The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

They've turned him into a charlatan that can do no wrong or say no wrong. Everything is taken as gospel.

Critics are as you put it, are lacking credibility, misinformed, or are too dumb to understand.

He's gone from a youtube self help psychologist offering psychology 101 type advice to a purveyor of anti-marxist conspiracy with dashes of the blatant misogyny that they also love at the behest of the depressed 4chan types that follow his every word and line his pockets.

Peterson's critics have lost all credibility because they are only interested in attacking him. Most of his critics do not even bother to quote anything he says in their attack pieces.
 
Peterson's critics have lost all credibility because they are only interested in attacking him. Most of his critics do not even bother to quote anything he says in their attack pieces.

Pretty sure I laid out some pretty specific criticisms about what he talks about in this thread that you ignored.

His cultural Marxist conspiracy bullshit is bullshit.
 
Pretty sure I laid out some pretty specific criticisms about what he talks about in this thread that you ignored.

His cultural Marxist conspiracy bullshit is bullshit.

I think you should read Explaining postmodernism by Steven Hicks.
 
I'm not saying postmodernism isn't a thing. I'm saying it's not some grand conspiracy.

Might not be a conspiracy, but it was intended as such.

The original authors of post-modernist thought, laid out the advent of post-modernism in the West as such, that it must be furthered by a "long march" through the institutions, and a gradual subversion of culture.
 

No, it's not actually. You're talking about two different things and making pretend they're one.

Postmodernism is a specific philosophy.

The long march is a specific strategy by a specific postmodernist thinker to spread his ideas through society. Subversion isn't a technique specific to postmodernists or communists. Capitalists have no qualms about using it either.

If you really think postmodernism is so terrible come up with better ideas and make better arguments.
 
An excellent point. People point to China's growth but disregard that they're simply playing catch up to modern standards at this so the growth rate has to be put into context. With a population 4x that of the U.S. they can achieve massive economic leverage without coming close to maximizing efficient use of their population. Which they haven't done. Most of China is still backwards as fcuk. But with 1.4 billion, you don't need to raise all of them up.

At the risk of a derail - that is the real question about China. Can they get 80% of their population into 21st century standards?

If they brought 80% of their population into the 21st century their air would probably be unbreathable.
 
Peterson's critics have lost all credibility because they are only interested in attacking him. Most of his critics do not even bother to quote anything he says in their attack pieces.

Most of the criticism is tactical in nature rather than substantive. It's more a lawyer approach than a philosophical discussion.
One dude on here admitted he idolized him and "bought into" Petersons principles for life during a difficult time. Later he realized what happened and is now a critic citing saying he has a cult following with a froggy voice.
This is really pathetic starting with idolizing anyone. Who would expect to agree 100% with what anyone teaches or every attitude someone has. That's more like a 8yr old needing Batman than than recognizing that someone has some wisdom for our times.
Than to project that others idolize him like he used to, plus laughing at a guys voice, just points to the critic being a pathetic individual with nothing to say.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not actually. You're talking about two different things and making pretend they're one.

Postmodernism is a specific philosophy.

The long march is a specific strategy by a specific postmodernist thinker to spread his ideas through society. Subversion isn't a technique specific to postmodernists or communists. Capitalists have no qualms about using it either.

If you really think postmodernism is so terrible come up with better ideas and make better arguments.

The long march was a strategy applauded by the originators of post-modern thought, of the now-infamous "Frankenfurt school". It was generally acknowledged, atleast at the time, as the way to go forward with the Marxist revolution.

Subversion isn't limited to post-modernists but no one has put together a more comprehensive strategy on how to gradually subvert a population culturally in the modern-day context, than post-modernists.

The reason why the subversive efforts of post-modernists are met with claims of conspiracy more often, is because there is obviously a lot more academic intellect and conscious planning behind the attempts to influence, compared to those of a Donald Trump, or the Fox News. Crude strongman bullshit simply does not compare to comprehensive, critically evaluated theories put together by intellectuals of various sort.

The reality is that whenever people feel their intelligence is being belittled, and that they are being manipulated to think a certain way, they are going to lash out. Not necessarily because all of the ideas themselves are bad, but because they are being presented in a dishonest and indirect manner. Anything that is being disproportionately forced on people, is going to meet a backlash, that is only natural.

I've never said that all of post-modernism is terrible, but I think that there are many flawed patterns of thought behind it. One of the consistent pests of Marxist-influenced thought is the idea that a "revolution" of sorts must ensue. That's something that even ol' Karl Marx would've liked to have had back, if he were able to look back from today's perspective. It leads to a generation of youth who become hysterical about requiring immediate change, instead of being able to witness human history as a gradual, stable progress, usually only interrupted and delayed by these sorts of "revolutions".
 
