Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[splendica]

If he stayed out of political philosophy I really wouldn't care. He's just not well read enough to offer anything of substance, and he lashes out angrily at any sort of counter argument in often bizarre ways. Did you know that you can't draw a distinction between Stalinism and Marxism in general? If you disagree with him on that point, you ought to be punched in the nose, apparently. This is a rather bizarre argument from him. Specifically since he does in fact claim to draw a causal link between modern identity politics and the terrors of Stalinism, he subsumes the ability to understand Stalinism's causes. What is unconscionable to him, however, is the notion that anyone could do anything about them (which is what he's attempting to do, incidentally).

Specifically on this issue, he does a tremendous disservice in dissuading (by threat of hypothetical physical violence) any investigation on the part of his followers of the single most interesting question of the Russian revolution: the one we ought to discuss if we're to discuss the revolution at all. Specifically, is Stalinism its logical end? Instead we are to assume a specific conclusion, or get punched in the nose. It's boring.

Odd you use a lot of this wording, since it's literally Antifa (you know, those "punch a Nazi in the face/nose" phrases) who Jordan Peterson gets interrupted by regularly.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think there are differences in the way different ideologies deal with "dominance hierarchy meritocracy" (to the extent that I follow you there). Liberals want to tame and frustrate dominance urges, leftists want to sublimate (or deny) them, and the right wants to honor them.

Do you think the same "dominance urges" that exist in the mind of today's average adult American also existed in the mind of the average adult Iroquois in 1700?

In other words, how much "dominance urge" is instilled by the social order versus inherent in the human genome?

This is one of those questions that's so basic and obvious I take no sociological or psychological or political perspective seriously if it refuses to address it.

 

[Happiness]

Jordan Peterson considers Stephan Molyneux an important thinker.

I win!

 

[Prokofievian]

Odd you use a lot of this wording, since it's literally Antifa (you know, those "punch a Nazi in the face/nose" phrases) who Jordan Peterson gets interrupted by regularly.

First, fuck ANTIFA, for some of the same reasons. Second, ''punched in the nose'' is actually Peterson's wording. It's actually only part of it. His wording was more to the effect of ''punched in the nose as hard as is humanly possible.'' He really does want you to get it good should utter the phrase ''Stalinism wasn't Marxism.''

Indeed it is odd that Peterson should have any beef whatsoever with ANTIFA's approach.

 

[Prokofievian]

Jordan Peterson considers Stephan Molyneux an important thinker.

I win!

I'm going to need a direct quote for this. I refuse to think that Peterson would sink that low.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Wow, this is so off it's scary.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Happiness]

First, fuck ANTIFA, for some of the same reasons. Second, ''punched in the nose'' is actually Peterson's wording. It's actually only part of it. His wording was more to the effect of ''punched in the nose as hard as is humanly possible.'' He really does want you to get it good should utter the phrase ''Stalinism wasn't Marxism.''

Indeed it is odd that Peterson should have any beef whatsoever with ANTIFA's approach.

For such an effette sack of bones, Peterson seems to think if he was just allowed to punt 2 year olds, slap woman, punch noses and happily slap journalists he'd somehow be able to assert himself. It's fantastical thinking, the 2 year old would slap him silly.

 

[Happiness]

I'm going to need a direct quote for this. I refuse to think that Peterson would sink that low.

You're welcome *snicker

 

[Prokofievian]

For such an effette sack of bones, Peterson seems to think if he was just allowed to punt 2 year olds, slap woman, punch noses and happily slap journalists he'd somehow be able to assert himself. It's fantastical thinking, the 2 year old would slap him silly.

I love how his analysis of interactions between men boils down to this episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.



I could flip out and call @Jack V Savage a Nazi, but that will never happen, you know...because of ''the implication.''

What do you mean implication? Like, you wanna punch somebody if a heated argument should develop?

No! Goodness no! But that will never happen because of ''the implication.''

 

[splendica]

Thanks for the correction.

Well I'd actually like it if you can provide a time-stamp to something where he says what you did here:

Peterson believes, and I have heard him make this assertion twice now, using personal anecdotes, that if you grew up in a small town and opted to stay in that town, not get a graduate degree, and work a routine 9 to 5 job, focusing on spending time with your friends, parents and children, yours is a wretched, pitiable failure of a life.

One of my primary concerns for Peterson's followers has to do with the vast percentage of them that will grow even more despondent and self-loathing than they were prior to discovering his work.

In a way, all of Peterson's directives and life lessons set him up as the idealized Ubermensch. The whole Peterson thing is like a crazy, personal ego trip carried out by a massively insecure individual in need of being hailed "the winner" by all those around him.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I've never heard him say anything like this.

You've never heard his "Glory Days" recollections? The story about he and his brother and sister being in college and visiting old friends from their hometown?

That's one of the two vids in which I recall hearing him lay it out.

Peterson believes you're either in deep denial or in possession of a sub-median IQ if you assert contentment with your station in life while not being viewed as a person of extraordinary accomplishment by your peers.

 

[splendica]

You guys are funny. I seriously think you nitpick Peterson right now second only to Trump. He must be on to something.

 

[splendica]

You've never heard his "Glory Days" recollections? The story about he and his brother and sister being in college and visiting old friends from their hometown?

That's one of the two vids in which I recall hearing him lay it out.

Peterson believes you're either in deep denial or in possession of a sub-median IQ if you assert contentment with your station in life while not being viewed as a person of extraordinary accomplishment by your peers.

He believes in that you should be paid what your worth, that you earn your place etc. He also believes that life is one of struggle and even suffering. All of that is accurate.

Beyond all of that, I think much of his criticism is taken out of context and/or has minor controversies magnified. It's so senseless.

Further to this, you all need to learn more about the Russian Revolution, the Red Terror and Gulag. The extent communism and Cultural Marxism goes is beyond anything most minds can handle. Jordan Peterson excellently exposes the potential for evil in all of us. Pride is what often leads to the most brutal of human cruelties - even with the best intentions.

 

[Prokofievian]

You're welcome *snicker

 

[Happiness]

I love how his analysis of interactions between men boils down to this episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.



I could flip out and call @Jack V Savage a Nazi, but that will never happen, you know...because of ''the implication.''

What do you mean implication? Like, you wanna punch somebody if a heated argument should develop?

No! Goodness no! But that will never happen because of ''the implication.''

My gift to you. Peterson on punting two year olds.

"Children are perfectly capable of attempting to subsist on hot dogs, chicken fingers and Froot Loops if doing so will attract attention, provide power, or shield them from trying anything new. Instead of going to bed wisely and peacefully, children will fight night-time unconsciousness until they are staggered by fatigue. They are also perfectly willing to provoke adults, while exploring the complex contours of the social environment, just like juvenile chimps harassing the adults in their troupes.98 Observing the consequences of teasing and taunting enables chimp and child alike to discover the limits of what might otherwise be a too-unstructured and terrifying freedom. Such limits, when discovered, provide security, even if their detection causes momentary disappointment or frustration.
I remember taking my daughter to the playground once when she was about two. She was playing on the monkey bars, hanging in mid-air. A particularly provocative little monster of about the same age was standing above her on the same bar she was gripping. I watched him move towards her. Our eyes locked. He slowly and deliberately stepped on her hands, with increasing force, over and over, as he stared me down. He knew exactly what he was doing. Up yours, Daddy-O—that was his philosophy. He had already concluded that adults were contemptible, and that he could safely defy them. (Too bad, then, that he was destined to become one.) That was the hopeless future his parents had saddled him with. To his great and salutary shock, I picked him bodily off the playground structure, and threw him thirty feet down the field.
No, I didn’t. I just took my daughter somewhere else. But it would have been better for him if I had."

- From 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote For Chaos, by Jordan Peterson.

Fuck knows what page, I have the ebook on my phone. When read as satire it's pretty hilarious.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I love how his analysis of interactions between men boils down to this episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.



I could flip out and call @Jack V Savage a Nazi, but that will never happen, you know...because of ''the implication.''

What do you mean implication? Like, you wanna punch somebody if a heated argument should develop?

No! Goodness no! But that will never happen because of ''the implication.''

Peterson strikes me as a guy who has always been sort of insecure about his natural masculinity and who has compensated by creating an imagined caricature of how men comfortable in their masculinity actually think and behave.

 

[The ScorpioN]

You're welcome *snicker

At what point in the 5 hours of vids you posted does Peterson say that Molyneux is an important thinker?

 

[Prokofievian]

Goddamnit, this thread was supposed to be about Chomsky.



Seriously, the guy makes me want to switch fields. He's that compelling.

 

[Happiness]

At what point in the 5 hours of vids you posted does Peterson say that Molyneux is an important thinker?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[ultramanhyata]

At what point in the 5 hours of vids you posted does Peterson say that Molyneux is an important thinker?

It's clear by the 5 hours Peterson spent challenging and correcting Moly that he thinks he's a crank.