a disavowal of the possibility of obtaining authoritative knowledge through reason (which again, was also a feature of modernism).

I think a far more important statement is "if not critical theory, then what?" If we throw away critique because of its Kantian origins, if we throw away every intellectual tool ever tainted by eurocentrism or the Enlightenment, then what are we left with? Where is this "pure" theory, and why is a "pure" theory desirable at all?

I think the problem we're having is that you're doing what Jordan Peterson is doing (but with completely different aims) and assuming the post in postmodernism means either "after" or "anti". It doesn't, what it implies is a kind of expansion or elaboration which results in fundamental challenges to the basic assumptions of its predecessor. In this sense, I perhaps lied a bit, albeit in the name of simplicity. I am a "postmodernist" in the sense that I reject some of the totalizing narratives of modernity, but I'm also a "modernist" in that I still find value (even conditionally) in the tools of modernity and feel they can offer, if not a rational and complete basis for ethical action, then at least the contingent power to make the world a better place. Just because Kant used critique and Kant was an enormous racist doesn't mean that we should not, or that our critical theory is automatically racist. After all, how do we expose racism without critique?

Nietzche is a modernist. He's actually one of the most important modernist thinkers, and if you think about what he actually says you will quickly realise why. The death of God is not a skepticism towards metanarratives, it is a metanarratrive. It's a story of how our society has fundamentally changed and ultimately, how we must change with it. "Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of [the death of God]?" Nietzche's anti-rationalism and skepticism towards the universalizing claims of the Enlightenment does not make him a secret postmodernist before his time, it makes him a modernist, and a fairly typical one.

Jordan Peterson's mistake is to assume that modernism and postmodernism are opposed, that one is good and all about reason and capital-t Truth and the Enlightenment the other is bad and rejects all of these things. The reality is that there is a continuity between modernism and postmodernism, just as there is a continuity between structuralism and poststructuralism (and indeed, a difference between postcolonialism and anticolonialism). Again, postmodernism should be seen as an attempt to expand modernism, not as a simple antithesis.

evilthecat:
So, my last post got lost somehow, so I'm going to keep this one pretty brief and cut right to what I see as the point.

So was mine apparently ... and my escapist portal is still fucking up something fierce. So what the hay? Let's see if it works now.

If not, I'll give it a day or two before responding again.

Sure, but that would also apply to postmodernism too.. critique itself is a practice rooted firmly in European modernity, and the skepticism towards the metanarratives of modernity is ultimately just another form of philosophical rationalisation, even if it comes with a disavowal of the possibility of obtaining authoritative knowledge through reason (which again, was also a feature of modernism).

But it doesn't. And here's the thing ... modernism has not only a claim to universalism, and so does its artistic movements, but also objective truth value statements. And that's kind of a problem when it hasn't historically or culturally done well with its latent Orientalism that it effectively fabricated. Whether it might be British discourses on Indian socialism in the post-Pacific War era, to American modernism and discourses about Wang Wei and William Carlos Williams.

It took postmodernism to get us a New Left tradition to help us understand the deep divides between Marxism within and beyond the Western interpretation, for example.

Because ultimately the 'Marxists' like Paulo Freire had a different living experience and often could do little but oversee pre-colonialism stories of 'better times' as outside themoral matrices Marxist structuralism tried to paint were pointless. But they weren't pointless ... these natives didn't exist in a manner that was truly understandable in a Western structuralist context ... and the only application Marxism had to them was the colonizer culture itself that destroyed it.

They couldn't share in Marxist idealism ...which was in shape and form indistinguishable from the faux dialectic of Kantian classical progressivism in historiography. And postmodernism sought to correct these imbalances not with a claim to truth, but the idea that through understanding there is no objective paradigm, merely coercion, achieve their own form of liberation.

Hence, revolutionary pedagogy. Given a voice through historiography, and self-referentiality of artistry and craftmanship, and culture and denying the West from manipulating its discourse.

As per the title of Audre Lord's essay; "The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house."

That is an example of postmodernism.

Where Marx downplayed the nature of the individual as second to the 'superstructure' of the environment, aspects of postmodernism sought to create personal and humanistic drives to recognize true liberty of self-awareness to liberate oneself entirely of being defined by the West.

That is the real reason why people like Peterson dislike it. Because ultimately it will be a hell of a lot more successful precisely because it centers itself on humanist overtones and does things like actually examine foreign cultures not as if in the 'gaze' of Western scholars. But actually talking to them and letting them speak clear and without equivocation their own relationdhip to material values and their historiography modernist scholars would rather ignore because it's 'inconvenient'.

Like comparing Third Wave intersectionality or Beauvoir-esque existentialist self-authenticity--to Second Wave's essentialism, racism and transphobia.

I think a far more important statement is "if not critical theory, then what?" If we throw away critique because of its Kantian origins, if we throw away every intellectual tool ever tainted by eurocentrism or the Enlightenment, then what are we left with? Where is this "pure" theory, and why is a "pure" theory desirable at all?

Intertextuality of pre-colonialism art, culture, and linguistics mixed with actively assisting the former colonized metaethical theory by de-centralizing historiography away from the faux dialectic of Kantian classical progressivism and Marxist historiography prerhaps? Allowing these cultures to develop their own connections and historiographies to their linguistic traditions without the European gaze?

What other answers are there? And to put it bluntly, there is numerous benefits to academia if we look at this in terms of revolutionary pedagogy. In terms of psycholinguisitcs, sociology, to effectively better preparing ourselves to actually properly understanding foreign historiography and archaeology in terms of de-alienating the interpersonal nature of people living there and their own contexts they've built around them.

Moreover, and just remember, this isn't merely about finding some 'higher truth' (for which is dumb and non-extant) ... it's the pivotal point of creating future discourse that makes them freer people and deepening the cultural exchange of the future hypothetical and making it fairer as a means of consumption and respectful trade.

I think the problem we're having is that you're doing what Jordan Peterson is doing (but with completely different aims) and assuming the post in postmodernism means either "after" or "anti".

I assure you, I'm not.

Nietzche is a modernist. He's actually one of the most important modernist thinkers, and if you think about what he actually says you will quickly realise why. The death of God is not a skepticism towards metanarratives, it is a metanarratrive. It's a story of how our society has fundamentally changed and ultimately, how we must change with it. "Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of [the death of God]?" Nietzche's anti-rationalism and skepticism towards the universalizing claims of the Enlightenment does not make him a secret postmodernist before his time, it makes him a modernist, and a fairly typical one.

But that's neither modernism nor postmodernism. Modernism has clear rationalist perspectives as well as promotes a universalism of metaethical and objective truth value statements. Nietzsche does not, hence why Nietzsche wasa critic. Neither does postmodernism. Postmodernism asserts no universalism, asserts no objective truth is to be found. Postmodernism asserts a liquid translation of reality rendition through intertextuality and hypertextuality.

Essentially reality as the internet. Infinitely derivative and anti-derivative, and with a real sincerity but only to itself.

Nietzsche hated modernity's claim to objective truth.Hatedits stifling conventions in anti-conventions. Nietzsche hated modernism own love-hate mourning of itself and its own artistic schools. Nietzsche hated false virtue for which modernism is rife. Nietzsche hated modernist relationships to science and what he saw as theology 'polluting' the way scientists thought.

In the same way postmodernism isn't exactly a Hegelian dialectical antithesis of modernism, neither was modernism's "scientific skepticism" truly that skeptical. And postmodernism recognizes that and tries to come up withan answer, even if it knows it never will.

"God is dead..." is Nietzsche trying to drum into people's head to destroy these false aspirations to 'higher virtues'. It is about redemption by recognizing there is no rebirth and no false purity.

"Modernism is dead. We killed it..."

In likewise manner, so too is postmodernism not entirely excised of the chain of thought that lead to it, but liberated of its own fears of dissolution when it is no longer required as abstracted chaos of that revels in the decay of self as all living things must.

One does not simply become the Overman, but one can help build the society from which the Overman may be born... Postmodernism is reactionary, but unlike modernism revels in the decay of authority for which it makes self-fulfilling by holding it as nothing but fallacious. Including itself. For postmodernism is less a thing, it is an abstraction of the idea there is no ideality of things.

And modernism has core, fundamental problems. Whether that be modernism's love affiar with essentialism in philosophy or whether it is trying to claim a faux reductive gaze of late modernism (zombie modernism) of things like minimalism and International Style architecture.

