Bluelight

Thread: Diversity Studies Hoax

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by 3,4-dihydroxyphen View Post
    I am an espcial fan of the Jordan Peterson is "a "thinking person" for people who don't read or critically assess information on their own too well" quote.
    That's such a bullshit, throwaway line. I definitely don't agree with everything he says but his detractors rarely have any constructive or relevant criticism of his arguments.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Bluelighter SheWasLvL18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Persepolis
    Posts
    567
    How about that he's basically right-wing mysticism. He presents quasi-religious opinions as empirical science.

    ?there are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men.?
    ?feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance.?
    The purpose of life is finding the largest burden that you can bear and bearing it.
    ?Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature.?
    He seems like he's trying his hardest to create a world view that's acceptable to people who have been put down for their abhorrent world views. (Racists, Anti-semites, Incels, Etc.) Someone once described Peterson's beliefs as the "mythology of would-be totalitarian regimes." He's trying to map out a world for people who don't feel they have control of the world around them.

    He basically validates people's fears about the world and makes them feel like it's the world that is the problem, not themselves.

    This just made me laugh so I had to share it, it's also very accurate:
    Some people who are well-versed in Postmodernist thought and Marxism take issue with the fact that he conflates the two when they're frequently diametrically opposed. The fact that he uses the term "Cultural Marxism" (which is derived from a line of thinking no one in Philosophy took seriously for its wildly fallacious claims and straight up misrepresentation and falsification of what other people had written--what we in the legal profession might term "slander" outside of this sort of context) is also heavily criticised, as his book fails to actually cite Foucault while making wild, and wholly false claims about him and his writing.
    Some people also take issue with his critique of modernity and a return to "ancient wisdom" when its entire set of premises are like a bad interpretation of Nietzsche. Peterson tries to be Zarathustra without realising that's the fucking joke. Those familiar with Nietzsche's work and who have a solid understanding of his philology and philosophy will know that Peterson doesn't really have a solid understanding of these things.
    Last edited by SheWasLvL18; 15-10-2018 at 08:43.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Bluelighter The Hypnotist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Your Unconscious Mine
    Posts
    342
    I think I can shed some light on those statements.

    In the first sentence he is refering to gender studies. He talks as well about how males performance in university has been declining and nobody gives a shit. Same story lately, when women are worst is patriarchy, when men are worst is their fault...very simplistic.

    The second sentence is very true. The new feminism is rarely accusing Islam probably because is basically a leftist movement so the prefer to look to the other side when facts don't fit their agenda. What Peterson is refering is to some enginners studies that look fot women searchs in pornography and are very telling about their true fantasies and the kind of men that appeared.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bVKIcP36es from minute 2:00
    His conclusions are argueable but the train of thought is reasonable.
    That's the problem of arguing with Peterson, he is VERY reasonable.

    The third sentence goes to the heart of his world vision. In his phylosophical standing he says: "The more responsability you have in life the more meaning has your life" So what he means with his words is you should take the largest amount of responsability you can stand to have a meaningful life. For him as a christian and an existencialist, burden and responsability are very closely related.

    About the fourth...we can't negate that women are far more selective than men, there are a lot of evolutionary reasons for that. The reproductive interindividual success of males has varied greatly in history due to that. We have twice as many female ascestors than male ancestors (https://www.quora.com/We-have-twice-...is-podcast-Why).
    He talks a lot about men becoming men and how to not be wanted by females is very definiton of not being right. That is the farthest you can get from Incels narrative...

    About the last one, I am not an expert on Nietzsche thought and probably you aren't neither so we probably can't have an informed opinion about that, far too complicated for us.

