Jordan Peterson or something whatever thread.

[Comrade Clod]

That said, that really was what I gleamed from many Worm fics using the E88(actual NeoNazi’s but still used as a warning to bash anyone they consider remotely Alt-Right)

I’m pretty sure this dude and other authors actually believe Jordan Peterson’s a Nazi. Comedy aside.

I don't know if my profile pic suggests it but I don't find the alt-right to be much better than the Nazi's.

Peterson is just an idiot who tries applying what he's actually good at into politics which somehow has involved Lobsters and crap, being an asshole to trans people and Post-Modern-Neo Marxism (despite the fact that Marxists follow a historical narrative which means they can't be post-modernists in the first place). He's also something of a gateway into the alt-right which, as mentioned above, i'm not a fan of.

The thing is, once you make the syllogism If Somebody Is Called A Nazi = They Must Be Punched, then it becomes a very short step to I Don't Like Your Opinion = You Are A Nazi = You Must Be Punched. When you create such a potent societal weapon expect it to be used. And it won't be the reasonable people using it, it won't be those who argue or debate in good faith who use it, it will be used by the worst of demagogues in the worst of ways.

That, for example, is why our rules explicitly ban pro-Nazi support... while also making it against the rules to falsely or lightly accuse somebody of BEING a Nazi.

Alternatively you could take it how I said it. If someone is dumb enough to call themselves a nazi, or a neo-nazi, or just in general going around praising old Adolf, then punching them won't actually dent their brain cell count that much.

 

[FriedCFour]

Peterson is just an idiot who tries applying what he's actually good at into politics which somehow has involved Lobsters and crap, being an asshole to trans people and Post-Modern-Neo Marxism (despite the fact that Marxists follow a historical narrative which means they can't be post-modernists in the first place). He's also something of a gateway into the alt-right which, as mentioned above, i'm not a fan of.

Sounds like a good thread topic outside the welcome thread.

 

[Vyor]

I don't know if my profile pic suggests it but I don't find the alt-right to be much better than the Nazi's.

Peterson is just an idiot who tries applying what he's actually good at into politics which somehow has involved Lobsters and crap, being an asshole to trans people and Post-Modern-Neo Marxism (despite the fact that Marxists follow a historical narrative which means they can't be post-modernists in the first place). He's also something of a gateway into the alt-right which, as mentioned above, i'm not a fan of.

Literally like 80% of this is wrong...

 

[Comrade Clod]

Literally like 80% of this is wrong...

K now here's the part where I ask you why because aside from him being an idiot (subjective) everything I mentioned is something Peterson has done or is. (He has some social theory about lobsters and biology, doesn't like trans peope for some undefinable reason, and thinks Post-Modern neo-marxism is a thing despite it being a contradiction and an ideology noone follows) And from personal experience with a friend, yes he is a gateway into the alt-right.

(edit - i'm making a new thread if you want to continue the conversation.)

 

[Comrade Clod]

Literally like 80% of this is wrong...

K now here's the part where I ask you why because aside from him being an idiot (subjective) everything I mentioned is something Peterson has done or is. (He has some social theory about lobsters and biology, doesn't like trans peope for some undefinable reason, and thinks Post-Modern neo-marxism is a thing despite it being a contradiction and an ideology noone follows) And from personal experience with a friend, yes he is a gateway into the alt-right.

@Vyor

 

[Big Steve]

K now here's the part where I ask you why because aside from him being an idiot (subjective) everything I mentioned is something Peterson has done or is. (He has some social theory about lobsters and biology, doesn't like trans peope for some undefinable reason, and thinks Post-Modern neo-marxism is a thing despite it being a contradiction and an ideology noone follows) And from personal experience with a friend, yes he is a gateway into the alt-right.

(edit - i'm making a new thread if you want to continue the conversation.)

Please do.

 

[Realm]

He was an absolute fool in his debate with Zizek.

The only Marxist theory he read was the manifesto, at 18, then again before the debate. And yet he constantly critiques Marxism, despite knowing jack shit about it.

At least his voice is funny lol

 

[Vyor]

K now here's the part where I ask you why because aside from him being an idiot (subjective) everything I mentioned is something Peterson has done or is. (He has some social theory about lobsters and biology, doesn't like trans peope for some undefinable reason, and thinks Post-Modern neo-marxism is a thing despite it being a contradiction and an ideology noone follows) And from personal experience with a friend, yes he is a gateway into the alt-right.

@Vyor

1: That isn't a social theory involving lobsters, he pointed to them as an example of a natural group with a distinct power structure. Aka: hierarchies are a natural thing. That's the social theory, that hierarchies will always form because it is human nature to do so and that it isn't a learned trait.

2: He doesn't actually care about trans people and has said repeatedly in the past that if he was asked by a trans person to use their preferred pronoun he would. What he has a problem with is the government trying to force others to do such.

3: It is quite likely that he isn't aware of the term "neomodernism" and is trying to use those 2 terms together(postmodern and neo) to get across what neomodernism is. He's a psychologist, not a sociologist or anthropologist; I would not be surprised if that word just wasn't in his lexicon.


I don't think the dude is a genius or whatever, but strawmanning him does your position no good.


edit: and by the logic of him being a gateway to the alt-right, fucking reagan is too.

 

[Vyor]

(edit - i'm making a new thread if you want to continue the conversation.)

A thread I have replied to.

 

[Comrade Clod]

1: That isn't a social theory involving lobsters, he pointed to them as an example of a natural group with a distinct power structure. Aka: hierarchies are a natural thing. That's the social theory, that hierarchies will always form because it is human nature to do so and that it isn't a learned trait.

2: He doesn't actually care about trans people and has said repeatedly in the past that if he was asked by a trans person to use their preferred pronoun he would. What he has a problem with is the government trying to force others to do such.

3: It is quite likely that he isn't aware of the term "neomodernism" and is trying to use those 2 terms together(postmodern and neo) to get across what neomodernism is. He's a psychologist, not a sociologist or anthropologist; I would not be surprised if that word just wasn't in his lexicon.


I don't think the dude is a genius or whatever, but strawmanning him does your position no good.


edit: and by the logic of him being a gateway to the alt-right, fucking reagan is too.

Lobsters are not not people, how he became famous in the first place was a whole mess about how trans bathrooms would demean society or something, and if he doesn't know what it is he shouldn't be accusing the vast majority of academia of being apart off some nebulous conspiracy.

 

[Realm]

how he became famous in the first place was a whole mess about how trans bathrooms would demean society or something

It was compelled speach screeching, which was objectively false as a concern

 

[Vyor]

Lobsters are not not people,

Still strawmanning. It's an example, not the proof.

how he became famous in the first place was a whole mess about how trans bathrooms would demean society or something,

This is an outright lie.

and if he doesn't know what it is he shouldn't be accusing the vast majority of academia of being apart off some nebulous conspiracy.

Well, when we have video proof of many, many, many professors pushing communist propaganda, you don't need a perfect label to point at the problem we have evidence of existing.

You don't see me being pedantic when someone says "there are problems with the capitalist model" with a reply of "you mean crony capitalism". It's fucking pointless to do.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

It was compelled speach screeching, which was objectively false as a concern

No, it isn't. There is literally a law that compels speech.

 

[Realm]

No, it isn't. There is literally a law that compels speech.

Bruh, no it doesn't. He was under an existing, comparable discrimination law under ontario provincial law before the federal discrimination law was modified, and the modification did not compel speech, instead adding another category of persons you were not able to discriminate against.

He couldn't be fined for using the wrong pronouns, the full extent of the law would be that if he didn't hire someone after refusing to use their pronouns, it could be evidence of hiring discrimination. Which would be fair lol.

Do better.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Bruh, no it doesn't. He was under a discrimination law under ontario provincial law before the federal discrimination law was modified, and the modification did not compel speech, instead adding another category of persons you were not able to discriminate against.

He couldn't be fined for using the wrong pronouns, the full extent of the law would be that if he didn't hire someone after refusing to use their pronouns, it could be evidence of hiring discrimination. Which would be fair lol.

Do better.

You made my point for me. You just said that it creates penalties for people refusing to indulge another person's personal preferences. And it is using the law to force a particular ideological belief on other people.

It is literally compelling people to use language that other people want them to use, by adding a legal threat. It forces people to use the language, otherwise anything they do can be construed as discrimination.

So, it is not at all fair. It is tyrannical.

*Going to clarify in this edit, I have no problem with using gender pronouns, even if I disagree with them, merely to be polite and to be considerate to another human being.

 

[FriedCFour]

Post-Modern neo-marxism is a thing despite it being a contradiction and an ideology noone follows

Its a description of social justice ideology that the New Left spawned following their break with material marxism and praise of the Soviets that essentially uses post modernist ideas of lack of objective truth, of everything being socially constructed in tandem with marxist ideology to create things like intersectionality where its not just class, its sex, gender, sexuality, race etc as well and marxism applied to this whole spectrum is now a necessity to fix these problems.

Even then if you argue that no one identifies as that, you'd have to concede nazi, fascist, reactionary, alt-right etc. are not applicable unless someone self identifies as such.

 

[Realm]

You made my point for me. You just said that it creates penalties for people refusing to indulge another person's personal preferences. And it is using the law to force a particular ideological belief on other people.

It is literally compelling people to use language that other people want them to use, by adding a legal threat. It forces people to use the language, otherwise anything they do can be construed as discrimination.

So, it is not at all fair. It is tyrannical.

*Going to clarify in this edit, I have no problem with using gender pronouns, even if I disagree with them, merely to be polite and to be considerate to another human being.

Yeah no shit, and if I dont give someone a job after calling them the n word and they use it as evidence of discrimination, it's gonna be fuckin fair lol.

It's evidence of discrimination. Are you honestly gonna tell me complete refusal to respect someone due to their identity isn't an example of discrimination based on their identity?

Its a description of social justice ideology that the New Left following their break with material marxism essentially uses post modernist ideas of lack of objective truth, of everything being socially constructed in tandem with marxist ideology to create things like intersectionality where its not just class, its sex, gender, sexuality, race etc as well and marxism applied to this whole spectrum is now a necessity to fix these problems.

Even then if you argue that no one identifies as that, you'd have to concede nazi, fascist, reactionary, alt-right etc. are not applicable unless someone self identifies as such.

It's literally made up, incoherent nonsense. Marxism and post modernism are at odds, which I, unlike you and mr jorgo beeperson can actually attest to, as someone who's read more than just the manifesto

 

[FriedCFour]

It's literally made up, incoherent nonsense. Marxism and post modernism are at odds, which I, unlike you and mr jorgo beeperson can actually attest to, as someone who's read more than just the manifesto

Yes, but you dont think its possible to synthesize two ideas together? For example, rejecting dialectical materialism in favor of subjectivism, but holding that the marxist history is generally correct and is the proper way to conduct society once intersectionaliy has also replaced the bourgeious/Proletariat dichotomy? Is it really an impossibilty to mesh two things together?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Yeah no shit, and if I dont give someone a job after calling them the n word and they use it as evidence of discrimination, it's gonna be fuckin fair lol.

It's evidence of discrimination. Are you honestly gonna tell me complete refusal to respect someone due to their identity isn't an example of discrimination based on their identity?

The N-word is bound up in history, and really only acceptable in certain special contexts. They are not the same thing, and really compelling someone to speak, and telling them to say that they cannot say something are entirely different kettles of fish. They are not at all equatable, it is an ugly and quite ignorant word. There is a world of difference uttering an invective and simply refusing to use terminology that is individual preference. To me what you said demeans the term, and its historical context. Someone's personal preference is not at all equitable to a word that has been used as invective against particular groups (such African Americans, Black Canadians, Black Caribbeans, Africans, and even entirely unrelated groups). Though in that case, I would definitely think it is fair, because of the context, because of what they said, not because of what they did not say.

It is not evidence of discrimination. Because, I do not consider it discrimination at all. It is a matter of personal preference for all parties involved, and that government should stay out of it.

 

[Realm]

Yes, but you dont think its possible to synthesize two ideas together? For example, rejecting dialectical materialism in favor of subjectivism, but holding that the marxist history is generally correct and is the proper way to conduct society once intersectionaliy has also replaced the bourgeious/Proletariat dichotomy? Is it really an impossibilty to mesh two things together?

You can synthesize anything together, but replacing class struggle with intersectionality theory and historical materialism with a rejection of historical narratives leaves you with something as far away from marxism and postmodernism as it would be from liberalism or hegel.

Probably closer to hegel than marx lol

It is not evidence of discrimination. Because, I do not consider it discrimination at all. It is a matter of personal preference for all parties involved, and that government should stay out of it.

Okay, and if the manner you, as an employer refused to call someone by the termonology they desired was not determined as discrimination by the judge, you'd be correct. If the evidence is there to show you did not hire someone based on them being trans, that is when the law hits you. It does not legislate speech, merely the discriminatory act, of which speech can indicate evidence of your possible discrimination.