Postmodernism, by trying to be anti-art convention, is ultimately the panacea to modernism mourning the loss of its own false artistic discourses to the consumerism it could never openly embrace for fear of losing itself.

Postmodernism doesn't have those fears, and absolves the past with the only stipulation being that it should never be arbitrarily coercive.

Postmodernism is the true skepticism of modernism. Modernism is dead. We killed it. What's next?

Jordan Peterson's mistake is to assume that modernism and postmodernism are opposed, that one is good and all about reason and capital-t Truth and the Enlightenment the other is bad and rejects all of these things. The reality is that there is a continuity between modernism and postmodernism, just as there is a continuity between structuralism and poststructuralism (and indeed, a difference between postcolonialism and anticolonialism). Again, postmodernism should be seen as an attempt to expand modernism, not as a simple antithesis.

There is most certainly a continuity of thought, no one is questioning that. Postmodern thought does not excise itself from modernity. But what it tries to do is answer modernity's most glaring problems. Postmodernism was effectively the rebellious Leninism communism could arguably never achieve given its fallacious ideas of power in a Marxist structuralist dynamic and the false dialectic of capital vs. labour.

I mean, Jordan Peterson is the guy who thought the Nazis weren't trying to win World War 2. Because if they were, they would've tried enslaving the Jews for labor, and they didn't.

Except they did.

He's really not very bright, he just writes in such a way that's successful in acedamia. He's the very stereotype of the know-nothing, out of touch acedemic that his fans regularly try to pin on the left.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
As per the title of Audre Lord's essay; "The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house."

That is an example of postmodernism.

In what sense?

I mean, let's think about this. Why does Audre Lorde want to dismantle the masters house? Is it just purely for the joy of destroying things? Is it a purely personal, individual and relative preference against this house? Or is the reason ultimately grounded in the realisation of an objective and universal possibility of justice which can only be realised by replacing the old with the new. We might even say, by progress.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Where Marx downplayed the nature of the individual as second to the 'superstructure' of the environment, aspects of postmodernism sought to create personal and humanistic drives to recognize true liberty of self-awareness to liberate oneself entirely of being defined by the West.

Again, who is this "person" who has personal drives? Who is the "human" in humanism? How do we affirm the commonality of humans without universals? How do we theorize the attaintment of "true liberty" without progress? Is "true liberty" true for everyone? What underpins these notions of common humanity and true liberty if not reason?

Modernity does not let us go so easily.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
In terms of psycholinguisitcs, sociology, to effectively better preparing ourselves to actually properly understanding foreign historiography and archaeology in terms of de-alienating the interpersonal nature of people living there and their own contexts they've built around them.

I don't know.. the search for "proper understanding" kind of implies that there is a proper understanding, doesn't it.. It implies that the problem of colonialism was not having the right tools, rather than not having the right aims.

I mean, I understand wanting to flip the table, but flipping the table will not get rid of the table. The table is just there now.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But that's neither modernism nor postmodernism. Modernism has clear rationalist perspectives as well as promotes a universalism of metaethical and objective truth value statements.

If you define it as such, then I can see why you're having this problem. But I don't see why you would define it as such. It seems both arbitrary and out of line with conventional usage..

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Nietzsche hated modernity's claim to objective truth.Hatedits stifling conventions in anti-conventions. Nietzsche hated modernism own love-hate mourning of itself and its own artistic schools. Nietzsche hated false virtue for which modernism is rife. Nietzsche hated modernist relationships to science and what he saw as theology 'polluting' the way scientists thought.

You're confusing "Nietzche hated the bourgeois society of 19th century Germany" with "Nietzche hated modernism". Modernism overwhelmingly was a reaction against the bourgeois society of the 19th century. Marx also hated the bourgeois society of the 19th century and was a critic of it. Freud may not have hated bourgeois society, but he certainly reacted against it and formulated a theory of human subjectivity as fundamentally at odds with it as Nietzche's was.

Intellectual taxonomies will always be flawed and dangerous things, but I don't see how you can argue that Nietzche was anything other than a modernist with the same broad thematic and critical preoccupations as many other people of the time he was writing. To deviate from this, I think, is to reduce modernism to simply being a meaningless statement of intellectual "badness", just as Peterson treats postmodernism as.

evilthecat:

In what sense?

I mean, let's think about this. Why does Audre Lorde want to dismantle the masters house? Is it just purely for the joy of destroying things? Is it a purely personal, individual and relative preference against this house? Or is the reason ultimately grounded in the realisation of an objective and universal possibility of justice which can only be realised by replacing the old with the new. We might even say, by progress.

Which kind of proves my point about the faux dialectic between Kantian classical progressivism and Marxist historiography. It assumes a dialectical antithesis, and historians treat it as self-apparent, and it utterly ignores the 'pre-history' (which is fucking insulting) of prior Western colonialism. The idea that cultures had a varied attitude to self and their history that was distinct and inconsolable in Western dialogues.

That the former colonized had nothing to look to in either the excuses of Kantian classical progressivism, nor Marxist historiography that any of them couldfind personally reasonable.

As I was saying before, whose critical theory? Yours? If you can't find a substantive means to address this in any fashion beyond postmodernist conceptualizations such as things as tailored revolutionary pedagogy, then it's safe to say you don't have an answer. And if the only approximation we have to the possibility of grounding ideas of justice is a foreign gaze, then it's going to look like nothing but tyranny even from the best intentions.

Colonizer cultures have been here before, it doesn't work out well ... and thereis no real argument it could ever work out well ... but I know from experience traditional aspects of Western historiography merely silence people and alienate them.

First off, you have to describe progress. Because unlike Europeans, there is this gap. Where they could legitimately say they would have been better off never having met Europeans, but there it is. They already existed at a point where they did feel empowered, they had mastery over their expression, they had control over their endeavours.

That's permanently gone.

And the two dominant European critical theories of social development and historiography you have do not encompass aspects that you have lost. The words aren't there to describe it and to do so it to surrender those glimmers of the past you have and have itlose all contextual meaning.

That is what Audre Lorde is getting at.

You need to create a brand new historiography from the ground up if you want tosave something of what was at a time a more empowered, clearly expressive moment in a history that can never be so complete because the language of its discourse is dictated to you.

Again, who is this "person" who has personal drives? Who is the "human" in humanism? How do we affirm the commonality of humans without universals? How do we theorize the attaintment of "true liberty" without progress? Is "true liberty" true for everyone? What underpins these notions of common humanity and true liberty if not reason?

Modernity does not let us go so easily.

I fail to see why the impetus is on me to define another's pursuit of self-authenticity. It invalidates the concept. And no, that's not tautological. In the same way it's not tautological to use English to describe the failures of the language. Or are you directly challenging reflexivity of coercion?

I don't know.. the search for "proper understanding" kind of implies that there is a proper understanding, doesn't it.. It implies that the problem of colonialism was not having the right tools, rather than not having the right aims.

Why are the two inseparable?

If I borrow someone's motorcycle and repair aspects of it that are apparently damaged, that beholdens me to an arbitrary measure of both having an approximation of the right tools and an approximation of the right aims of returning the motorcycle to its owner just as good condition, if not 'better', than when I borrowed it. But there is no universalist claim what I would do is morally correct in terms of the agency or aspects of doing so. One could argue the idea of 'merely wanting to be good' is enough ... but then again that is also inseparable from both the 'right tools' or the 'right aims' ...

Dare I say, the only meaningful good will I can truly call decent is talking to the owner.

The road to hell, yadda yadda.

I mean, I understand wanting to flip the table, but flipping the table will not get rid of the table. The table is just there now.

It also assumes the problems of metanarratives can be likened to a table.

People for whom had a culture utterly incompatible with European ideas of it were destroyed. And in replacement they had false dichotomies thrust at them for both the excuse of its atrocities, and a false antithesis of that that told them their society would be better off as per a Western gaze of hyperindustrialization and concepts of the means of production they never really had before.

Or to use the metaphor correctly ... it's like you came into my house, put a table in my home, demanded that I shouyld have to work around your table ... Maybe we should just get rid of the table and you shut up for just 10 minutes as I personally consider what was life like from my own interpretations of when the home was tableless before letting me choose my own relationship to the table in my own way.