    I think you have a big misunderstanding of Peterson when you quote somebody saying that "Peterson beliefs as the "mythology of would-be totalitarian regimes." He's trying to map out a world for people who don't feel they have control of the world around them." The last sentence is a truism as all people who touch phylosophy is trying to do that because no human have a total control of the world around them, and if he feels like that he's got a bad mental problem. About the first sentence...Peterson work is about avoiding totalitarian regimes, any kind, his book maps of meaning goes around that thematic in lots of ways. If he goes more against the far left than the far right is just because the far right is almost nowhere to be found while communist say proudly they believe in a system that is totalitarian. Since his boom in popularity he is shifting slowly to the right but in no way you can call him alt-right.

    As a final point let me give you one of his quotes I especially like, I'll paraphrase it: "The bias of the right is to think everybody gets what they deserve and the bias of the left is to think that is always society's fault. Both statements are not always right."
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,798
    Quote Originally Posted by SheWasLvL18 View Post
    How about that he's basically right-wing mysticism. He presents quasi-religious opinions as empirical science.

    He seems like he's trying his hardest to create a world view that's acceptable to people who have been put down for their abhorrent world views. (Racists, Anti-semites, Incels, Etc.) Someone once described Peterson's beliefs as the "mythology of would-be totalitarian regimes." He's trying to map out a world for people who don't feel they have control of the world around them.

    He basically validates people's fears about the world and makes them feel like it's the world that is the problem, not themselves.

    This just made me laugh so I had to share it, it's also very accurate:
    Top post, i agree.

    If you buy into the whole political worldview peterson attempts to legitimise through pseudo-intellectualisation - then yeah, you probably agree with him and thinks he's making good points.

    I strongly disagree with all of that retrograde stuff, and think peterson is a joke, frankly.

    It's a bit like people on the right dismissing chomsky or some other left wing intellectual (of which there are thousands, i might add. There is a distinct lack of academics who are willing to engage with or act as apologist for the alt right or other modern chauvenist movements) - if you disagree fundamentally with the ideology someone is pushing or the values that they are justifying, it stands to reason that you are not going to be impressed by their approach.

    The hypnotist - in your post above, you are just talking about the points of peterson's you agree with.
    I think we all understand what points he is making, but i tend to think most of them are ludicrous.
    His ideas about gender are simplistic and based on a lot of falsehoods.
    I've taken a couple of gender studies units as electives at a very progressive left-leaning university, and i think all the stuff about hostility to men is just laughable. I met one of my best (male) friends in one of those classes, and niether of hs felt belittled, harassed, hated or picked on. I should probably mention that we are both very much secure in our madculinity and sexual identity - which is maybe why we don't find feminism, or discussion of patriarchy to be threatening.

    To me, peterson one of those "ivory tower" academics looking down his nose at a radical discipline from a traditionalist, arch-conservative viewpoint - and from an entirely different school of academia to the desciplines he's most hung up on in his "celebrity" persona.

    I really don't feel like expanding too much further on the topic because i really put him in the same category as milo yiannopolous, alex jones, paul joseph whatsisname and all those other professional bigots.
    Just because he has an intellectual manner about him, and comes across as well-informed - he's still pushing an ideology that i think is a load of absolute rubbish. Fascist drivel, basically.

    He talks about academia and uses academic vocabulary, but he seems more like he's attempting to intellectualise a movement which is based on fear, insecurity, hate and resentment than he is actually saying anything particularly enlightening.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Bluelighter The Hypnotist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Your Unconscious Mine
    Posts
    342
    What a bunch of ad hominem attacks to Peterson and anybody who takes him seriously. Remember SpaceJunk you don't know anything about his views, watch his lectures, don't be afraid and then we can have an informed opinion.

    By the way what I said it is not what I agree with if not Peterson perspective. To take his statements out of context is not very appropiate. I like his views quite a lot. Curiously until very short ago I used to live in a tree house in an anarchist comune. He was really helpful in my transit to reality. It is kind of nice to take a bit of responsability about your life and not reflect everything on society.
    I ask you again Spacejunk, Is there any intellectual in the right that you think is worth and admire?