Pretty sure I laid out some pretty specific criticisms about what he talks about in this thread that you ignored.

His cultural Marxist conspiracy bullshit is bullshit.

Sure, Peterson's Marxist conspiracy bullshit is bullshit. So what? Are we all supposed to stop listening to everything else he has to say? I'm not understanding why so many people are upset with Peterson and his enthusiastic followers. One could do a lot worse than listen to what Jordan Peterson has to say.
 
1) false
2) cop out
3) i dont hate him

legit lol @ peterson doing an interview and then when that interview is uploaded his cultists refuse to watch or commentate on it because its just so dumb it has to be...a voiceover? smh

thats a very ironic thing for you to say considering JP just did a 2 hour vid with dave rubin trying to change the definition of truth lmao

what is not true? literally everything you just said is irrelevant

no one is saying its bad advice, people are making fun of his fanbase which largely consists of white teenagers who fancy themselves intellectuals. to everyone else on the planet cleaning your room is a no-brainer for its obvious positive benefits. mom says it? not good enough. fancy doctor on the internet? well this is a glorious revelation lads amazing insight who could possibly have known? im actually a little surprised that I had to break this down. i honestly expect more from people.

also legit lol @ claiming "anti-Peterson zealots" are fascinated by something when even just explaining the joke to you makes you sperg out in full defense mode like:

>"muh nihilistic helplessness"
>"muh grand universe"
>"muh self-actualization"

good god man do you drones really not hear how you sound lmao
I have to ask, why are you calling people who value Petersons input "cultists"? I mean, obviously you're interested in taking part in the conversation, so why take such an adversarial approach? Apparently you know enough about the guy to realize he's anti-ideologue and prefers to hash things out in open discussions. To me, that willingness to exchange ideas puts him as far from a cult leader as possible. This is the same as calling liberals "libtards" or conservatives racists or other such negative labels. This sort of combative communication is the reason we're where we're at - no understanding due to consistently being on the offensive or defensive. No bueno man.
 
I have to ask, why are you calling people who value Petersons input "cultists"? I mean, obviously you're interested in taking part in the conversation, so why take such an adversarial approach? Apparently you know enough about the guy to realize he's anti-ideologue and prefers to hash things out in open discussions. To me, that willingness to exchange ideas puts him as far from a cult leader as possible. This is the same as calling liberals "libtards" or conservatives racists or other such negative labels. This sort of combative communication is the reason we're where we're at - no understanding due to consistently being on the offensive or defensive. No bueno man.

I think the left attacks him so much because he presents reasonable right-leaning arguments. They are so used to people like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones that when someone comes around who actually challenges what they think it scares the shit out of them.
 
There is a fourth response: Vice has zero credibility and is not worth paying attention to. I have not watched the Vice smear-piece and I have no intention of doing so.
That and the chinaman has a punchable face. Fucking Vice.
 
Sure, Peterson's Marxist conspiracy bullshit is bullshit. So what? Are we all supposed to stop listening to everything else he has to say? I'm not understanding why so many people are upset with Peterson and his enthusiastic followers. One could do a lot worse than listen to what Jordan Peterson has to say.
I fail to understand this critique. How is it bullshit? We are seeing cultural marxist philosophy implemented as public policy. Where has Peterson advocated that its a conspiracy? When did he say its some shadowy cabal trying to advance these things? He hasn't. It's simply an ideology that has spread and reached critical mass to the point where its flowing into public policy.
 
I think those things pale in comparison to two far more important factors (which we would find undesirable): the fact that they have the ability to compel their population in a way that western democracies cannot and that they have abused trade agreements with basically the entire world and are dumping their manufactured products across most if not all industries.



yes, Stealing trade secrets, manipulating trade deals and using forced labour kind of go without saying. All the early industrial countries did that did all that stuff in the 1800's and early 1900's when they carved up Africa, South America etc. That's how they were able to accumulate capital in the first place.

What makes China unique is the speed and scope of economic modernism due to the demographics.
 
Last edited:
I think the left attacks him so much because he presents reasonable right-leaning arguments. They are so used to people like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones that when someone comes around who actually challenges what they think it scares the shit out of them.


What are these right learning arguments?

I fail to understand this critique. How is it bullshit? We are seeing cultural marxist philosophy implemented as public policy. Where has Peterson advocated that its a conspiracy? When did he say its some shadowy cabal trying to advance these things? He hasn't. It's simply an ideology that has spread and reached critical mass to the point where its flowing into public policy.

And like I said, there's nothing the right can do about it. Gay marriage is legal, the church has less influence than ever etc
 
Back
Top