Maybe I do want to overturn the table. Maybe I don't want to accept what you call a table is just a table? Maybe I can make it an overturned table into astatue of me removing myself from your table-loving ways and treat it as a statue ... perhaps take that overturnedtable-statue and portray it for a limited time in your galleries and have me describe my relationship to transforming a symbol of colonization of self into a statement of defiance?

Regardless of what you say ... the table isn't just going to be a table in someone else's eyes. Moreover I have just as much right flipping that table over and calling it a statue as you do a table.

If you define it as such, then I can see why you're having this problem. But I don't see why you would define it as such. It seems both arbitrary and out of line with conventional usage..

How so?

These are acknowledged critiques of modernist thinking.

It would first help what aspect of modernism would you like to focus on.

You're confusing "Nietzche hated the bourgeois society of 19th century Germany" with "Nietzche hated modernism". Modernism overwhelmingly was a reaction against the bourgeois society of the 19th century. Marx also hated the bourgeois society of the 19th century and was a critic of it. Freud may not have hated bourgeois society, but he certainly reacted against it and formulated a theory of human subjectivity as fundamentally at odds with it as Nietzche's was.

No, it clearly wasn't.

That's a vast oversimplification of modernism. Its artistic schools, its historiography, its faux skepticism ...

Modernism spoke nothing about a metanarrative of consumption trends on its own. What it was characterized by was an extenson of rationalist thought tempered by ideas of empiricism and greater worldliness as the world entered the late industrial era. Which is precisely why we see a flourishing of Kantian esque historicity despite being a rationalist school of thought.

Modernism is, by so many, considered a movement squarely fixated on rationalist trends but also a sense of European othering of the wider world that had, prior the Western experience, alien ideas of self, religion, and society. Modernism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, and a bourgeois attempt on its own to colonize the historicity and progressivism of foreign people.

Hence why you had so many modernity thinkers outrightly championing colonialism, and why you don't actually see any real reversal of imperialist rhetoric right until the disillusionments of the 20th century.

We owe to modernism capitalism ...and true, capitalism was an evolution of Enlightenment mercantilism ... but it's not as if scores better, and socialism is predilected by it as an example of 'cultural evolution'. All the while underpinning the message as if other native communities who had nothing like it were somehow un-advanced, or merely hadn't evolved the necessary complexity yet.

Once again, a false narrative and false dialectic that pretended to not have them.

Nietzsche, unlike Marx, wanted to destroy the common idea of the marketplace altogether.

Modernism, modernity and imperialism were either symbiotic, or mutualistic. Late stage ("zombie") modernism and modernity is squarely indiviible from naked capitalism. Whether it was International Style architecture or pop art. Whether it was stacked tomato cans, Coca Cola advertisement (60s 'high advertisement'), minimalist graphic design and 'volumity' (to coin a word) architecture and paintings, or mass consumer music like the Beatles and Rock & Roll.

Postmodernism is, at the nature of the critique, focussed on consumerism. And how to make personal and intertextual what globalism may offer in order to liberate people from the world and revel in the decay of authority that modernity demanded of it.

The essentialism that poisoned modernism's """skepticism""" was a prime figure of modernity thinking for a reason. And we grew out of it.

We killed it. Or at least slowly killing it. And nothing of value was lost.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
If you can't find a substantive means to address this in any fashion beyond postmodernist conceptualizations such as things as tailored revolutionary pedagogy, then it's safe to say you don't have an answer.

And neither do you.

Revolutionary pedagogy requires a revolution. Whose revolution? Against who? For what reason?

Postmodernity is not and cannot give you a revolution because it rejects the stadial history which would give rise to a revolutionary consciousness itself, which did give rise to a revolutionary consciousness. We had revolutions before, and they all failed. Postmodernity will not affirm your imagination of a colonial "pre-history" any more than it affirms the grand continuous narrative of European history.

Audre Lorde was not telling you to give up your tools and go sleep in the dirt, she was saying "let's reclaim what was stolen from us". To throw away critical theory, to throw away critique, to throw away all the fruits of modernity because they're not "yours" is to allow yourself to be complicit in their theft.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
How so?

I mean, just randomly because I have it to hand..

The point was that a systematic exploration of the essence of language is itself part of the traditional framework that should have been discarded; that systematic work in philosophy (and hence in the philosophy of language, too) is out of place if language is not primarily a representing medium. This idea greatly influenced the German romantics and then the modernists. Conjoined with the ideas of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, it is responsible for the modernist suspicious, even hostile, attitude towards philosophy. Now these three fathers of modernism, in turn, shattered mythical idols, mainly concerning logos, and hence unavoidably touched upon language and its centrality in shaping man's self-understanding.
- Anat Matar, "Modernism and the Language of Philosophy"

Modernism is a term we use to describe a specific philosophical movement originating in the late 19th century, of which Nietzsche was very much a part and which is sometimes expanded to include Kant (whose critical philosophy is the basis for Nietzsche's own rejection of metaphysics). It could also in theory I suppose be used to refer to all philosophical endeavour taking place within modernity. Neither would yield a particularly coherent account of modernism as the bad and worthless philosophy which was essentialist and eurocentric, and if it did, then it's worth noting that Nietzsche had a tendency to come out with incredibly nasty things about women (for example) which might, if you were so inclined, imply a degree of essentialism..

Like, I've been called out myself for selectively ignoring Nietzsche's misogyny in terms of how it relates to the rest of his work. We are under no compulsion to assume it is incidental.

evilthecat:

And neither do you.

Revolutionary pedagogy requires a revolution. Whose revolution? Against who? For what reason?

Postmodernity is not and cannot give you a revolution because it rejects the stadial history which would give rise to a revolutionary consciousness itself, which did give rise to a revolutionary consciousness. We had revolutions before, and they all failed. Postmodernity will not affirm your imagination of a colonial "pre-history" any more than it affirms the grand continuous narrative of European history.

Audre Lorde was not telling you to give up your tools and go sleep in the dirt, she was saying "let's reclaim what was stolen from us". To throw away critical theory, to throw away critique, to throw away all the fruits of modernity because they're not "yours" is to allow yourself to be complicit in their theft.

Which was not my argument.

My argument was you need to rebuild historiography before you can build true revolution. If you want to understand the idea of authority, you cannot do so without the medium of consent of the people and understanding its common experience. And you can't built that true level of social critique if the language you use is tailored from an incomplete projection of what distant scholars that are not only long dead, but could never build mutual meaning through lived experience nor an understanding of what you have lost, are still dictating its discourse to you.

And yeah, that is my answer. Horses before carts, otherwise it won't succeed and you won't win anything back of value. You give people honest history, you give them honest strength that will maintain for as long as they're still standing and that history is still told.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

I mean, just randomly because I have it to hand...

Uh huh. For starters;

A: Haven't read that book.
B: That still hasn't actually answered anything.

You know, this;

Modernism spoke nothing about a metanarrative of consumption trends on its own. What it was characterized by was an extenson of rationalist thought tempered by ideas of empiricism and greater worldliness as the world entered the late industrial era. Which is precisely why we see a flourishing of Kantianesque historicity despite being a rationalist school of thought.

Modernism is, by so many, considered a movement squarely fixated on rationalist trends but also a sense of European othering of the wider world that had, prior the Western experience, alien ideas of self, religion, and society. Modernism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, and a bourgeois attempt on its own to colonize the historicity and progressivism of foreign people.

Hence why you had so many modernity thinkers outrightly championing colonialism, and why you don't actually see any real reversal of imperialist rhetoric right until the disillusionments of the 20th century.

We owe to modernism capitalism ...and true, capitalism was an evolution of Enlightenment mercantilism ... but it's not as if scores better, and socialism is predilected by it as an example of 'cultural evolution'. All the while underpinning the message as if other native communities who had nothing like it were somehow un-advanced, or merely hadn't evolved the necessary complexity yet.

Once again, a false narrative and false dialectic that pretended to not have them.

Nietzsche, unlike Marx, wanted to destroy the common idea of the marketplace altogether.

Modernism, modernity and imperialism were either symbiotic, or mutualistic. Late stage ("zombie") modernism and modernity is squarely indiviible from naked capitalism. Whether it was International Style architecture or pop art. Whether it was stacked tomato cans, Coca Cola advertisement (60s 'high advertisement'), minimalist graphic design and 'volumity' (to coin a word) architecture and paintings, or mass consumer music like the Beatles and Rock & Roll.