    In gender studies I suppose you went deeply into biology, isn't it? (ironic mode on)
    Last edited by The Hypnotist; 15-10-2018 at 14:53.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Homeless & Anonymous
    Sober Living
    North & South America Drug Discussion
    tathra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    22,029
    Quote Originally Posted by The Hypnotist View Post
    What a bunch of ad hominem attacks
    i suggest you look into what an ad hominem actually is. it is not, in fact, "somebody said something i disagree with about somebody i like!"
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,798
    Quote Originally Posted by The Hypnotist
    Remember SpaceJunk you don't know anything about his views, watch his lectures, don't be afraid and then we can have an informed opinion.
    uh, sorry - what?

    just because i won't sit through any more of his videos doesn't mean i'm not aware of exactly what his game is.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hypnotist
    I ask you again Spacejunk, Is there any intellectual in the right that you think is worth and admire?
    ask me again? i've already discussed this.
    there are plenty of right wing intellects i admire. i even mentioned one in a previous post
    history is full of great conservative intellects - poets, architects - even some political leaders, i have no reservation in acknowledging the intelligence of.

    but the current day culture war that jordan peterson is a part of? there is a reason he's the best - arguably the only "intellectual" poseur among them - it's an anti-intellectual movement driven by bitterness, resentment, fear and hate.

    i'm talking about incels, "proud boys", "white nationalists" and assorted other post-trump creepers.
    i'm lumping a lot of groups in together here, but they all share a mission to erase the social progress of the last 50-60 years; women's lib, gay lib, a shift away from acceptance of racism and other forms of prejudice.

    i tend to think that society has improved a lot since the 1950s, since we started to smash down the dogma of racism, of rigid gender roles and so fourth.


    like the other luminaries of the post-trump right (richard spencer, alex jones, milo yiannolopolous, and that stable of fascist entrepreneurs) he is performing his role in a way that bring maximum exposure; sensationalism.

    his relationship with the "alt-light", the "alt-right" and the rest of those purveyors of neo-fascist conspiracy theory - is symbiotic.
    they give him exposure, and he gives them a veneer of intellectual depth.

    but yes, basically he puts a pseudo-scientific gloss to the standard fare of bigotry, entitlement and resentment that those people peddle.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Hypnotist
    In gender studies I suppose you went deeply into biology, isn't it? (ironic mode on)
    i do not know what point you are trying to make here ^

    but yeah, i think jordan peterson is dull and superficial.
    i think his agenda is to cash in on the desire of an anti-intellectual movement of misogynists/racists/homophobes/transphobes/islamophobes (take your pick) to have some appearance of intellectual validation.

    maybe he has made some worthwhile contributions to social and political discourse since rising to prominence, but i have little interest in the smug way he rationalises and justifies a range of bigoted nonsense.
    using intellectual elitism to prop up and normalise inherently stupid things like racial prejudice and sexism seems like an effort to pander to the alt-right's daddy issues and intellectual insecurity.
    Last edited by spacejunk; 15-10-2018 at 19:52.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    Bluelighter SheWasLvL18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Persepolis
    Posts
    567
    See but even if Peterson is right about those claims he doesn't have a valid logical framework or empirical science to back him up. He could be right, but he hasn't demonstrated it in a way that's acceptable to his field. Imagine a child trying to solve a math problem, without using any of the equations properly somehow gets the right answer through sheer luck.

    Also ad hom isn't name calling.

    It’s not just that this sloppy use of language exposes Peterson as an intellectual lightweight; the tendency to causally conflate various disparate phenomena that one happens not to like — in this instance, postmodernism, Marxism, and political correctness — is the calling card of the paranoiac.
    Arguably the most manipulative feature of 12 Rules for Life is the author’s repeated reference to procreation as the driving force of human behavior: time and again this or that proposition is supported by reference to the mating patterns of humans or animals. Given that so many of his readers appear to be young men struggling with masculinity issues, this is fiendishly clever in its appeal to their deepest insecurities: reinvent yourself as a brutal Nietzschean strongman and you’ll get some. (The patriarchal loathing for women implicit in this formulation — which presents them as markers of success or failure, rather than people to be connected with on a human level — hardly needs spelling out.)


    Admittedly it’s not always easy to distinguish between a harmless retro eccentric and a peddler of poisonous and potentially murderous ideas. So let’s take stock: Masculinist persecution myth? Check. Repeated appeals to Darwinism to justify social hierarchies? Check. A left-wing conspiracy to take over the culture? Check. Romanticization of suffering? Check. Neurotic angst about “chaos”? Check. Like many of his sort, Peterson sees himself as a defender of the best traditions of Western civilization and the Enlightenment. But there is an old adage: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it’s a duck.


    good article, though a bit harsh. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...ules-for-life/
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    Bluelighter The Hypnotist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Your Unconscious Mine
    Posts
    342
    I don't have the time for all of you...hope you understand, you are just too many.
    Name calling when it is used to counter or devalue an argument it is a logical fallacy. Instead of taking the ideas I put forward on Peterson and make a counter-argument basically you label him so you don't have to go through the tiring stuff of figure him, which I assure you it can be a lot of job.

    You see, you ShewasLv18 threw some statements out of context of Peterson trying to ridiculaze him. Then I gave you the context which in no case is a fallacy, instead of following that now what you all are doing is more of a red herring diverting again the subject.
    In any case, when you are judging Peterson I think you make lots of straw man fallacies where you make of his complicated ideas simplifications void of the original meaning. If you really want to give a fair opinion about him you should watch his lectures. I am sure you might enjoy them more than you think, especially if you are interested in psychology.

    Would love to see Chomsky and Peterson talking and surprised as you might be I think they will agree more than you think in lots of things. Chomsky don't like a lot of the bullshit left, he is a proper thinker.

    Surely we can agree that if you think Peterson is a clown and I think he is an intelectual we don't have much debate going on. Better to discuss about people we all take seriously, life is too short.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,798
    yeah, it's difficult to have a constructive debate at the moment because everything is so incredibly polarised.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Bluelighter SheWasLvL18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Persepolis
    Posts
    567
    I didn't address them individually because you just said they were true, you might find them to be self-evident, but the majority of people don't. If Peterson wants to be the moralizer (a terribly flawed position to take, but one he has taken) then it is on him to prove why people should listen to his preaching. He claims to know how people should act, but doesn't actually provide any evidence for why. People only seem to agree with him if they held those notions before he says them.

    In the effort of bridging a gap I will watch a Peterson video and if you'd like I could pm you my thoughts or just post them here. Recommendations would be nice too.

    I agree with your final point and I think Chomsky might be a better person to discuss.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    Bluelighter The Hypnotist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Your Unconscious Mine
    Posts
    342
    I would watch his personality lectures. It's a whole semester, but just watch the first one and see how it goes, its a crazy good psychology professor, no doubt about that, so it will be interesting even if you don't like some of his points of view. His lectures on maps of meaning are more complicated, questionable and more to his philosophy. In any case he keeps mixing lots of things which I think makes them interesting even if a bit confusing. I think it is better to watch the lectures because they were filmed before his boom in popularity.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYYJ...1Ihe34eKN6XhCi

    About people agreeing with him only when they held those notions it wasn't my case. I was a radical anarchist when I first knew about him, now thanks to him and many others I don't know what I am. For some issues I am closer to the left but for others prefer the right viewpoint, maybe I am getting old . Just wish I had listen openly to everybody from the very beginning. Now I might have a bit of the convert syndrome and a bit antagonistic on lots of lefty ideas...and the Identity politics are not helping.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #38
    Bluelighter The Hypnotist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Your Unconscious Mine
    Posts
    342
    Just watched a video with the opinion of Peterson about Marihuana legalization in Canada. Doesn't sound very right wing to me, sounds like the guy doesn't have a clear agenda and he is thinking every subject separately... free thinker? It will be nice if we give him the credit he deserves IMHO.
    https://youtu.be/la8gCrT7U7o?t=4070
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •