Quote: (04-07-2019 04:34 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

You're not understanding classical liberalism or for that matter modern liberalism.
Classical liberals in many cases are opposed to the things you mention. You are talking about neoliberals and the modern left.

You're conflating two distinct ideologies.

Nonsense. 'Suicide of the West' was first published in 1964 and has nothing to with neo-liberals or the modern left.

I think most of the consternation comes from that JBP is essentially out in the open about his declaration that he won't address the JQ or any other crucial item... Media powers picked up on this early and made him famous and rich, while we all lapped him up and built a vision that wasn't true.

I mean, his rule is literally "Tell the truth, OR AT LEAST DON'T LIE". In other words - Tell the truth most of the time, until it is the most critical moment to keep telling the truth... Then cave in and lie.

Of course, to be devil's advocate, it's not entirely obvious that this isn't the correct tactic to be using in the first place, nor whether JBPs motivations truly lie elsewhere or if he has white Christianity at heart still, and is taking an ingenious indirect route to get us there...

The internet is littered with infamous men who told the whole truth and had minimal reach for their message, and also destroyed their career prospects in the modern world and with it prospects for participation in a large family and a happy life... Meanwhile, JBP somehow converts millions of men from scientific materialism to opening their minds to religion and philosophy, as well as getting men and women to think about their sexual degeneracy as problematic, and teaches everyone to clean their rooms and take responsibility.

It seems lately we've been taking the pessimistic view of Peterson's messages, when I don't know if it is entirely warranted, nor if the majority of listeners generally receives it as such.

Is Peterson subverting the subverters?

"Tell the truth, or at least don't lie"
Subverter hears: Tell the truth when it's easy and be a coward and keep submitting to (((authority))) when it really matters.
Regular man hears: Learn the truth, but don't tell the Jews that you know.

"Clean you room and take on the most responsibily you can bear"
Subverter hears: Stay distracted with trivial things and keep working your meaningless corporate job so you will be too busy to think about things like revolution and revolt against (((us))).
Regular man hears: Remember that beauty and purity is important. Have white children.

"The West is built on the concept of the supreme sanctity of the individual's rights"
Subverter hears: Don't go organizing into a white identity group and overthrow (((us))) please.
Regular man hears: Find your bravery to save the West through worshipping Christ.

I am the only one who feels like Jordan talks a lot but actually says nothing. At least Owen agrees with me.

Quote: (04-18-2019 11:36 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

I am the only one who feels like Jordan talks a lot but actually says nothing. At least Owen agrees with me.

Here's some meta-comedy if you're into that sorta thing:

Here's doing a debate with Zizek now:

Haven’t listened yet but a lot of online chatter says Zizek is destroying Peterstein.

Haven’t listened yet but a lot of online chatter says Zizek is destroying Peterstein.

Quote: (04-19-2019 07:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Here's doing a debate with Zizek now:

Quote:Quote:

"We should carry our burdens -- accept the suffering that goes along with it. But a danger lurks here, that of a subtle reversal. Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is itself a proof of your authenticity. Renunciation of pleasure can easily turn into pleasure of renunciation itself. For example... white Left Liberals love to denigrate their own culture and blame Eurocentrism for our [ills]. But it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multicultural Liberals reserve for themselves the universal position: graciously soliciting others to assert their particular identity. White multiculturalist Liberals embody the lie of identity politics."

-Zizek

I was not expecting to hear such a well-phrased Red Pill-esque concept coming from JP's opponent.

Interesting that one of Zizek's gripes with Marx is the lack of an account of authority. Tellingly, Peterson never addresses this.

I watched about half of this. I respected Zizek as an intelligent guy, an academic who came at Marxism from a very different angle. It was actually refreshing to listen to a Marxist who wasn't an LGBT advocate, who disavowed cultural Marxism but really that is not who we are dealing with these days. Peterson actually pointed out well that Zizek wasn't a pure Marxist. Peterson actually went off script which I haven't seen in a while, but to me is very repetitive in his talking points so I had to skip some large parts (his intro). Overall I didn't get a ton out of it.

Peterson won, simply by looking at the two guys.
- Zizek is overweight and not well groomed, hunched body language
- English is not his first language
- His voice is slobbery with a lisp of some sort, it is hard to listen to.

Ultimately, Peterson looks Alpha next to this guy. Debate points aside, intelligence aside, Zizek might be an intellectual but he lacks the frame and stature on stage. Contrast that with Peterson who dressed better, is lean, and a well groomed, decent looking guy overall.

The general public will see it this way. They will size Zizek up based on how he looks. So a good choice for a debate for JP after getting clobbered by Sam Harris in the fake "God debates".

The general public isn't watching a debate between a psychologist and an obscure Eastern European philosopher.
Grognards only, this one.

Did you only watch the first half? The back and forth part in the second half is where they actually engage each others ideas, specifically regarding Peterson's claims about "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" and Zizek's claims about the limitations of Capitalism.

Quote: (04-20-2019 08:44 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

The general public isn't watching a debate between a psychologist and an obscure Eastern European philosopher.
Grognards only, this one.

Fair enough, replace general public with your "typical viewer"

Most aren't that intellectual. I myself had trouble getting by the slobbering and unkempt look. I still kind of liked him more than JP

It was a good debate, I thought.

Both men are a little bit out of their depths when discussing economics, politics, and history, so the question of whether Marxism or capitalism brings happiness was a odd starting point. Peterson went beyond it by shamelessly presenting a straw-man Marxism that he could then use to explore some of his own ideas. Zizek responded by jettisoning both Marxism and the notion of happiness, then proceeded to just be his own zero-fucks-given eccentric self. He seemed more comfortable with the format than Peterson, cracked jokes and broke the rules. Peterson was more earnest and disciplined in his approach.

Eventually they got into territory where they have greater claims of originality, at the conjunction of psychology and philosophy. If you watch the debate on YT, from about 2 hours on out is the best part.

Zizek is the theory jock par excellence, and at times it was difficult for Peterson to keep up - after all, he is more of a combination of theorist, empiricist, and practicioner. I doubt anyone has ever taken life advice from Zizek. But the most pleasant thing about the discussion was that it wasn't really about dominating or "pwning" each other, but some sort of rational debate between two grown men who both think political correctness is for idiots.

Nevertheless, online simpletons are of course mostly concerned with establishing who "won." Ironically, Zizek-fans obsessed with the notion that Zizek "won" and is "superior" elegantly confirm one of Peterson's theses, the ubiquity of hierarchies in social life.

Quote: (04-20-2019 08:24 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Interesting that one of Zizek's gripes with Marx is the lack of an account of authority. Tellingly, Peterson never addresses this.

Peterson's reading found that the Manifesto puts sovereignty with "the oppressed." His own psychological opinion, on the other hand accounts for authority by appealing to the concept of the competence hierarchy and other innate socio-psychological features that humans share with lobsters. I think that is why Zizek suggested that it was good that the ancient Greeks sometimes elected their leaders through a lottery, because, he implies, too much competence concentrated at the top is dangerous for the ecological and technological stability of society. In this way, he is like a primitivist, or a proto-conservative. He was like nostalgic for the dysfunction and deprivation of the old Soviet regime, when and where the worst that humans could do was kill a lot of their own species, unless, of course, the army uses nukes. I love how Peterson really gave the stink eye to a few hecklers that cheered joking-sadistically when he said, deprecating to Marx and Engels, that The Communist Manifesto advocated a really bloody revolution.

Quote:Quote:

His own psychological opinion, on the other hand accounts for authority by appealing to the concept of the competence hierarchy and other innate socio-psychological features that humans share with lobsters.

That's a very well done articulation of Peterson. What do you think of changing "innate" to "innately evolved?"

Quote: (04-21-2019 06:17 AM)_Different_T Wrote:  

What do you think of changing "innate" to "innately evolved?"

Innate= feature that is prior to culture. The latter varies with time and from group to group. The former is shared by all humans, and there isn't any way to avoid it short of genetic manipulation, that is, altering the instructions that make a human human. You can't alter it through economic, social or pedagogical mechanisms, etc., but you can sure try... which is the impetus for a great deal of frustration, cognitive dissonance, denial, and straight up mental illness on the part of SJWs. Trying to change the innate is like trying to head-butt through a solid concrete wall.

Innately evolved= Caused by a process resembling genetic trial and error over long periods of time.

That changes the meaning of my post, but Peterson would endorse it.

He would say that hierarchies are a very efficient means for coordinating members of a group. If this is true, then organisms will have a greater chance of survival and reproduction who bear the feature of implicit recognition of the legitimacy of hierarchy. In time, the pattern would become selected for--those who lack the feature would be weeded out of the gene pool. The feature would end up being hard-wired in the brains of the successful organism's offspring and voilà, you have a rule or pattern that controls and enhances the life expectancy of our species to this day.

It's been months since I watched a Peterson video. Seems like he wasn't saying anything new.

It's been nice to watch a greatest hits video and remember why people like him.

A decent criticism of JP done by Dr.Dutton (good channel in my view), he touched essentially on the adaptive vs maladaptive /mutant features that help propagate the species or will hinder or even lead it into extinction.

The dualism he mentions lies essentially on collectivist vs individualist modes of thinking, and how the previous proponents of stoic-esque movements even within early Christianity have vanished. I find it odd he mentions the Gnostics, when the gnostic influence in freemasonry is so obvious, though...

Likewise, he mentions how Christianity can serve both maladaptive and adaptive motives. The current Catholic Church and the Anglican church are clearly maladaptive regarding to the survival of their traditional demographic base, but at the same time, fundamentalist Christians (and Mormons) essentially not only tend to outbreed the other groups but they also are the only group in the West with positive eugenicist births (i.e, high IQ men having more children than low IQ men).

Overall a good video, even if I do feel he might have oversimplified at times.

Dutton looks like an interesting character, thanks for the heads up, Lemon.

He's got an interesting redpilled take on Churchill:






As to fundamentalist Christians, the problem is that their basic theology is either masonic/luciferian (Mormons, JWs), or completely corrupted for over a century (Scofield Evangelists). There are many based Evangelicals, like Pastor Anderson or the TruNews crew (an excellent site and YT channel), but you won't see them on TV or in megachurches.

https://www.trunews.com/

E Michael Jones is my Jordan Peterson. Jordan says some good things, but he is still a liberal, and still condones some morality feats. For instance, he doesn't believe in the ability for white supremacists to gather. He thinks that's toxic or wrong. E Michael Jones on the other hand, being a religious person, thinks people being together is what keeps society integrated and together, and forges better bonds than the loner view that JP elicits.

Quote: (05-02-2019 11:43 AM)Manbeline Wrote:  

thinks people being together is what keeps society integrated and together, and forges better bonds than the loner view that JP elicits.

Has anyone put the question to Peterson, or has he ever given an answer to the issue of the necessity of some sort of group to galvanise a society? This seems to be the one big hole in his whole schpiel.

It's all very good JP saying that people should only be treated as individuals, but it would only work if a considerable majority agreed to operate as such. This won't happen as liberalism encourages people to do/be what they want. It creates vast differences that end up creating small groups. If individualist liberalism is to thrive, it would need to be enforced. Much in the same way the left is enforced (some groups - good; other groups - bad). Peterson's liberalism is essentially 'all groups - bad'. It would at least be more desirable than the current order where only your enemies are allowed to group up against you. But the problem is liberalism is by it's definition is not very muscular and doesn't think it should police anything.

He also doesn't cover that any form of liberalism doesn't just pop out of nowhere. It's only possible to get to liberalism via a society that was previously conservative; building itself up with small units in a restrictive structure. If you introduce a large dose of liberalism into that it will break down into something left/liberals will dislike much more than a few restrictions. This is where your groups come back.

Peterson needs to get it into his corpus. As humans forming themselves into hierarchies is inevitable, it's also inevitable they will form themselves into groups. And that without the group there is no semblance of the individual.

Quote: (05-02-2019 12:29 PM)gework Wrote:  

Quote: (05-02-2019 11:43 AM)Manbeline Wrote:  

thinks people being together is what keeps society integrated and together, and forges better bonds than the loner view that JP elicits.

Has anyone put the question to Peterson, or has he ever given an answer to the issue of the necessity of some sort of group to galvanise a society? This seems to be the one big hole in his whole schpiel.

It's all very good JP saying that people should only be treated as individuals, but it would only work if a considerable majority agreed to operate as such. This won't happen as liberalism encourages people to do/be what they want. It creates vast differences that end up creating small groups. If individualist liberalism is to thrive, it would need to be enforced. Much in the same way the left is enforced (some groups - good; other groups - bad). Peterson's liberalism is essentially 'all groups - bad'. It would at least be more desirable than the current order where only your enemies are allowed to group up against you. But the problem is liberalism is by it's definition is not very muscular and doesn't think it should police anything.

He also doesn't cover that any form of liberalism doesn't just pop out of nowhere. It's only possible to get to liberalism via a society that was previously conservative; building itself up with small units in a restrictive structure. If you introduce a large dose of liberalism into that it will break down into something left/liberals will dislike much more than a few restrictions. This is where your groups come back.

Peterson needs to get it into his corpus. As humans forming themselves into hierarchies is inevitable, it's also inevitable they will form themselves into groups. And that without the group there is no semblance of the individual.

Quote: (04-18-2019 11:36 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

I am the only one who feels like Jordan talks a lot but actually says nothing. At least Owen agrees with me.

Maybe. But I don't think so. I think he uses a lot of language for accessibility, accuracy, and applicability that can make individual points and answers seem long-winded and full of fluff.

One of the main appeals of Peterson is the way he articulates cliches and ancient wisdom in a manner that does not seem cliche. He's scientifically literate and while his strengths lie more on verbal than math (probably why Vox Day incorrectly assesses Peterson's IQ as being in the 120 range), he's good enough to understand most of the necessary math certainly better than most people you see talking about social-religious principles. He's had extensive background in a clinical practice actually working hard to help people in the real world solve real problems and many of his insights clearly come from this background.

Peterson is able to talk about religious or at least quasi-religious and philosophical concepts in a way that is meaningful to modern atheist, agnostic, and otherwise non-religious people. He can speak their language in a way most preachers and philosophers cannot. Even if a preacher who doesn't outright deny evolution nevertheless typically lack a solid understanding of modern science and psychology so the messages are often rejected. Philosophers get so hung up on logical consistency, intellectual rigor, and the 2000-year view of advancing moral understanding that their ideas and messages wind up impractical in present day and often lead to obvious conflicts with intuitive moral values.

In way he's like C.S. Lewis. Lewis was an atheist who became Christian and was able to argue Christianity with atheists because he knew how to speak their language. He knew what Christianity looked like to outsiders, he understood the arguments against it very well, so his points would be informed by those arguments. So it is with Peterson, able to sell the cliches of the past in the language of modern people.

And one of the consequences is that Peterson spends a lot of time establishing frames of reference, using examples and analogies, and repeatedly tying in relevant principles (eg Order vs Chaos or Pareto principle), which can get tedious if you've heard it before or don't need to be sold on it and just want the answer to the question.