C: Marx and Nietzsche were both Hegelian philosophers. Though unlike Hegel, Marx and Adam Smith, Nietzsche was not a rationalist. In the same sense that Marx does not directly challenge the intuition/deduction divide. He dances around it, but apart from that his writing still comes off as idealism.
About the only thing to directly challenge Hegelian idealism he ever really wrote was;

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but--on the contrary--their social being that determines their consciousness..." To Marx (and Engels) we owe Marxist historiography. For starters, you want to know what is also a construct of modernism? High capitalism. Both of which Marxist historiography underpins as natural 'history' of social development, as does Adam Smith.

As for Freud? Well, let's just say he needed a Lacan (in all manner of speaking) and leave it at that... which perhaps best highlights the quintessential differences of the modernist idealism and the post-structuralist thinkers.

But you want to know what is also a very trending part of modernist artistry and architecture? Rationalist art and architecture movements... right up until its dying breath in the 1970s minimalism with Stella and a whole bunch of mirror cubes and simple geometries and matrices. Modernism was, in all aspects, fixed in its presentation in universalism. Conceivably minimalism was the logical endpoint of the Modernist movement because you have nowhere else to go.

This is why Stella famously coined the term; "What you see is what you see..." When discussing his artworks with people.

The complete divorcing of art against the metaphorical subject and of illusionism.

And all of this is hardly debatable.

Regardless of what you think, a lot of postmodernists look at Nietzsche as if writing 100 years before his time for this reason. Because Nietzsche is quite the standout given he directly challenges universalism, and critiques objective truth ... which is a foundational critique of postmodernism when it regards modernism.

Once again, this is hardly debatable.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
My argument was you need to rebuild historiography before you can build true revolution. If you want to understand the idea of authority, you cannot do so without the medium of consent of the people and understanding its common experience. And you can't built that true level of social critique if the language you use is tailored from an incomplete projection of what distant scholars that are not only long dead, but could never build mutual meaning through lived experience nor an understanding of what you have lost, are still dictating its discourse to you.

See, I like this, this is a good argument.

What I don't think it is is a postmodernist argument, unless you limit modernism itself to absurd caricatures of the worst excesses of the European philosophical tradition throughout all of modernity just randomly lumped together for no reason.

Dig out a copy of Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, and you will probably find a degree of commonality with your own positions, particularly in terms of the position of the colonised intellectual who is persuaded into being a spokesperson for the "universal values" of their colonisers. And yet, Fanon is not a postmodernist. Fanon does believe that there is such a thing as universal progress, even for postcolonial societies. This universal progress is the development of a distinctive national consciousness founded in revolutionary opposition to colonialism itself. Ultimately, this would lead to a international consciousness based on universal solidarity with, rather than domination of, formerly colonized peoples.

This is a metanarrative. It is in fact fairly deeply rooted in Marxism and Fanon's own work in the psychopathology of colonisation. Does possessing a metanarrative make this automatically Eurocentric? Does it mean Fanon himself is simply regurgitating the views of dead white men?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
You give people honest history, you give them honest strength that will maintain for as long as they're still standing and that history is still told.

What is "honest" history?

Is any history ever honest?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Uh huh. For starters;

A: Haven't read that book.
B: That still hasn't actually answered anything.

Okay, so at this point it's pretty clear that the impasse is terminological rather than political. I think that essentialism is bad. I think that Eurocentrism is bad. I think that rationalism is, at least, cripplingly flawed. I concede that these are parts of the European philosophical tradition (although I don't think they stop at the borders of postmodernity, if there are borders to postmodernity at all) and that their influence can be found well into the 20th if not the 21st century. Heck, I spent a lot of time writing about how essentialism continues to this very day even in fields which conceive of themselves as critical.

What I don't think is that this means that entire philosophical tradition can be neatly divided into modernism (bad, essentialist, absolute claims to truth and value, eurocentric, hiss, boo) and postmodernism (good, inclusive, resistant, tolerant, woo, yay). I don't even think individuals can necessarily be divided in that way. Kant was a horrific racist, he was pro-colonialism, hugely authoritarian and made numerous concessions to absurd rationalism to justify his terrible attitudes and those of the society he lived in, but he is also the basis of our critical theory including our postmodern theory in that he is, as Derrida put it, the first person to propose a critique of the mechanisms of critique itself. Kant was not living a double life, he was not a mean, evil modernist by day and a cool, exciting postmodernist by night. Somehow, we must do what was easy for him but incredibly difficult for us and reconcile the parts of him that make sense or are useful to us with the parts of him that are useless or even harmful to us.

You cannot simply give me an essential definition of modernism as a pure cartoonish excess, claim that Nietzsche falls short of it and then declare that he must not be a modernist. He is regarded as a modernist, he is part of a broader intellectual tradition which is widely referred to as modernism and which shares overarching themes and concerns. You can't simply arbitrarily and unilaterally declare that those aren't important because they lend too much moral complexity to the philosophical landscape (I mean, you can, but I don't agree).

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Because Nietzsche is quite the standout given he directly challenges universalism, and critiques objective truth

In a sense you could say Kant critiqued objective truth by distinguishing between the thing in itself and its appearance.

Nietzsche is ahead of his time, I agree, but it's not because of his critique of objective truth, but because of his understanding of the implications of this critique. It is not "I have killed God", but "we have killed God". Nietzsche understood himself as part of a critical tradition which already existed before him. The "we" almost certainly includes Kant.

The fact that he went on to be influential on postmodernists does not mean he was a postmodernist. Again, so did Kant, so did Marx, so did Freud. All of these people, in their own way and to a varying degree, questioned or troubled the Enlightenment model of the rational, self-owning and autonomous human subject. All of them also made what we would now consider to be errors, omissions or abuses which subsequent generations would come to critique in turn. This does not mean that they were wrong to question the Enlightenment model of the rational, self-owning and autonomous human subject. It does not mean that the people who would come to critique their work did not in some sense owe the capacity to do so to them.

evilthecat:

This is a metanarrative. It is in fact fairly deeply rooted in Marxism and Fanon's own work in the psychopathology of colonisation. Does possessing a metanarrative make this automatically Eurocentric? Does it mean Fanon himself is simply regurgitating the views of dead white men?

Absolutely not, unless it is used like most old, white men would use it and have done so with global capitalism in mind far before their time of actual revolutionary action. And that critique could very easily apply to institutions like Comintern, etc. For example, the lived experiences of people in Turkey or Cuba being given a narrative of false global conflict they were both not so willing to have. And I'm not saying modernists weren't thinking about this stuff... but it is accurate to say that was not the overwhelming nature of academic scrutiny.

The irony is so many anti-capitalist movements that might be described as either anti-modernist, or counter-cultural, or postcolonial were themselves very much wearing the colours of colonialism. The Marxist dialectic of labour vs. capital was given worldspanning critique that went on to colour the colonized who knew nothing of that divide themselves until European colonialism.

What is "honest" history?

Is any history ever honest?

Arguably not. There's more historiographical models than there are people that in total understand them all, and perhaps that's the point.

And keep in mind, when I say 'honest', I don't mean the grandnarrative. I mean the microhistorical gaze of people relating their lived experiences as the basis historiographical tradition that allows a 'truer' narrative tradition of struggle and resistance to be known. And to be fair, that is not postmodernism on its own. But what is postmodernism, is the assumption of the grand narrative as automatically fallacious.

And refutation of that doesn't excuse the idea of co-opting the language and education of others and ignoring their desires to create their own dichotomies of conflict and conflict theory that will actually assist in addressing their very specific needs to be made whole through reclaiming their art, culture and history, and their discourse around it.

If you allow people their honest historiography. Where they meet with the very disparate people within their groups that suffered uniform, grand narratives of oppression to build their own body of historiography ... from that, will come theorem and ideas of conflict that will far better illuminate their human condition, make it stand on their own and grantreal basisto social evolution, and give it light and solidarity.

Give to history and sociology its chaotic starlight that by natural dimensions also allow for a more 'honest' (in my current definition) trade with other cultures. Distinct, and beautiful for that distinction. And limitlessly viable as a platform building to honest exchange.

And if you get that honest exchange, you get honest returns on power and solidarity with minimal coercive fragmentation of the cause. This is applicable to so many contemporary issues within even Western society ... such as the difference between actual allies to LGBTQ movements in the West, and what I called 'merely wearing the colours of its people' that really patronizing """allies""" do so.

Microhistory gives the beleagured a means to not only create their relationship to their very unique problems ... but to be empowered by their history. And microhistory does that better than amangled idea ofhistory as class struggle asper macrological materialist arguments from scholars who ultimately never lost their personbal relationship to history or culture themselves.

I don't think this is a controversial position. We need to allow people their personal relationship to history if we want them to be empowered and reclaim their agency, symbols and beliefs.

Okay, so at this point it's pretty clear that the impasse is terminological rather than political. I think that essentialism is bad. I think that Eurocentrism is bad. I think that rationalism is, at least, cripplingly flawed. I concede that these are parts of the European philosophical tradition (although I don't think they stop at the borders of postmodernity, if there are borders to postmodernity at all) and that their influence can be found well into the 20th if not the 21st century. Heck, I spent a lot of time writing about how essentialism continues to this very day even in fields which conceive of themselves as critical.

What I don't think is that this means that entire philosophical tradition can be neatly divided into modernism (bad, essentialist, absolute claims to truth and value, eurocentric, hiss, boo) and postmodernism (good, inclusive, resistant, tolerant, woo, yay). I don't even think individuals can necessarily be divided in that way. Kant was a horrific racist, he was pro-colonialism, hugely authoritarian and made numerous concessions to absurd rationalism to justify his terrible attitudes and those of the society he lived in, but he is also the basis of our critical theory including our postmodern theory in that he is, as Derrida put it, the first person to propose a critique of the mechanisms of critique itself. Kant was not living a double life, he was not a mean, evil modernist by day and a cool, exciting postmodernist by night. Somehow, we must do what was easy for him but incredibly difficult for us and reconcile the parts of him that make sense or are useful to us with the parts of him that are useless or even harmful to us.

You cannot simply give me an essential definition of modernism as a pure cartoonish excess, claim that Nietzsche falls short of it and then declare that he must not be a modernist. He is regarded as a modernist, he is part of a broader intellectual tradition which is widely referred to as modernism and which shares overarching themes and concerns. You can't simply arbitrarily and unilaterally declare that those aren't important because they lend too much moral complexity to the philosophical landscape.

Absolutely not ... didn't mean to give that impression that postmodernism was as if a Hegelian antithesis to modernism... nor eve theargument that it is as if a Hegelian synthesis of dialectical conflict. Modernity gave us a platform to true social critique ... and as I've always said to people that give that carte blanche traditionalist argument of the "Marxists are invading academia"--type of dialogue that Marxist historiography made history cool again and even speculatively useful.

Because it did. I have no problem with Marxist historiography, beyond some elements where it relies on a kind of greysish area idealism of looking at the superstructure. But as a basic discourse of looking at the effects of capital, living conditions, and marrying that to a grander idea of social critique and historical evolution... it's phenomenal.

I've even said elsewhere on the forums that if you want to be a true capitalist (as in successfully trade on the marketplace and make a living by being a true capitalist from being solidly working class) ... that all true rag to riches capitalists think like Marxists. That being a really successful capitalist means recognizing, ironically, when economic determinism of capitalist markets will create that recessionary crisis. And that a recessionary crisis is quite literally best avoided by being a good Marxist and understanding power dynamics and the relationship to the means of production of the greater marketplace.

Marxist historiography is phenomenal and they should be taught in high school.

But the problem is the reason Marxist historiography should be taught in school isn't because ofthe faux universalism of its critique beyond the Western world enforcing that critique to begin with. You need Marxist critique, because Europeans were very successful in making the world play by its rules and self-referentially looking at itself in European ways.

This is best summed up in things like revolutionary pedagogy, and postmodernist discourse concerning the elements of fabricated divides of Orientalism and Occidentalism.

You cannot compare community childrearing practices of Native American Indians or various Aboriginal Australian nations--to Marxist critique of social class consciousness. Especially in terms ofhis structuralist evolution of society ... unless one is self-aware AF what they're doing ...

Call it the European philosophy of 'supraphilosophical organizational relationships'. Quite simply put, he didn't really have an answer for it. Insulting enough, it didn't matter what side ofthe Hegelian dialectic you were of Labour v. Capital, the only stipulation made was the quite racist and imperialist argument of 'raising up the natives', ala the Philippine-American War and the rhetoric behind it.

It's not good enough for us to turn around and say; "Yeah, but the former colonized are now aping a Marxist structuralist evolution..." as if retroactively answering the critique of Marxist historiography.

So we have a problem here. What happens when the historiographical models that must fit do not, and we do not want to ape the rhetoric or the pseudoscientific critique of the past? And mind you it's not like the search for this answer was limited to the postmodern era ... but it is true to say we're certainly more 'honest' in recognizing that even good theorem pales at the microhistorical level.

I mean, in a sense you could say Kant critiqued objective truth by distinguishing between the thing in itself and its appearance.

Nietzsche is ahead of his time, I agree, but it's not because of his critique of objective truth, but because of his understanding of the implications of this critique. It is not "I have killed God", but "we have killed God". Nietzsche understood himself as part of a critical tradition which already existed before him. The "we" almost certainly includes Kant. If someone appears to us to be "before their time", then maybe "their time" wasn't what we think it is.

The fact that he went on to be influential on postmodernists does not mean he was a postmodernist. Again, so did Kant, so did Marx, so did Freud.

I agree ... as I said before ... some postmodernists say Nietzsche is the 'intellectual core' of postmodernism.

I don't. As I said before, I think both its 'intellectual core' and its 'spiritual core' belong to various thinkers of the post-colonized and the ideas like revolutionary pedagogy. It also lends its strength from people going out of their way to decry modernist artistic and architectural movements as intellectually bankrupt. Rather, instead, creating theories of intertextuality of social constructs to create very personal artistic rendition that flagrantly admonished modernism's desires to be artistically school driven. Flagrantly disagreed with modernism's "self-mourning" of its own dissolution in the face of consumerism. The hypothetical age of hypertextuality.

And the reason why people look to Nietzsche as the father of 'pre-postmodernism' (to coin a term) is precisely because of his irreverence to fabricated higher virtues.

Because pretend as they might, modernism had these fabricated higher virtues in spades. Dialectical claims to objective truth and feeding off its own misery of its fragmentation.

Whereas you had someone like Nietzsche say; "Stuff that, one must have chaos within them, yadda yadda..."

The reason why I pointed to modernist artists and their love affair with essentialism and 'refined rationalism' such as Stella's minimalism and the death of modernism as we know it. Because in the pursuit of finding the most 'pure', mind-dependent aspects of """art""", it killed its own chaos ... it killed human romance, it killed even metaphorical subjects.

And in the end it achieved everything it sought out to do.... and it became nothing but colour without real indicative form. A lot of people who would become postmodern ... saw things like minimalism, saw things like International Style architecture ... and saw only the abuse of human chaos. The abuse of our chaotic starlight.

That's (one reason) why Nietzsche is seen as the father of postmodernism. Pure theory turned out to be garbage, and postmodernism was a reaction to what it was seeing in modernist discourse.

This is why postmodernism isn't as if "from the void, modernism's conflict"--and I won't argue that because I'm not a Hegelian. But there are large disconnects there between what modernism sought to do, and what postmodernism seeks to be in redemption of its partial namesake. If Nietzsche is modernist, postmodernism seeks to be the builders of his hypothetical society by railing against modernism's inadequacy. Which is why so many kneejerk Christians keep saying 'Nietzsche is detroying academia' .... and then point to postmodernists as if proof.

If postmodernism is uncomfortably akin to modernism, it is precisely because modernism is stale and perhaps needs a torch to burn it all away. And in a lot of the former colonized world, a lot of artists saw postmodernism as if an opportunity to reclaim their chaotic humanity from what they saw is cold rationalism. That postmodernism, if attributable to anything, was its outrage of modernity telling it; "Art has its own quintessential reality."

Australian artists like Brett Whiteley once argued that he hoped people would burn his collection before art theorists truly got their theoretical claws into it and dictated its discourse. Because postmodernism recognizes decay and seeks to make peace with it.

Brett Whiteley is also an interesting figure in terms of avant-garde 1970-80s artistic rendition. Which is either modernism through its own lens, or modernism through the lens of its inheritors and as a critique of everything modernism stood for.

Much in the same way Nietzsche saw himself as a 'child ofthe earth'.

And there is a reason why this discourse exists.

Postmodernism cannot separate its philosophical, artistic, social and cultural angles very easily. And the reason for that was a desire to find holistic attitudes to the human condition thatwere couched in terms of personal growth and explosiveness of intertextuality. For example, the postmodernist architecture (or more so it's early 'anti-modernist' architectural revolution) birthed by the Sydney Opera House ... which went on to inspire other concert halls across the world.

Everything about the Sydney Opera House is both "intertextual" and self-referential. Whether it be to the plants in the Botanical Gardens nearby, to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, to the sunrise that raises up over the harbour, or its jagged points and spits of land that jut into the harbour as you follow its length into the Pacific Ocean, or the scattered, chaotic light of the near perpetual sunny days that bounce off the harbour's waters.

Where you can take a few steps to the right and be blinded and where your mind explodes with imagination as you try, and fail, to imagine every arcing matrices of its edges against its silhouettes and profiles as you walk around it. It's an exercise in the chaos of imagination that utterly ignores true function or capacity of itself to hold a crowd. Everything is rounded and yet jagged, everything is overbuilt, even the glass panelling is weirdly arrayed at confusing angles. It's antithetical to high-modernism. Whereby its fairly standard base looks unimaginatively International Style ... it blossoms forth, breaking out of the ground like spiny monsters as if rising out of high modernism's corpse.

Can you imagine what the Sydney Opera House would have looked like if built only a decade or two prior?

The Sydney Opera House owes itself to the post-WW2 disillusionment of modernism as a whole.

And that postmodern flairs came in bursts, spouts, consumed whole and then mutated as fast as they were thought about in other people's heads. And it represents that postmodernism is closely linked to modernity's rebelliousness, ultimately postmodernist rebelliousness cannot be found solely in modernism.

CM156:

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

The Employee has to show that he is part of a protected class that was discriminated against and those protections violated.

It can be complex:

I may refuse to hire you because I hate your shoes. Wearing such shoes is not a protected class. But what if the vast majority of protected class almost always wear such shoes?

Gorfias:

CM156:

Perhaps in the United Kingdom. In Illinois, in the USA, where he works? No, a private employer can refuse to hire for all sorts of reasons, so long as it's not illegal discrimination. And the onus is on the fired/not-hired employee to prove discrimination.

Source: I just finished up a class in employment law. Employees have very few rights in most states (Montana is a shocking exception).

The Employee has to show that he is part of a protected class that was discriminated against and those protections violated.

It can be complex:

I may refuse to hire you because I hate your shoes. Wearing such shoes is not a protected class. But what if the vast majority of protected class almost always wear such shoes?

The employee will lose 9/10 of cases like the shoe example. They'd either have to have an amazing lawyer (and the employer a shitty one), prove that the owner let different sub-class in the same class wear those shoes (eg: a black person can and the fired employee was white), or the employer would have to say something stupid like "those are white person shoes."

As CM said, the employee has the burden of proof.

Just a nitpick on terminology here but "protected class" refers to something such as sex, race, or age. White, black, Asian, etc would be sub-classes that are all protected under the class. It's just as illegal to fire/not hire someone for being white as it is illegal to fire/not hire someone for being black.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The irony is so many anti-capitalist movements that might be described as either anti-modernist, or counter-cultural, or postcolonial were themselves very much wearing the colours of colonialism. The Marxist dialectic of labour vs. capital was given worldspanning critique that went on to colour the colonized who knew nothing of that divide themselves until European colonialism.

You know, I'd actually really advise giving The Wretched of the Earth a read, because Fanon kind of addresses this himself.

See, colonialism had a dialectic too in the form of civilization vs. barbarism which continues into postcolonial societies as well. Postcolonial societies, and particularly intellectuals, feel a need to validate the existence and value of their own "authentic" culture by trying to reclaim them from barbarism. However, this doesn't escape the dialectic. In fact, by trying to build an authentic culture which is the equal of colonising cultures, the colonised academic merely affirms that those colonising cultures represent a standard for culture itself. In today's language, it's a form of self-orientalizing discourse, and thus prone to the same mistakes as Western orientalism (fixation on cultural purity or discreetness, positioning ethnic or national boundaries as cultural, reading national consciousness into societies with no nation state).

The simple fact is that whatever mentality existed before colonialism was quickly subsumed beneath the civilization/barbarism dialectic of colonialism itself. This means that whatever precolonial history might be recovered is not an authentic culture that exists now, but was destroyed through imposition of the civilization/barbarism dialectic of colonialism. Just as there is a break in historical continuity between premodern and modern culture in Europe, the same is true with precolonial and postcolonial culture. Instead, the authentic culture and history of postcolonial societies is the struggle against colonialism itself, and in that sense Marxist dialectics are relevant even if the substantive content of those dialectics and the kind of society they describe is Eurocentric.

That aside though, I'm going to scale this discussion down. There are a few things I still disagree with, like the idea that modernist art and modernism as a philosophical/intellectual trend can be equated (I feel much the same way about postmodernism and postmodernist art) and I think doing so leads to a slightly broad and essentialist understanding of what these things are. I also think you're downplaying the difficulty of substantiating an ethical stance from within postmodernism without simply repeating or trying to substantiate preexisting universals, particularly since that's one of the most common critiques of postmodernism. Overall though, I agree with you on just about everything else and I actually think putting postcolonialism as central to the postmodern condition makes a disturbing degree of sense and makes me wish I was stronger on postcolonial theory than I am. So yeah, thank you. It's been fun.

I wonder if The Escapist is through the wormhole yet, so that it's worth trying to post something...

Anyways, fun as a meander through the weeds of Modernism can be, I think I'll try to bring this back to the topic. Obviously we're dealing with a sprawling field of tangled tendrils, but I would think Dr. Peterson is well aware of that. He's just using "postmodernist" in a limited sense of describing what he believes is one of the major constituent parts or sources of the dominant intellectual paradigm. The "postmodernism" he is referring to has little to do with artistic practice, but rather the complete equation of "knowledge" with the operations of "Power", as per Foucault. Sure, there are intellectual precursors, but it was this particular movement that brought it into vogue in its most radical iteration.

This is not to claim that the idea has remained exactly the same, but rather it's been brought into line with the segmenting collectivist nature of the "Social Justice" ideology (just as the class structure of Marxism has been transformed into identity categories), so that "knowledge" is seen as something particular to a subgroup of humanity, to be wielded in order to empower them relative to rival subgroups. That's why you see these movements of "decolonization" spreading to the actual sciences, claiming they are based on "White Man's" knowledge that subjugates the non-"White Man" by its very nature. As Prof. Sandra Harding put it, Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual" according to this view.

Simply put, that's the "postmodernism" decried by Dr. Peterson. You may find it a reductive usage, but what's the alternative? Three hours of caveats and explanations before he gets to a point of urgent contemporary relevance every time he opens his mouth, only to have those three hours gone over with a microscope by a cadre of professional nitpickers with a vested interest in maintaining the mystique, all eager to discredit him for any tiny slip? Not very practicable, is it? Sadly, this means that not everyone gets the exact thrust of his argument, but seemingly a great many do.

Avnger:

The employee will lose 9/10 of cases like the shoe example. They'd either have to have an amazing lawyer (and the employer a shitty one), prove that the owner let different sub-class in the same class wear those shoes (eg: a black person can and the fired employee was white), or the employer would have to say something stupid like "those are white person shoes."

As CM said, the employee has the burden of proof.

Just a nitpick on terminology here but "protected class" refers to something such as sex, race, or age. White, black, Asian, etc would be sub-classes that are all protected under the class. It's just as illegal to fire/not hire someone for being white as it is illegal to fire/not hire someone for being black.

Possibly: but pretend you are the finder of fact. Do YOU think the guy with the shoes has a case?
Agreed though: shoe guy has the burden. For now. ITMT: I've been threatened by a disgruntled white guy that did not get but wanted a job for the reason you note: he felt HE had been discriminated against because of his white race. In reality, after further review, we found that he was a loon, while an Indian Woman that did get hired was sane. Sanity helps when the position is one that requires a high level of trust.

StatusNil:

Simply put, that's the "postmodernism" decried by Dr. Peterson. You may find it a reductive usage, but what's the alternative? Three hours of caveats and explanations before he gets to a point of urgent contemporary relevance every time he opens his mouth, only to have those three hours gone over with a microscope by a cadre of professional nitpickers with a vested interest in maintaining the mystique, all eager to discredit him for any tiny slip? Not very practicable, is it? Sadly, this means that not everyone gets the exact thrust of his argument, but seemingly a great many do.

How about him making sense of the rest of the stuff he says? Like, say, not comparing humans to lobsters in discussions of behavioural science? Or mealy-mouthed nonsense about the importance of religion as per Christian traditionalist outlooks and argumentation? If he spouts off mely-mouthed nonsense of; "The Marxists are coming! The Marxists are coming!"-- and then pretends like lobsters inform us of human behaviour or how Christian theology is somehow important because mmmmhrmmm-hrr-mmmhr ...

I'll buy some idea that he's using 'postmodernism' in its loosest, most vaguest sense of the word that it does fuck all to actually critique anyone in particular ... but as on why I buy it is he likely does it so people like you can pretend as if it's our fault for not accepting his vague bullshit and picking apart his rantings.

He should have stuck to psychometrics. Frankly I doubt he could actually meaningfully define various schools of postmodern thought, regardless.

Oh, and no, it's not; "The Marxists are coming..."

evilthecat:

You know, I'd actually really advise giving The Wretched of the Earth a read, because Fanon kind of addresses this himself.

See, colonialism had a dialectic too in the form of civilization vs. barbarism which continues into postcolonial societies as well. Postcolonial societies, and particularly intellectuals, feel a need to validate the existence and value of their own "authentic" culture by trying to reclaim them from barbarism. However, this doesn't escape the dialectic. In fact, by trying to build an authentic culture which is the equal of colonising cultures, the colonised academic merely affirms that those colonising cultures represent a standard for culture itself. In today's language, it's a form of self-orientalizing discourse, and thus prone to the same mistakes as Western orientalism (fixation on cultural purity or discreetness, positioning ethnic or national boundaries as cultural, reading national consciousness into societies with no nation state).

All I know about Fanon is discourses by Sartre and his ideas of 'cathartic violence' of the oppressed as if on the basis of 'defining the struggle of people'. So I can't comment directly, and I'll give it a look in the next time I put in an order with the Book Depository, or if I see it in a bookstore the next time I go to Kinokuniya or the like.

If it covers my critique directly, sounds like a good read.

The simple fact is that whatever mentality existed before colonialism was quickly subsumed beneath the civilization/barbarism dialectic of colonialism itself. This means that whatever precolonial history might be recovered is not an authentic culture that exists now, but was destroyed through imposition of the civilization/barbarism dialectic of colonialism. Just as there is a break in historical continuity between premodern and modern culture in Europe, the same is true with precolonial and postcolonial culture. Instead, the authentic culture and history of postcolonial societies is the struggle against colonialism itself, and in that sense Marxist dialectics are relevant even if the substantive content of those dialectics and the kind of society they describe is Eurocentric.

But I don't want to posit a pseudo-essentialism ... call it 'geo-essentialism' ... of person and nationhood. Even in good intentions, I specifically don't want that Hegelian dialetic of as if some naturalistic synthesis of manufactured 'recovery'. Nor see it as the answer. Because a synthetic appreciation of 'nativism of the lost' may seem like the 'best of all possible situations' ... but historically it doesn't work out very well.

And one of the reasons why I hate that geo-essentialism is precisely because historiography was, and is, riddled with it.

It took until the 1970s for academia to start taking microhistorical perspective seriously as a historiographical account and practice. For the longest time you had Annales and Marxist historiography ... and for the same reasons class-based historiographical tradition was considered 'revolutionary' in terms of transforming social and cultural chronological commentary from a stolid practice of faux-sincerity ... so too has Marxist historiography been increasingly problematic as the world faced the collapse of the British Empire, the slow decline (but not ending) U.S. imperialism, and the nuance killing grand narratives of the Cold War.

One that accidentally brought Occidentalism back in full swing as the gaze of world history and the postcolonial struggle took on increasingly nuance-killing aspects through things like proxy warfare, and the insistence of Western traditions painting these conflicts against colonialism and capitalism as to be one and the same.

The problem with a lot of these scholars, and Fanon included, is they are people of their time and place.

Sartre might have been referring to things like the French in Algiers, or in Vietnam ... but conflicts don't look like that anymore. The colonialism is not the same... Dutch petroleum companies in Nigeria who have destroyed the Niger Delta, and will go on to poison millions of people, is not going to have that same catharsis of fighting an occupier. Because the occupier is other Nigerians flushed with oil money, who use that to buy increasingly deadly arms against an increasingly weaker collective of people.

Which is another big problem of Marxist historiography is its inability to truly understand the idea of the 'resources curse'. Where you have croney capitalism that is most certainly not progressive, and even if the people take it by force and thecommon person takes that means of production, it means nothing to them personally. And Nigeria is a case where you have endemic problems in part or whole resulting from the oil trade. Communal violence between villagers and nomadic herdsmen, Arab-backed Salafist groups, Nigerian military action abuses, UK and U.S. backed Nigerian military and mercenaries to protect oil assets in the region against any means of actual protest.

I am not doing the subject justice trying to convey this idea of the ridiculous complexity of current colonialism and what it looks like.

'Cathartic violence' is already a thing, but it's not helping. And while one might claim that you need that idea, then, of 'geo-essentialism' to fabricate a national identity ... that's cart before the horse regardless of whether you believe that or not.

And this is why I keep hammering home the idea of microhistorical perspective as the basis of the colonized creating their personal connection to history.,

It is not a false sense of authenticity, these people's lives have been irrevocably changed... But then again microhistorical perspective has an answer to that. And once you get a people collectively writing this microhistorical perspective from the frameworks of collective resistance, building up the body of Nigerian historiography ... whereby their own theorem can emerge and be applied.

That is when you will start seeing real solidarity not built on grand narratives or same hamstringing Western tradition, but on real theorem being written collectively, that can provide people strength, voices, and clarity of the message.

That aside though, I'm going to scale this discussion down. There are a few things I still disagree with, like the idea that modernist art and modernism as a philosophical/intellectual trend can be equated (I feel much the same way about postmodernism and postmodernist art) and I think doing so leads to a slightly broad and essentialist understanding of what these things are. I also think you're downplaying the difficulty of substantiating an ethical stance from within postmodernism without simply repeating or trying to substantiate preexisting universals, particularly since that's one of the most common critiques of postmodernism. Overall though, I agree with you on just about everything else and I actually think putting postcolonialism as central to the postmodern condition makes a disturbing degree of sense and makes me wish I was stronger on postcolonial theory than I am. So yeah, thank you. It's been fun.

But the artistic, literary and architectural discussion is still kind of important. Postmodernist art actually strives to build personal narratives. It makes personal and de-centralizes modernism's idea of 'Art' by saying that art does not have its own essentialist reality. That art is merely symbols, and we need to give these symbols their humanity. We don't create art in a void, we invest ourselves into these working symbols and develop/deconstruct them, and in so doing, make them starlight. The best revolutionary artwork is postmodern art... because it speaks to the artist who made it and seeks to create real attachments in the viewer by creating mutual, mutating symbols of their collective humanity.

image

And that is precisely where we need to take Marxist historiography, disband its idealism, and make it personal. We need to insert that idea of one's starlight. The bias of modernist outlooks that have plagued history ... silenced people ... meant the theoretical backgrounds to personal struggle and resistance in things like microhistory wasn't coinsidered 'high academia' until the late 70s.

And this is why I hammer home the importance of microhistory as the revolution that Marxism forgot. No ... we will never get the past back again. People's suffering has been internalized, their personal relationship to history lost. But we can create the foundations for that personal relationship to historiography again. This discourse is not merely in terms of postcolonialism, but is easily applicable to all people maligned.

The most rewarding discourses on gender identity I have ever personally had I didn't pull up in a book or lecture, but meeting gender non-conforming people (in a foreign gaze) in places like Thailand. Actually hearing their stories personally ... Meeting other trans people through my advocacy work, from all sorts of backgrounds.

LGBTQ movements worldwide, refugee stories, stories from people caught in the crossfires of unrest, coups and invasion. Build a historiography of people. And from that you will get better theory. If I was persuing history as an academic profession, I would seriously try uniting together a body of transgender historiography. That would be my focus worldwide, and that would be the way I would personally consider taking advocacy directly to the academic world.

In the same way Marxist historiography didn't simply emerge as if from the void ... but was built upon through and through, and the body of personal experiences to phenomena and the objects of their senses. You can have that natural progression, and it will be better than anything that has come before. And certainly, one can look at it from the argument of; "Well, yeah, okay, but Marxist historiography is merely a shorthand to critique, not objective truth"--that's precisely the point.

If you can't have objective truth, why bother beyond giving people anything else other than the means to create their own starlight ... symbols of their humanity they can build and deconstruct and create new narratives?

And academia has been incredibly hostile to this idea until very recently.

And yeah... it's been fun. Most of the philosophy I know of is afairly layman understanding of art theory as well as historiography. Which you can probably guess at. I'm one of those people who read The Sickness Unto Death with little pre-textual knowledge, because as a 20year old I saw a Penguin's Classic of it on a shelf for $4 ... which is problematic.

So I'm not really strong with aspects of theory and I kind of bundle what I know of modernism and postmodernism from both art theory as well as stuff in historiograpy, and stuff I picked up on my own.

So forgive me for being all over the place and being kind of unable to explain my ideas without drawing inspiration from art theory. I do think the artistic critique is kind of important. Like explaining socialist symbolism across the world in the late 60s, 70s and 80s in Africa, Asia and South America ... and comparing it to European symbolism of revolution through the eyes of minimalism and 'high modernism'.

StatusNil:
This is not to claim that the idea has remained exactly the same, but rather it's been brought into line with the segmenting collectivist nature of the "Social Justice" ideology (just as the class structure of Marxism has been transformed into identity categories), so that "knowledge" is seen as something particular to a subgroup of humanity, to be wielded in order to empower them relative to rival subgroups. That's why you see these movements of "decolonization" spreading to the actual sciences, claiming they are based on "White Man's" knowledge that subjugates the non-"White Man" by its very nature. As Prof. Sandra Harding put it, Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual" according to this view.

I won't pretend that I follow even half of the discussion on modernism or postmodernism in this thread. I abandoned philosophy in favour of law many years ago now. But I know enough to be able to call bullshit on both Jordan Peterson and the intellectual boogeymen that he criticises.

I mean, let's talk about the rape manual line. That comment dates back to 1986. In the three decades since then, the academic study of mathematics has, surprisingly, not been taken over by postcolonialists. That's because when you go to a mathematician and say "hey, this philosopher called the Principia a rape manual," they go "so what?" and return to their mathematicationitizing. Mathematicians don't care about postcolonial feminist epistemology.

To the extent that academia pays attention, it's to dismantle the argument entirely. That is how academia works. It is not what Jordan Peterson is doing. Jordan Peterson is not engaging in an academic critique of some person's bullshit. He is fighting bullshit with more bullshit. He sees your rape manual and raises with a worldwide neo-Marxist conspiracy. The end result of this terrifyingly effective rhetorical strategy that is that instead of just the one side spouting bullshit, now both sides can spout their own personalised flavour of bullshit. That's not really an improvement.

I would respect Peterson a great deal more if he turned away from the profitable business of peddling bullshit to scared young boys and returned to writing papers on clinical psychology. He can still do good work addressing and defusing the very real anxieties and social pressures facing psychologically vulnerable young men. He will not solve those problems at all if he just tells these men that all their worries can be blamed on the postmodernist boogeyman.

StatusNil:
Simply put, that's the "postmodernism" decried by Dr. Peterson. You may find it a reductive usage, but what's the alternative?

A better and more specific term that doesn't erroneously implicate a huge swathe of 20th-century academia in a malevolent cultural conspiracy?

He is a necessary force to help combat the SJW plague. I don't know where the far-left came from, but the feminist, SJW, intersectionality, diversity, inclusion bullshit with safe spaces, cultural appropriation, patriarchy and I can't remember any of the other mumbo-jumbo, is a vile, reprehensible ideology that's doing more harm to everyone than any of the offences they claim. While I'm left of center politically, I now have more in common with the right and need to vote that way just because of how awful and terrifying the left is.

Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows. Jordan Peterson is able to articulate what most of us want to but can't find the words or courage to say. The far left are a danger to society, the root of the most resurgent racism I've seen in the modern day and don't seem to be stopping. I'm glad gamergate happened to throw most of them out, although it wasn't entirely successful (there are still games and reviewers who view games thru the lens of race, gender and the rest.)

So while I believe in equality for all and am against discrimination, because I believe all women short-lists, equity, diversity hiring and positive discrimination are sexist and racist, I get to be called misogynist and racist. We need more people like Peterson able to speak clearly and intelligently and hope to reach the deluded feminist/SJW types who get offended at everything and shut down any dissenting opinion. Freedom of speech is the highest value and they're stepping on it in order to promote divisiveness, hatred, misery and worse. Anything that helps show these leftist bastards how wrong they are and how bad their ideology is is a good thing and as such, Peterson is a champion.

KingsGambit:
He is a necessary force to help combat the SJW plague. I don't know where the far-left came from, but the feminist, SJW, intersectionality, diversity, inclusion bullshit with safe spaces, cultural appropriation, patriarchy and I can't remember any of the other mumbo-jumbo, is a vile, reprehensible ideology that's doing more harm to everyone than any of the offences they claim. While I'm left of center politically, I now have more in common with the right and need to vote that way just because of how awful and terrifying the left is.

Current millenials seem determined to tear down and destroy everything and everywhere they go, ruin soon follows. Jordan Peterson is able to articulate what most of us want to but can't find the words or courage to say. The far left are a danger to society, the root of the most resurgent racism I've seen in the modern day and don't seem to be stopping. I'm glad gamergate happened to throw most of them out, although it wasn't entirely successful (there are still games and reviewers who view games thru the lens of race, gender and the rest.)

So while I believe in equality for all and am against discrimination, because I believe all women short-lists, equity, diversity hiring and positive discrimination are sexist and racist, I get to be called misogynist and racist. We need more people like Peterson able to speak clearly and intelligently and hope to reach the deluded feminist/SJW types who get offended at everything and shut down any dissenting opinion. Freedom of speech is the highest value and they're stepping on it in order to promote divisiveness, hatred, misery and worse. Anything that helps show these leftist bastards how wrong they are and how bad their ideology is is a good thing and as such, Peterson is a champion.

Well said! Very well said! You managed to articulate my own jumbled thoughts into something a lot more coherent.
I'm also left of center, but have found more in common with the alternative right (not the traditional right) as the left kept on accelerating towards absurd extremism. Alt-right managed to separate themselves and starting to lay the foundation for a new political platform, until the ctrl-left intervened with their usual cries of "sexist! racist! xxxxPhobe!" to muddle the waters and tar the movement.

Vendor-Lazarus:
...until the ctrl-left intervened with their usual cries of "sexist! racist! xxxxPhobe!" to muddle the waters and tar the movement.

Sure. Because the fact the term "alt-right" was initially adopted by white nationalists like Richard Spencer over 5 years ago to refer to themselves required muddying by anyone at all. You guys were late to the party, pal, and you should have checked who was hosting it before you turned up.

Nor does it require much muddying when so many of the not overtly white nationalist alt-right apologise and stick up for the activities of the overtly white nationalist alt-right. It's hardly convincing to pretend that it's unreasonable for anyone else to draw any inferences from that.

KingsGambit:
combat the SJW plague.

KingsGambit:
We need more people like Peterson able to speak clearly and intelligently and hope to reach the deluded feminist/SJW types who get offended at everything and shut down any dissenting opinion.

KingsGambit:
I'm glad gamergate happened to throw most of them out

KingsGambit:
We need more people like Peterson able to speak clearly and intelligently and hope to reach the deluded feminist/SJW types who get offended at everything and shut down any dissenting opinion.

KingsGambit:
throw most of them out

KingsGambit:
Freedom of speech is the highest value

KingsGambit:
I'm left of center politically

KingsGambit:
Anything that helps show these leftist bastards how wrong they are

Maybe you should clean your room, that might help.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked