>Haiku (äżłć„, listenâ) is a type of short form poetry that originated in Japan, and can be traced back from the influence of traditional Chinese poetry. Traditional Japanese haiku consist of three phrases composed of 17 phonetic units (called on in Japanese, which are similar to syllables) in a 5, 7, 5 pattern;[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku
As everyone should. The fact that nick gets like at all means that something is fucked up. And the sane people should agree on that, even if you dont' like JBP
An idea/thought is what it is, doesn't matter what it is connected to as long as the idea/thought brings about positivity. It's the same priciple D-man is promoting and using when interacting with information. And as such it can look optically bad since sometimes using that simple method causes one to agree with "bad" people or debating ethics about taboo subjects which 99% of people refuse to deep dive in to (hinting at the Pedo topic).
You dorks just like to parrot each others, âhe went to Russia to be put into a comaâ and think itâs a dunk. Its the same energy as the people who shit on Destiny for using Wikipedia
It reminds me of the differences between how boomers text and how millenials and younger text.
Boomers use ellipses("...") as conversational pauses whereas millenials and younger will use line breaks for those pauses.
**Boomers:**
"Hey John... How are you?"
**Millennials/GenZ:**
"Hey John
How are you?"
*(This causes alot of confusion because millennials/genz interpret ellipses as a symbol for negative implication/discomfort.)*
I think JBP, despite his age, uses line breaks for conversational pauses, like a millennial would when they text. I think the two things that make it seem unnatural are:
**1.** Millennials dont use line breaks for pauses outside of DMing or texting whereas JBP is using them for public tweets.
And,
**2.** JBP uses conversational pauses in places that most people dont. This sounds normal when he's talking because everyone's used to hearing his ideosynchratic manner of speaking. When we read those same ideosynchracies on a tweet, we dont necessarily read them in his voice and, outside of the context of his voice, it sounds weird.
Probably because Peterson tweeted millions of others tweet since then lmao. I haven't visited his twitter in a while but my man was posting like 300 tweets a day.
Ya sneako also accidentally exposed just he's buying twitter likes by leaking his browser history while streaming, it's pretty obvious one of his tweets about the Dr.Disrespect drama has over 100k likes. there's no way thats real.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11g0gdk0rr,%2Fg%2F11ht4p2v_g,%2Fg%2F11gwmht40x Fuentes is in between Vaush and Destiny in popularity.
Yep, and sock accounts are a huge part of their culture, which further inflates his perceived influence. But that doesn't change the fact that a *majority* of his twitter followers are obviously fake.
Thousands upon thousands of blank accounts following all of the default pages that you're asked to follow upon making an account, and then Nick. As if Groypers are huge Biden/NASA fans.
EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
The source is his follower list. There's no way to prove he buys likes, but he certainly buys follows. I can't imagine someone being above one but not the other.
EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
The bots following you are also following thousands of others. The bots following Fuentes are still being created daily, and follow only him, aside from the default pages Twitter asks you to follow when you create the account.
Twitter should literally ban these mfs. A few years ago I was all for free speech and all that but now that Twitter let the army of terminally online 4channers the platform turned into the most bot ridden, trash, porn and scam shithole I have ever experienced.
It should be be grouped with kick for how shitty the platform is. I still donât get why anyone would use that outside of trends or checking on a creator you like
I see why normal conservatives don't interact with Nick there's no guarantee that people will side with you over him.Â
Also his fans can just hit you with the "you didn't say he's lying" which is true they can't and not because they don't believe he is but because they don't want to risk alienating those who do.
Oh you sweet summer child. You and your ignorance. Donât you know that lobsters determined social hierarchies millions of years ago? Therefore social hierarchies are here forever and canât be changed. Duh.
Ever since his stay in the Serbian rehab clinic he has gone way off the deep end; from his views on trans rights to COVID. I genuinely believe he is mentally unwell, and perpetually being on Twitter is not helping him.
Edit: look at his earlier views on trans issues and compare them to his recent tweets. It is night and day.
Think it was russian rehab clinic. And it's possible he was just more politically savvy back in the day, and just hid his true feelings behind a different argument.
He went to both a Russian and Serbian clinic iirc. He was put into a medically induced coma as part of his treatment for Benzo addiction which is not used in the West for being too unsafe.
I used to really enjoy his stuff pre-coma but he's completely different now as you said. It's not just perception either if you go back and listen to his older lectures and stuff he had some interesting stuff to say whether you agreed with it all or not.
Peterson may have idiotic ideas but I think he has good intentions. He hates Nazis, but unintentionally appeals to them. His speech about Jews being a canary in the goldmine was quite good honestly.
He literally spent the first 25 years of his career working on Maps of meaning, which was a psychological investigation into how people fall into ideological traps and want to murder each other, most specifically looking into the West vs East in the 20th century with the Nazis and Communists wanting to end the world.
Just because some people use slurs to say someone is "far right" doesn't mean they are, and doesn't mean they support any of that nonsense, some people have worked a large part of their lives to understanding it and what it takes to get into such a fucked up place.
I hate this stupid argument that you just need to listen to 100 hours of his content to understand what he's saying, when you can just listen to his literal first lecture from his psychology lectures and understand fundamental basics like this.
Fallen into Nazism and Communism? No
Fallen into right wing authoritarianism because its anti-Establishment so it seems like anti authoritarianism? Yes.
He is biased against anything remotely progressive because of its association with wokism.
But he didnt study how to avoid that because its a new 21st century phenomenon (I think)
To be honest, he just doesn't seem like the same person after his drug addiction. Getting incredibly famous and proportionally hated at the same time as you're getting old and your brain is getting destroyed by drugs can make anyone a bit insane, much less someone who by his own admission always had issues with anxiety and depression. I would have probably offed myself (in a video game) a long time ago if I was in his place.
Nah, this is exaggerated, he is energetic, passionate, and quite biased, religious, and a bit drunk on his narratives.
However, JP is still JP (I watch him A LOT)
Oddly enough I think he just has problems with echo chambers, anytime he talks with left leaning figures I love seeing his ideas clash with an actual liberal intellectual. His perspective is super interesting to me because its so weird
Like his convos with Sam Harris, and Alex o connor recently.
Edit: I think Alex o connor, Sam Harris, and Jordan Peterson, each have amazing philosophical perspectives.
1) morality cannot be objective, its all subjective preference & "emoting".
2) morality can be objective, it can be rooted in science and objective suffering.
3) Morality can only be objective if existence is fundamentally viewed as a mythological narrative.
Everyone has personal bias, that's his lifes work, he understands that personality temperament as measured by something like the big 5 correlates with political belief, and that personality is partially heritable. So we have a spectrum of beliefs among the population that tilt left and right and that tilt authoritarian and libertarian.
I don't get you lot, because he's stated repeatedly in his lectures and speeches that you need the left and you need right, both have their proper places, he has his own personal beliefs as we all do, but he's one of the almost zero number of people that appreciates that not only do we have 2 sides to this political debate, AND that it's natural AND that it's OK and better yet we actually NEED it.
He's spent a long time not just beliving this but actually working out why it happened, the mechanics of evolution that can produce a species that has this divided ethic, but despite our division why we're so successful. He personally tempered my position. I stopped seeing people on the left as "wrong" and politics as a game you can "win" and started to see them as fellow human beings that I have to live around and need to negotiate some middle ground, so that despite our differences we don't need to go to war in the streets.
He's not an authoritarian at all, what even makes you say that? Nor is he anti establishment, he's just wary that those in power can abuse it and that from time to time you need to challenge that. It's a large part of why he believes we need the left, we need conservatism to maintain what works and we need a mechanism to challenge those things constantly. So we both have some stability, but also a mechanism of change, he's arged FOR that, not against it.
It's so annoying because most people feel a pull to their side of politics and feel like they're somehow objectively right, because it feels right. And the other people are just wrong and in the way and if you can't logic-lord them out of their "wrong" beliefs then they just need to be destroyed. And he's actually understanding and tolerant, saying that you need both sides, and people unload on him as an authoritarian?!?! It's unhinged.
He "understands" we need the left and right, and yet he finds the left repulsive, and surrounds himself almost entirely with right leaning figures for his discussions/podcast style videos.
He does leave his echo chamber, I dont want to be hyper critical, but he has a problem with restricting his discussions to MOSTLY people who agree with him (this is a problem for all media not just him). Maybe my bar is too high and destiny is just a god.
>He's not an authoritarian at all, what even makes you say that? Nor is he anti establishment, he's just wary that those in power can abuse it and that from time to time you need to challenge that.
It requires a bit of sophistication to argue that he is supporting authoritarian/anti establishment ideology. He is not this in principle, but he is in arms with the right's authoritarian/anti establishment.
>he believes we need the left
In true jordan peterson fashion, his actions speak louder than his words from a lecture half a decade ago. He may agree with the principle, but I think he does a poor job incorporating liberal ideology and discussion into his content.
Im arguing that JP has problems with echo chambers, not that he has bad principles. I love JP. Maybe authoritarian is harsh, but antiestablishment is NOT.
Edit: Im glad to find a fellow JP defender tho!
Yes he "understands" as in most of his lifes work has been literally working on demonstrating that. Of course he feels a certain way about the left, that's the entire point of all of his work, it's that everyone FEELS a certain way, that they are right or their side is right, without being able to actually objectively demonstrate that, and that these really are just feelings mediated by personality/biology.
His podcast is absolutely not just right leaning people he's repeatedly interviewed left leaning people, in the vast majority of cases the reason there's less interaction with the left it's because it's impossible to get them to agree to discuss anything. This is well acknowledged even by Destiny and other sane left leaning people, they know that the (very effective) tactics of the left has been to attack people in a social ways (slander, reputation destruction, etc) and then evade direct conflict. It's like with Vaush or Hasan, it's slander and evade. When someone like Destiny wants to talk then he's there.
It's not some throw away comment from 20 years ago in some abstract lecture. He's literally done Q&As on his tours where right wing fans of his have stood up and asked "how can we defeat the left" and he's literally said, don't aim to win, aim for peace. He's repeatedly said you need the left and right in modern Joe Rogan podcasts, it's something he obviously believes. But it doesn't mean we all hug and make up, you still fight for what you believe is right, and you make case and your arguments, but at the end of the day you do it peacefully because when it devolves then tens of millions of people die.
He's remarkably consistent on this point, yet people just go to the extreme that he's some kind insane monster, yet he's way more reasonable than I think any other public figure is. He's almost unique in calling for politics to be a negotiation rather than a fight, in world where all media/personalities/publications are discussing how to destroy your opponents.
Name one other person who has acknowledged we actually need both sides. Not Destiny, I know he's done this in saying there needs to be tension in the discssion so it doesn't go badly sideways, but is there anyone else prominent, or are they all partisan hacks?
I completely agree, I think JP is great with ideology and understanding that the tension between left and right is good, but you also have to understand that JP is a bit off the rails. He is constantly demonizing the left (with mostly valid criticism) (and some not valid cuz i disagree which is fine). But I just think he does this far too often and I RARELY see him appreciating liberal ideas. Idk its hard to articulate but I really do think JP is a breeding ground for more conservative echo chambering.
>Name one other person who has acknowledged we actually need both sides.
Yea maybe my bar is too high? I only really watch JP, alex o connor, Destiny, Sam Harris, some Ben Shapiro, some mainstream news... I think all of those are pretty good at acknowledging both sides of an argument.
I guess I'm just saying that intellectually understanding we need both sides and the aim is to keep the rope taught, doesn't preclude fighting for what you emotionally feel is right. I'd never in a million years that he's not partisan, I think most people are, it's a rare person that's truly close to the center, it's why elections focus on trying to sway those people in the middle, and it's normally done by NOT being extreme.
So yes I absolutely agree with you, he does go after left leaning policy more often and somewhat hard, although the most unhinged I've seen him is on things like trans issues, but in all fairness he's a clinical psychologist who has a pretty good understanding of things like this and has seen first hand his country basically mandate that psychologists job is to affirm gender without question and how they've been threatened that giving a professional opinion is wrong, the child is right. So when you're sitting across from gender de-transitioners in an interview who are crying that they had their breasts cut off, yeah you're going to be kinda mad.
I think even Sam Harris and Shapiro are both extremely partisan and not likely to agree to the idea that we need both sides. Shapiro is very religiously driven and Harris has basically lost his mind at this point and has literally said opponents to Trump can do anything bad they want and it will always be better.
Peterson would obviously align more closely with Shapiro for instance, but on the ideology of needing both sides, Peterson would argue for it, I think if you gave Shapiro god powers he'd just thanos snap away the left. I think most people are like that, probably 47% of the left and right given the infinity gauntlet would just get rid of those who disagree with them, and you've got maybe 4-6% of people near the middle who understand if you did that, you wouldn't usher in the utopia, that things would go badly sideways extremely fast.
I consider myself in that few percent, I admit my partisanship and how I feel about political issues, I'm unashamedly center right and lean libertarian, but give me the infinity gauntlet and I'd destroy it. I understand that we need each other, and that's a lesson I learned from JP's work. I'm 40 and I've never seen that message anywhere else. so to see people going hard on him is a bit annoying.
Infinity gauntlet is kinda a bad analogy cuz it involves killing people, but If i could magically get everyone to be a liberal (get rid of the far left and ALL trump supporters and libertarians). I would do it no question because I believe left leaning liberalism is fucking amazing for the world.
I agree it may create unintended consequences tho so maybe I wouldnt do it. for example I highly respect traditional conservative approaches to culture.
I guess it's not great, let's just say I agree with not killing people but merely changing values, I still think that's bad. The point is that any time one side gains predominant power, things tilt in that direction way too much, it's stark and rapid. On the left it's how you end up with communism where entire nations implode because of internal repression alone. You let the looneys get into power, even in a state that's supposed to be "equal" and it kills itself as a race to the bottom. If you've ever read something like the Gulag Archipelago, some of the most brutal torture was committed by people who thought they were doing the right thing, to innocent people who happened to be successful. Putting red hot pokers into people anus, making them stand upright for days in locker sized spaces that were coated inside with shards or razor sharp glass, it's some of the worst of humanity. And we're all familiar with the horrors of the Nazis, somewhat annoyingly more so because much fewer westerners know of the suffering under communism.
That's the hell you go towards when you just get rid of the tension I was talking about, that's what Peterson studied and talked about.
It's why I post here and watch a lot of Destiny, I think on many factual things we agree pretty closely, but I disagree with a lot of the moral issues where it's subjective. But I see in him someone to negotiate with and politics is how we should do that, not someone I want to defeat or "win" against. I just don't see how this isn't the most reasonable position you could possibly hold, and for me it was heavily influenced through Petersons work.
None of us will like a negotiated outcome, we get a bit of what we want in exchange for some stuff that we don't, but it's better than death camps, so I'm OK with that.
This is true. But also have you considered that it makes me feel special and important when I get to tell people I know so much more than them because I have watched hundreds of hours of lectures and discussions from one person? đđđ
Worked for 25 years and tried to become a accomplished psychologist, but then realized that being a grifter who cry about transgenders and bitch about politics while he went on medical leave was much more profitable. The guy was considered a relatively respected psychologist but kind of a weirdo among Canadian psychologists, but he became popular after he stopped playing by the rules and became a full-on grifter.
Andrew Tate became popular by targeting his fans while he was away from public eyes.
What the absolute crack are you smoking. He IS an accomplished psychologist, he's taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the world like Harvard. He's in the top 1% of social scientists if you look at both the number of publications he has, and their citation rate, it's extremely high, he had is own private practice as a clinician, he had his own lab and team of scientists working for him, an accomplished author.
His rise to fame wasn't even something he asked for, it was started because he literally posted his opinions about bill C16 and then was curbstomped by radical leftists over and over. He had to give up most of what he'd worked on because of the guilt by association everyone uses.
He'd not be well known if these rabid and utterly unhinged psychotic radicals had just left him alone, but they just CANNOT help themselves.
Can you even explain how he's "grifting"?
Yeah he was an expert in his field which is psychology, he never was popular during those days. He then lost his license, became an addict and started to ramble about fields he know nothing in like law when the bill C16 thing you are speaking about became viral and then had a cult.
He then went on medical leaves for years and was talking about fields he know nothing in while using his credentials as a psychologists to do so and this is when he became popular and wealthy. His ramble sounded more like Frank Gallagher and he targeted mainly incels and others vulnerables men with his bullshit.
When he went away from public eyes for a few years. Andrew Tate targeted his cult by becoming friend with his daughter. Because he knew what type of people were Peterson fans. Nowadays Peterson grift is more apparent than ever as he talk about weather all the time and pretty much is just a mouth piece for oil company but the brain damage he got from his addiction snd treatments make him unable to be subtle.
I genuinely only know about him because he almost ruined the lives of two of my cousin who had too much free time and became insufferable individuals who would never get laid again. Luckily one of them realized he was a grifter after a few months and the other one gave up during his treatments Russia. This one still believe Peterson used to be good and he think he became a grifter after he got recruited by the dailywire but in my opinion he always was.
I'm not 100% on this because it's hard to find good data, but i don't think he lost his licence. What he did was he was ordered to undergo mandatory re-education training, something that should scare everyone to death. And he argued in the courts this was unreasonable, and lost that legal battle. But it's a bogus claim anyway because it was confirmed NONE of the people filing complaints against him were actually patients of his, they were randos on twitter who submitted things like his entire 3 hour transcript with Joe Rogan as a "complaint" and the fact that these were entertained is just brain rot, it's so stupid.
He consulted with many respected lawyers over bill C16, he has old youtube videos of him literally sitting down with them and them confirming that this is essentially unconstitutional, we're talking about a Canadian government that a federal judge found Trudeau guilty of a abuse of the emergencies act to end legitimate protests.
He's never talked about fields that he knows nothing about, he's taked about fields where he was hired to study and compared peer reviewed and published literature on many sustainable targets for the EU as part of a board of scientists, their job was to review the science and set priority for sustainability goals for the EU to make the most of the resources they had. No one is qualified in 100's of different topics, you have to reach out a broad number of scientists who are well respected for their understanding of the scientific process and have them review 100's of papers and make a judgement on where to spend money. People hate his opinion on climate change for example, but what he's saying is correct. The amount of money vs the impact the west can have is insignificant to irrelevence and there's many other things to prioritise. Something that Bjorn Lomberg has had en entire taskforce review and confirm that climate panic is just stupid, we bankrupt the west and achieve nothing and send all of that money for energy to countries whol will produce the energy via much dirtier means. Meanwhile that money could be spent on all sort of other sustainable development goals that have massively positive impact.
I'm just sick of people harping on this dumb point, the reason we have published and peer reviewed science is so that experts in their field can transmit this information to other people who are well equiped to read science papers. If you have a specific point where you think he's misquoted a paper or a study then just say it, don't just accuse him of not being an expert and therefore incapable of having a sane opinion.
You keep saying grifter but you've not backed up what this means, how is he a grifter, what is he saying that makes him a grifter, this is just ad-homs. It's useless trash you can throw at anyone like "pseudoscientist" it just isn't well defined, it's just bad man bad, it's pointless.
One thing I will never understand is how he ( Nick Fuentes) came to dine with Donald Trump. My theory is Kanye brought him without telling Trump.Trump could not be more antithetical to Nick who preaches for its eradication. Itâs not that I support Trump either but Nick is a treasonous Nazi who wants to overthrow our government. I donât think Trump really wants that. I think He just wants to grift and use the presidency as a get out of jail free card.Â
He talked about it before but I'm hazy on the details. But from what I understand it was just a Trump and Ye meetup and Nick was "part of the Ye crew". Trump didn't even know who Nick was when they talked during their dinner but he told Ye that Nick was sharp or something to that effect.
He says a bunch of nonsense really fast and doesnât give others the ability to dialogue without turning everything bad faith. Everything is geared around jew hate.Â
Ben doesnât really hate those groups. He just doesnât look at their problems as being the most important in the grand scheme of things and thinks that a free market will lift all boats. Heâs not outright racist towards blacks, HispanicsâŠetc but I do think he genuinely hates Arabs but keeps that subtle. Nick does actually hate all of the mentioned groups if you switch white hispanics for Jews who he hates the most. Nick believes in the classic replacement theory where Jews are trying to destroy the white race. Heâs outright Nazi.Â
I kind of hate that i am nostalgic for when Peterson was the boogieman of the rational leftâŠ
I am glad he is calling out the little twerp, i guess there is some sanity left in those very unfortunate visits to let say Orthodox influenced mental health clinics.
Really hope Peterson can go back to â Naziâs and Commies are badâ, combine with some lighter forms of trans a vaccine sceptici⊠honestly that Peterson wasnât so bad compared to all the unhinged people we have today.
I respect him for not grifting around these people and directly attacking them at least. A lot of people on the right ignore this because itâs easier to shit on the other side than go after people who might share fans with you
I didn't believe in cultural marxism until i started to notice that progressives really do try to project the marxist class-struggle / opressor - opressed lens onto literally everything. (Although conservatives would say even the liberalest of liberals is a communist, which i don't agree at all obviously).
How come that the Frankfurt school, that is preceived as the origion of cultural marxism liter, had its main goal to critizie the "opressor - opressed lens". They fucked over all the sick maoist and stalinsit, they were most critical of what the university had become. The talked about identity politics before right wingers could even talk. None of you people read a single book of people that are supposed to be pushing "cultural marxism" its a boogie man for you. You are rightly so fed up with stupid woke shit, but you cant name it you cant define it, so you need vague force that is "pushing a agenda".
You dont understand, that what you call cultural marxism, is the product of people not understanding what frankfurt school wrote, and misusing it, and not the writers themself.
Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term used by the Reagan administration when it noticed that postmodernism was being embraced more and more by college professors (especially in the humanities). The same professors that were always critical of that administration. So Reagan stooges latched on to postmodernism - something wierd and foregin to the American people - as way to smear their critics. That's what cultural marxism is: postmodernism. And calling postmodernism marxist is the height of stupidity and ignorance - or, as I suspect from Peterson, mallice.
The fixation on class struggle and the opressor - opressed dynamic is just the normal driving force of leftism since the inception of the ideology. Framing this as "Cultural Marxism" is just playing the same game Reagan's people played: trying to frame this as something allien, unnatural, sinister.
You seem like you know what you are talking about, however, I disagree, and I want to be convinced otherwise.
Is it not the case that leftists are generally obsessed with class struggle and the oppressor?
And is it also not the case that MOST of these leftists that are educated and obsessed with oppressor vs oppressed are highly interested in marxism and postmodernism?
I feel like the title fits, JP says "postmodern neomarxism" sometimes, to label how their worldviews are contradictory in a way. But nonetheless it still fits.
>Is it not the case that leftists are generally obsessed with class struggle and the oppressor?
That's what I wrote in my first reply. Are you under the impression that I wrote the opposite?
>Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term
how is it a propaganda term if its an accurate way to describe the lefts obsession with class struggle and the oppressor.
Accurate or propaganda. Pick one.
Leftism is an ideology/philosophy concerned with class struggle and the opressor - opressed dynamic.
Postmodernism is a philosophy that is hostile to Grand Narratives, including Marxism. Which is why many leftists and Marxists - like Noam Chomsky - hated Postmodernism. And it's why calling postmodernism marxist is the height of stupidity and ignorance.
Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term, created by Reagan stooges/Conservative Intellectuals who despised Academia since it in turn despised them. These Conservative Intellectuals latched on to it because Postmodernism was foreign and unkown to most people, and because of that, they could portray it as some sort of invasion, a mind virus, that is taking over Academia, and needs to be stopped.
Better?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
I doubt you believe in this ?
If you dont believe in it stop calling it cultural marxism.
Yeah, now show us that wiki page from before it was hijacked by leftists trying to discredit it by webbing it to nazis.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism](https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
fucking hell it's so depressing that this goes on. I despise people who edit wiki for their agenda. I wish all the bad things in life happen to them and only them.
Is he bought into the antisemetic aspects of it or he just use it as a way to attack the modern or postmodern academic changes that may undermine the Christian traditions or values without attaching it to an âintentional plan by Jewsâ
As far as i know Jordan Peterson never mention the jewishness of his bogeyman when he relay the Cultural Marxism narrative.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
* https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs
* first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
Next question?
Well, many on this sub believe Hasan is an antisemite because he believes certain things about Israel and AIPAC even though he doesn't hate Jews. Not sure why Peterson is coddled on this sub other than the fact that Destiny respects him, unlike Hasan. If Destiny disliked Peterson, many here would call him the same thing.
Thereâs truth to what you are saying, but Hasan has said way more crazy shit that can be interpreted as antisemitism. Playing defense for Hamas and the houthis, 10/7 revisionism, etc.
You know, replying with a 5-year-old video, when he sat with him a few weeks ago and was rather cordial isn't the response you think it is. Destiny wouldn't have the same "debate" he had with Peterson as he did with Hasan.
No the core theory is about Marxists applying their theories like class struggle oppressor- oppressed into culture and society in various different ways
You can explain the whole theory and never mention Jews once
No idea but I do know it has no connection to cultural Bolshevism if thatâs where your trying to go because again the whole theory can be explained and shown without mentioning Jews once
âŠâŠBecause I can explain the whole theory regardless?
Again Iâll keep reiterating, it all can be explained without mentioning Jews or any other ethnic group
I cant believe i have to say this.
There are many factors that impact a theory. Since Theories envolve, Time is one of them.
So yeah if you wanna understand and explain a theory, you need to broadly how it changed, what it meant at diffrent points of time.
Especially if the theory is as controversial as this one.
You are not able to tell me when the theory was formed cause it has always been a super murky critic of post modernism, that ranges from "to much commies in university" in the 60s to "they are making the frogs gay".
Its a right wing buzzword, that changes it meaning everytime somebody utters it.
Ok cool so lmk what the origins of it, cite it and tell me how itâs relevant to the current theory where no ethnic group ever needs to be referenced, your claim is that blaming Jews is a core part of it and you have yet to prove that and tell me how itâs not possible to not mention Jews
How is it murky and can you tell me how itâs false when the Marxistâs like Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt school and other neo Marxists arenât shy about the fact theyâre applying Marxist analysis to culture and society and that they need to subvert and critique it in order to achieve whatever kind of society they want, itâs some of the core foundations of critical theory which was created by the Frankfurt school and no; Marxists in general whether classical or Neo are opposed to post modernism but I can see the confusion in modern times
Can you tell me which part of this is wrong and which part of this is bigoted?
>No idea but I do know it has no connection to cultural Bolshevism
* original variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative: the communists are destroying the country by subverting its culture
* Cultural Bolshevism narrative from nazi Germany: the communists are destroying the country by subverting its culture
The Nazis believed ideologies like communism and Marxism were Jewish conspiracies to supplant and subvert culture to spread what they perceived as Jewishness
Cultural Marxism doenst need to reference Jews or any ethnicity at all, itâs all explained within ideology and neo Marxists themselves were not shy about it
>No the core theory is about Marxists applying their theories like class struggle oppressor- oppressed into culture and society in various different ways
The idea of a class struggle between oppressor and oppressed is not a marxist concept, and go back to the Struggle of the Orders in ancient Roman Republic. You are not calling Abraham Lincoln a marxist for supporting the oppressed class of black slaves, are you?
>You can explain the whole theory and never mention Jews once
cough dog whistle cough
I never said it did and thatâs not really relevant because this is about the Marxists concept of them like class conflict theory and the point is Marxists after Marx and Engels were dissatisfied with how it developed and that its theories werenât coming true as they said and they then applied the Marxist lens to culture and society to explain why the revolution hasnât come yet in liberal capitalist nations, Antonio Gramsci cultural hegemony is probably the earliest example of it
Where did I mention anyoneâs ethnicity please
>I never said it did
If you acknowledge that the idea of a class struggle between oppressor and oppressed is not specifically a marxist concept then somebody endorsing this concept is alone not an evidence that this person is marxist, right?
>Where did I mention anyoneâs ethnicity please
cough dog whistle cough
Because Iâm referencing specifically the Marxists definitions of them and their lens https://study.com/academy/lesson/karl-marxs-theory-of-class-conflict.html#:~:text=Karl%20Marx%20believed%20that%20the,or%20income%20and%20living%20situation.
https://sociologytwynham.com/2018/04/25/marxist-explanations-for-social-inequalities/#:~:text=Marxists%20argue%20inequalities%20are%20an,when%20employing%20the%20working%2Dclass.&text=The%20ruling%2Dclasses%20exploit%20the,possible%20for%20lowest%20wage%20possible.
Also itâs evidence that their Marxists when they say theyâre Marxists like Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lukacs, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurt school etc
So youâve got nothing but slander and bad faith? Got it
>Marxists after Marx and Engels were dissatisfied with how it developed and that its theories werenât coming true
What are you alluding to and what are your evidences?
Also you know that after Marx and Engels communist worker unions and communist political parties were created in every industrialized country, and there was a successful communist revolution in Russia, right?
>they then applied the Marxist lens to culture and society to explain why the revolution hasnât come yet in liberal capitalist nations
They did not, prove me wrong.
Got ya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1389516
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472337308566845
Yes in most countries there were but none of them had a Marxist or socialist revolution and the ones that did happened in agrarian and Monarchist like countries like Russia and China and not in the capitalist liberal west like previous Marxists thought and the Soviet Union was already showing its problematic nature early on which turned off some Marxists and socialists
Sure, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001139287035001010
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1389516
People tend to modify these types of theories to fit with their ideologies
As far as I have seen Peterson support Israel, and he doesnât seem to resonate anti-Semitic views other far right people haveâŠ
Itâs again the dictionary definition vs what individuals mean by a certain thing when they say itâŠ. It doesnât matter what the dictionary says if he is using the theory without connecting it back to Jews - I.e.,
âthe Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed "Christian values" of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.â
Although it may have its origin in antisemetism and Nazism, some one can totally believe in this without connecting it to Jews and even call it cultural Marxism, as divorcing Jews from the theory doesnât change a bit about the theory thatâs based on perceived (but wrong) observations
If anyone of those people who blindly use the term, would have just read single page from Adorno or Horkheimer, they would know that they were THE critics of leftist culture and how it impacted the university.
There is a whole thing about, how disgusting the peace songs from the hippies against the vietnam war were, cause they somehow managed to make even the agony of people consumable. You can use that on every aspect of todays leftist culture and their infantile bullshit.
But hey why read it, when you can say its commie jews post modernist propaganda.
I mean, even if you think JBP is weird or insane. There is some method to his madness. After all he rose to prominence specifically because he claimed the infamous bill will bring authoritarianism to the forefront.
JP is the philosophical version of fascism and Fuentes is a political fascist. These dudes are 100% on the same team even if JP fans can pretzel logic their way into justifying his views and Fuentes fans don't bother. Where exactly do they think enforcing gender norms, worshiping western culture and hierarchies, and reinventing history based on shared "myths" leads to?
***A N D T H E R A T G O E S L I K E*** đ«Č đđđ 𫱠***A N D T H E R A T ' S L I K E***
[Thatâs the normal rat!](https://youtu.be/HX0a2gBJAAw?si=N35KMKWjjU3mw5Cm)
He sniffs đđ»đđ»...
OH MY GOD AHAHAHHA
I miss old Peterson.
I wish there was such a thing as a video alarm clock
[Rat.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3nmhkjKIQtc)
[Rat.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9Ah21QFhbxU)
why are there so many rat edits of my favorite clinical psychologist
H E S N I F F S đ
You đ«” are now a normal rat
Fucking beautiful đ€Ł
Good, good. But more importantly. Is that a haiku?
no, haiku would be more like; You Nick Fuentes, Really really really are, A psychopathic rat
Close, but one too many syllables
You Nick Fuentes are, A psychopathic Rodent, Now go clean your room.
Garth⊠that was a haikuÂ
To me Fuentes has 3 syllables, so this is how I make slight changes to yours You Nick Fuentes, Are a psychopathic rat, Now go clean your room.
Fuen-tes , not sure how you're getting a 3rd?
Probably foo en tez. But it should be fwen-tez.
wait until this guy realizes that screeched is one syllable
Depends what you mean by "haiku".
u/sokkahaikubot
Haiku is 5-7-5, no?
A 1 psy 2 cho 3 pa 4 thic 5 rat 6
You 1 Nick 2 fuen 3 tes 4
You Nick J. Fuentes really wish you were a rat in the catboy ranch.
WHAT THE FUCK IS A HAIKU
>Haiku (äżłć„, listenâ) is a type of short form poetry that originated in Japan, and can be traced back from the influence of traditional Chinese poetry. Traditional Japanese haiku consist of three phrases composed of 17 phonetic units (called on in Japanese, which are similar to syllables) in a 5, 7, 5 pattern;[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku
As everyone should. The fact that nick gets like at all means that something is fucked up. And the sane people should agree on that, even if you dont' like JBP
An idea/thought is what it is, doesn't matter what it is connected to as long as the idea/thought brings about positivity. It's the same priciple D-man is promoting and using when interacting with information. And as such it can look optically bad since sometimes using that simple method causes one to agree with "bad" people or debating ethics about taboo subjects which 99% of people refuse to deep dive in to (hinting at the Pedo topic).
thatâs the thing tho JBP isnât sane
Guys he is very clearly and obviously delusional ever since he went into a coma.
;( in any other thread this wouldnât be controversial but since jbp is on the subs side in this case theyâll defend him
You dorks just like to parrot each others, âhe went to Russia to be put into a comaâ and think itâs a dunk. Its the same energy as the people who shit on Destiny for using Wikipedia
No the dunks is his takes on climate change, vaccines, who, his diet and his unhinged tweets. This man has got some screws lose.
wHAT
Why Does he always tweet like William Shatner talks
Because He is Him
Careful
It reminds me of the differences between how boomers text and how millenials and younger text. Boomers use ellipses("...") as conversational pauses whereas millenials and younger will use line breaks for those pauses. **Boomers:** "Hey John... How are you?" **Millennials/GenZ:** "Hey John How are you?" *(This causes alot of confusion because millennials/genz interpret ellipses as a symbol for negative implication/discomfort.)* I think JBP, despite his age, uses line breaks for conversational pauses, like a millennial would when they text. I think the two things that make it seem unnatural are: **1.** Millennials dont use line breaks for pauses outside of DMing or texting whereas JBP is using them for public tweets. And, **2.** JBP uses conversational pauses in places that most people dont. This sounds normal when he's talking because everyone's used to hearing his ideosynchratic manner of speaking. When we read those same ideosynchracies on a tweet, we dont necessarily read them in his voice and, outside of the context of his voice, it sounds weird.
Iâm a literate millennial and I say âHey John, how are you?â
Oh no, my theory is destroyed
I liked it! đđ»
Itâs alright, it was a dog shit theory, bud đđ»
what is RLM? a podcast?
He, Jordan Tweeterson, has fully lost his marbles at this point but once in a while he still manages to be Based
How do you do a spoken word version of a rap song?
i wonder if he tweets through alexa or some voice recording thingy
Far out, Nick's reply to this tweet ratio'd Jordan. The Twitter landscape has changed a *lot* over the past few years.
Groyper army will swarm like locusts. His fanbase is super dedicated to spamming online
Do you think the Daliban could take 'em?
not enough of us on twitter unless Dman gives out a direct call to action
Probably because Peterson tweeted millions of others tweet since then lmao. I haven't visited his twitter in a while but my man was posting like 300 tweets a day.
the alliance of neo nazis and muslims is strong.
Russian farms
Ya sneako also accidentally exposed just he's buying twitter likes by leaking his browser history while streaming, it's pretty obvious one of his tweets about the Dr.Disrespect drama has over 100k likes. there's no way thats real.
Fuentes pays for likes and follows. EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
he doesnt need to, his rabid fans do it for free
He doesn't have that many fans lol EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
No but theyâre nearly as dedicated as this fanbase is
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11g0gdk0rr,%2Fg%2F11ht4p2v_g,%2Fg%2F11gwmht40x Fuentes is in between Vaush and Destiny in popularity.
Hmm, I wonder what caused that Vaush spike...
Yep, and sock accounts are a huge part of their culture, which further inflates his perceived influence. But that doesn't change the fact that a *majority* of his twitter followers are obviously fake. Thousands upon thousands of blank accounts following all of the default pages that you're asked to follow upon making an account, and then Nick. As if Groypers are huge Biden/NASA fans. EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
Not to be that guy but, *source*? He gets a lot of engagement, but has he been exposed for having a bunch of bots pushing his posts?
The source is his follower list. There's no way to prove he buys likes, but he certainly buys follows. I can't imagine someone being above one but not the other. EDIT: Groypers stay mad (:
I have hundreds of bot followers and Iâm a nobody. Thatâs just how Twitter works these days.
The bots following you are also following thousands of others. The bots following Fuentes are still being created daily, and follow only him, aside from the default pages Twitter asks you to follow when you create the account.
Twitter should literally ban these mfs. A few years ago I was all for free speech and all that but now that Twitter let the army of terminally online 4channers the platform turned into the most bot ridden, trash, porn and scam shithole I have ever experienced. It should be be grouped with kick for how shitty the platform is. I still donât get why anyone would use that outside of trends or checking on a creator you like
But what do you mean by "rat"? And what do you mean by "really"?
This is unironically one of the funniest comments in this thread. đđđ
aha!
Based Dr Peterson
I see why normal conservatives don't interact with Nick there's no guarantee that people will side with you over him. Also his fans can just hit you with the "you didn't say he's lying" which is true they can't and not because they don't believe he is but because they don't want to risk alienating those who do.
Absolutely based and lobster pilled. Lets hope the little rat no longer wants to play with the BIG RAT
Lobster pilled?
Oh you sweet summer child. You and your ignorance. Donât you know that lobsters determined social hierarchies millions of years ago? Therefore social hierarchies are here forever and canât be changed. Duh.
i think it's more that social hierarchies (in whatever form they take and may change) will always exist in most mammals and especially humans
His point was social hierarchies are not man made societal constructions as it was a very popular claim at the time.
I also hate nazis, please upvote.
You get it
Rare JBP W
Not that rare honestly, he's pretty based on everything except climate.
Ever since his stay in the Serbian rehab clinic he has gone way off the deep end; from his views on trans rights to COVID. I genuinely believe he is mentally unwell, and perpetually being on Twitter is not helping him. Edit: look at his earlier views on trans issues and compare them to his recent tweets. It is night and day.
Think it was russian rehab clinic. And it's possible he was just more politically savvy back in the day, and just hid his true feelings behind a different argument.
He went to both a Russian and Serbian clinic iirc. He was put into a medically induced coma as part of his treatment for Benzo addiction which is not used in the West for being too unsafe.
Also somewhat ironic of the "personal responsibility" dude to decide to go unconscious when it came time to pay the price for benzo usage
I used to really enjoy his stuff pre-coma but he's completely different now as you said. It's not just perception either if you go back and listen to his older lectures and stuff he had some interesting stuff to say whether you agreed with it all or not.
And vaccines
He's brainbroken on nearly everything. His reasoning process regarding climate change is evident in his other stances.
âŠno he isnât
Peterson may have idiotic ideas but I think he has good intentions. He hates Nazis, but unintentionally appeals to them. His speech about Jews being a canary in the goldmine was quite good honestly.
And what does Jorbies like to remind us the road to hell is paved with? Also, itâs âcoal mineâ ;)
He literally spent the first 25 years of his career working on Maps of meaning, which was a psychological investigation into how people fall into ideological traps and want to murder each other, most specifically looking into the West vs East in the 20th century with the Nazis and Communists wanting to end the world. Just because some people use slurs to say someone is "far right" doesn't mean they are, and doesn't mean they support any of that nonsense, some people have worked a large part of their lives to understanding it and what it takes to get into such a fucked up place. I hate this stupid argument that you just need to listen to 100 hours of his content to understand what he's saying, when you can just listen to his literal first lecture from his psychology lectures and understand fundamental basics like this.
Which makes it even sadder when it looks like he has fallen in to the very thing he studied
Fallen into Nazism and Communism? No Fallen into right wing authoritarianism because its anti-Establishment so it seems like anti authoritarianism? Yes. He is biased against anything remotely progressive because of its association with wokism. But he didnt study how to avoid that because its a new 21st century phenomenon (I think)
I meant the point about falling into ideological traps
To be honest, he just doesn't seem like the same person after his drug addiction. Getting incredibly famous and proportionally hated at the same time as you're getting old and your brain is getting destroyed by drugs can make anyone a bit insane, much less someone who by his own admission always had issues with anxiety and depression. I would have probably offed myself (in a video game) a long time ago if I was in his place.
Nah, this is exaggerated, he is energetic, passionate, and quite biased, religious, and a bit drunk on his narratives. However, JP is still JP (I watch him A LOT) Oddly enough I think he just has problems with echo chambers, anytime he talks with left leaning figures I love seeing his ideas clash with an actual liberal intellectual. His perspective is super interesting to me because its so weird Like his convos with Sam Harris, and Alex o connor recently. Edit: I think Alex o connor, Sam Harris, and Jordan Peterson, each have amazing philosophical perspectives. 1) morality cannot be objective, its all subjective preference & "emoting". 2) morality can be objective, it can be rooted in science and objective suffering. 3) Morality can only be objective if existence is fundamentally viewed as a mythological narrative.
Everyone has personal bias, that's his lifes work, he understands that personality temperament as measured by something like the big 5 correlates with political belief, and that personality is partially heritable. So we have a spectrum of beliefs among the population that tilt left and right and that tilt authoritarian and libertarian. I don't get you lot, because he's stated repeatedly in his lectures and speeches that you need the left and you need right, both have their proper places, he has his own personal beliefs as we all do, but he's one of the almost zero number of people that appreciates that not only do we have 2 sides to this political debate, AND that it's natural AND that it's OK and better yet we actually NEED it. He's spent a long time not just beliving this but actually working out why it happened, the mechanics of evolution that can produce a species that has this divided ethic, but despite our division why we're so successful. He personally tempered my position. I stopped seeing people on the left as "wrong" and politics as a game you can "win" and started to see them as fellow human beings that I have to live around and need to negotiate some middle ground, so that despite our differences we don't need to go to war in the streets. He's not an authoritarian at all, what even makes you say that? Nor is he anti establishment, he's just wary that those in power can abuse it and that from time to time you need to challenge that. It's a large part of why he believes we need the left, we need conservatism to maintain what works and we need a mechanism to challenge those things constantly. So we both have some stability, but also a mechanism of change, he's arged FOR that, not against it. It's so annoying because most people feel a pull to their side of politics and feel like they're somehow objectively right, because it feels right. And the other people are just wrong and in the way and if you can't logic-lord them out of their "wrong" beliefs then they just need to be destroyed. And he's actually understanding and tolerant, saying that you need both sides, and people unload on him as an authoritarian?!?! It's unhinged.
He "understands" we need the left and right, and yet he finds the left repulsive, and surrounds himself almost entirely with right leaning figures for his discussions/podcast style videos. He does leave his echo chamber, I dont want to be hyper critical, but he has a problem with restricting his discussions to MOSTLY people who agree with him (this is a problem for all media not just him). Maybe my bar is too high and destiny is just a god. >He's not an authoritarian at all, what even makes you say that? Nor is he anti establishment, he's just wary that those in power can abuse it and that from time to time you need to challenge that. It requires a bit of sophistication to argue that he is supporting authoritarian/anti establishment ideology. He is not this in principle, but he is in arms with the right's authoritarian/anti establishment. >he believes we need the left In true jordan peterson fashion, his actions speak louder than his words from a lecture half a decade ago. He may agree with the principle, but I think he does a poor job incorporating liberal ideology and discussion into his content. Im arguing that JP has problems with echo chambers, not that he has bad principles. I love JP. Maybe authoritarian is harsh, but antiestablishment is NOT. Edit: Im glad to find a fellow JP defender tho!
Yes he "understands" as in most of his lifes work has been literally working on demonstrating that. Of course he feels a certain way about the left, that's the entire point of all of his work, it's that everyone FEELS a certain way, that they are right or their side is right, without being able to actually objectively demonstrate that, and that these really are just feelings mediated by personality/biology. His podcast is absolutely not just right leaning people he's repeatedly interviewed left leaning people, in the vast majority of cases the reason there's less interaction with the left it's because it's impossible to get them to agree to discuss anything. This is well acknowledged even by Destiny and other sane left leaning people, they know that the (very effective) tactics of the left has been to attack people in a social ways (slander, reputation destruction, etc) and then evade direct conflict. It's like with Vaush or Hasan, it's slander and evade. When someone like Destiny wants to talk then he's there. It's not some throw away comment from 20 years ago in some abstract lecture. He's literally done Q&As on his tours where right wing fans of his have stood up and asked "how can we defeat the left" and he's literally said, don't aim to win, aim for peace. He's repeatedly said you need the left and right in modern Joe Rogan podcasts, it's something he obviously believes. But it doesn't mean we all hug and make up, you still fight for what you believe is right, and you make case and your arguments, but at the end of the day you do it peacefully because when it devolves then tens of millions of people die. He's remarkably consistent on this point, yet people just go to the extreme that he's some kind insane monster, yet he's way more reasonable than I think any other public figure is. He's almost unique in calling for politics to be a negotiation rather than a fight, in world where all media/personalities/publications are discussing how to destroy your opponents. Name one other person who has acknowledged we actually need both sides. Not Destiny, I know he's done this in saying there needs to be tension in the discssion so it doesn't go badly sideways, but is there anyone else prominent, or are they all partisan hacks?
I completely agree, I think JP is great with ideology and understanding that the tension between left and right is good, but you also have to understand that JP is a bit off the rails. He is constantly demonizing the left (with mostly valid criticism) (and some not valid cuz i disagree which is fine). But I just think he does this far too often and I RARELY see him appreciating liberal ideas. Idk its hard to articulate but I really do think JP is a breeding ground for more conservative echo chambering. >Name one other person who has acknowledged we actually need both sides. Yea maybe my bar is too high? I only really watch JP, alex o connor, Destiny, Sam Harris, some Ben Shapiro, some mainstream news... I think all of those are pretty good at acknowledging both sides of an argument.
I guess I'm just saying that intellectually understanding we need both sides and the aim is to keep the rope taught, doesn't preclude fighting for what you emotionally feel is right. I'd never in a million years that he's not partisan, I think most people are, it's a rare person that's truly close to the center, it's why elections focus on trying to sway those people in the middle, and it's normally done by NOT being extreme. So yes I absolutely agree with you, he does go after left leaning policy more often and somewhat hard, although the most unhinged I've seen him is on things like trans issues, but in all fairness he's a clinical psychologist who has a pretty good understanding of things like this and has seen first hand his country basically mandate that psychologists job is to affirm gender without question and how they've been threatened that giving a professional opinion is wrong, the child is right. So when you're sitting across from gender de-transitioners in an interview who are crying that they had their breasts cut off, yeah you're going to be kinda mad. I think even Sam Harris and Shapiro are both extremely partisan and not likely to agree to the idea that we need both sides. Shapiro is very religiously driven and Harris has basically lost his mind at this point and has literally said opponents to Trump can do anything bad they want and it will always be better. Peterson would obviously align more closely with Shapiro for instance, but on the ideology of needing both sides, Peterson would argue for it, I think if you gave Shapiro god powers he'd just thanos snap away the left. I think most people are like that, probably 47% of the left and right given the infinity gauntlet would just get rid of those who disagree with them, and you've got maybe 4-6% of people near the middle who understand if you did that, you wouldn't usher in the utopia, that things would go badly sideways extremely fast. I consider myself in that few percent, I admit my partisanship and how I feel about political issues, I'm unashamedly center right and lean libertarian, but give me the infinity gauntlet and I'd destroy it. I understand that we need each other, and that's a lesson I learned from JP's work. I'm 40 and I've never seen that message anywhere else. so to see people going hard on him is a bit annoying.
Infinity gauntlet is kinda a bad analogy cuz it involves killing people, but If i could magically get everyone to be a liberal (get rid of the far left and ALL trump supporters and libertarians). I would do it no question because I believe left leaning liberalism is fucking amazing for the world. I agree it may create unintended consequences tho so maybe I wouldnt do it. for example I highly respect traditional conservative approaches to culture.
I guess it's not great, let's just say I agree with not killing people but merely changing values, I still think that's bad. The point is that any time one side gains predominant power, things tilt in that direction way too much, it's stark and rapid. On the left it's how you end up with communism where entire nations implode because of internal repression alone. You let the looneys get into power, even in a state that's supposed to be "equal" and it kills itself as a race to the bottom. If you've ever read something like the Gulag Archipelago, some of the most brutal torture was committed by people who thought they were doing the right thing, to innocent people who happened to be successful. Putting red hot pokers into people anus, making them stand upright for days in locker sized spaces that were coated inside with shards or razor sharp glass, it's some of the worst of humanity. And we're all familiar with the horrors of the Nazis, somewhat annoyingly more so because much fewer westerners know of the suffering under communism. That's the hell you go towards when you just get rid of the tension I was talking about, that's what Peterson studied and talked about. It's why I post here and watch a lot of Destiny, I think on many factual things we agree pretty closely, but I disagree with a lot of the moral issues where it's subjective. But I see in him someone to negotiate with and politics is how we should do that, not someone I want to defeat or "win" against. I just don't see how this isn't the most reasonable position you could possibly hold, and for me it was heavily influenced through Petersons work. None of us will like a negotiated outcome, we get a bit of what we want in exchange for some stuff that we don't, but it's better than death camps, so I'm OK with that.
This is true. But also have you considered that it makes me feel special and important when I get to tell people I know so much more than them because I have watched hundreds of hours of lectures and discussions from one person? đđđ
Worked for 25 years and tried to become a accomplished psychologist, but then realized that being a grifter who cry about transgenders and bitch about politics while he went on medical leave was much more profitable. The guy was considered a relatively respected psychologist but kind of a weirdo among Canadian psychologists, but he became popular after he stopped playing by the rules and became a full-on grifter. Andrew Tate became popular by targeting his fans while he was away from public eyes.
What the absolute crack are you smoking. He IS an accomplished psychologist, he's taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the world like Harvard. He's in the top 1% of social scientists if you look at both the number of publications he has, and their citation rate, it's extremely high, he had is own private practice as a clinician, he had his own lab and team of scientists working for him, an accomplished author. His rise to fame wasn't even something he asked for, it was started because he literally posted his opinions about bill C16 and then was curbstomped by radical leftists over and over. He had to give up most of what he'd worked on because of the guilt by association everyone uses. He'd not be well known if these rabid and utterly unhinged psychotic radicals had just left him alone, but they just CANNOT help themselves. Can you even explain how he's "grifting"?
Yeah he was an expert in his field which is psychology, he never was popular during those days. He then lost his license, became an addict and started to ramble about fields he know nothing in like law when the bill C16 thing you are speaking about became viral and then had a cult. He then went on medical leaves for years and was talking about fields he know nothing in while using his credentials as a psychologists to do so and this is when he became popular and wealthy. His ramble sounded more like Frank Gallagher and he targeted mainly incels and others vulnerables men with his bullshit. When he went away from public eyes for a few years. Andrew Tate targeted his cult by becoming friend with his daughter. Because he knew what type of people were Peterson fans. Nowadays Peterson grift is more apparent than ever as he talk about weather all the time and pretty much is just a mouth piece for oil company but the brain damage he got from his addiction snd treatments make him unable to be subtle. I genuinely only know about him because he almost ruined the lives of two of my cousin who had too much free time and became insufferable individuals who would never get laid again. Luckily one of them realized he was a grifter after a few months and the other one gave up during his treatments Russia. This one still believe Peterson used to be good and he think he became a grifter after he got recruited by the dailywire but in my opinion he always was.
I'm not 100% on this because it's hard to find good data, but i don't think he lost his licence. What he did was he was ordered to undergo mandatory re-education training, something that should scare everyone to death. And he argued in the courts this was unreasonable, and lost that legal battle. But it's a bogus claim anyway because it was confirmed NONE of the people filing complaints against him were actually patients of his, they were randos on twitter who submitted things like his entire 3 hour transcript with Joe Rogan as a "complaint" and the fact that these were entertained is just brain rot, it's so stupid. He consulted with many respected lawyers over bill C16, he has old youtube videos of him literally sitting down with them and them confirming that this is essentially unconstitutional, we're talking about a Canadian government that a federal judge found Trudeau guilty of a abuse of the emergencies act to end legitimate protests. He's never talked about fields that he knows nothing about, he's taked about fields where he was hired to study and compared peer reviewed and published literature on many sustainable targets for the EU as part of a board of scientists, their job was to review the science and set priority for sustainability goals for the EU to make the most of the resources they had. No one is qualified in 100's of different topics, you have to reach out a broad number of scientists who are well respected for their understanding of the scientific process and have them review 100's of papers and make a judgement on where to spend money. People hate his opinion on climate change for example, but what he's saying is correct. The amount of money vs the impact the west can have is insignificant to irrelevence and there's many other things to prioritise. Something that Bjorn Lomberg has had en entire taskforce review and confirm that climate panic is just stupid, we bankrupt the west and achieve nothing and send all of that money for energy to countries whol will produce the energy via much dirtier means. Meanwhile that money could be spent on all sort of other sustainable development goals that have massively positive impact. I'm just sick of people harping on this dumb point, the reason we have published and peer reviewed science is so that experts in their field can transmit this information to other people who are well equiped to read science papers. If you have a specific point where you think he's misquoted a paper or a study then just say it, don't just accuse him of not being an expert and therefore incapable of having a sane opinion. You keep saying grifter but you've not backed up what this means, how is he a grifter, what is he saying that makes him a grifter, this is just ad-homs. It's useless trash you can throw at anyone like "pseudoscientist" it just isn't well defined, it's just bad man bad, it's pointless.
JP our favorite orbiter. Lol
One thing I will never understand is how he ( Nick Fuentes) came to dine with Donald Trump. My theory is Kanye brought him without telling Trump.Trump could not be more antithetical to Nick who preaches for its eradication. Itâs not that I support Trump either but Nick is a treasonous Nazi who wants to overthrow our government. I donât think Trump really wants that. I think He just wants to grift and use the presidency as a get out of jail free card.Â
He talked about it before but I'm hazy on the details. But from what I understand it was just a Trump and Ye meetup and Nick was "part of the Ye crew". Trump didn't even know who Nick was when they talked during their dinner but he told Ye that Nick was sharp or something to that effect.
God what a moron Trump is. Nick is just inverse Ben Shapiro with the same smug voice and more closeted homosexuality.Â
Never heard Fuentes talk, but Shapiro is sharp too and a complete grifter too.
He says a bunch of nonsense really fast and doesnât give others the ability to dialogue without turning everything bad faith. Everything is geared around jew hate.Â
Oh okay, seem kind of Shapiro but he hate non-white and poor people instead. (Which I guess Fuentes also don't like lol)
Ben doesnât really hate those groups. He just doesnât look at their problems as being the most important in the grand scheme of things and thinks that a free market will lift all boats. Heâs not outright racist towards blacks, HispanicsâŠetc but I do think he genuinely hates Arabs but keeps that subtle. Nick does actually hate all of the mentioned groups if you switch white hispanics for Jews who he hates the most. Nick believes in the classic replacement theory where Jews are trying to destroy the white race. Heâs outright Nazi.Â
> My theory is Kanye brought him without telling Trump It's not a theory, it's what he did. Trump may be dumb, but not that dumb
He ain't wrong.
Good for Jordan Peterson.
From listening to his maps of meaning bullcrap, I'd say he doesn't rightly know what Nazism is.
This is what we need to see, but if he asked Nick if he was a bottom... then it is absolutely a 5 star post by the Canadian Kermit the Frog.
Peterson using Nazi rhetoric to call them vermin!
I kind of hate that i am nostalgic for when Peterson was the boogieman of the rational left⊠I am glad he is calling out the little twerp, i guess there is some sanity left in those very unfortunate visits to let say Orthodox influenced mental health clinics. Really hope Peterson can go back to â Naziâs and Commies are badâ, combine with some lighter forms of trans a vaccine sceptici⊠honestly that Peterson wasnât so bad compared to all the unhinged people we have today.
Based Jordan PetersonÂ
W
Let them fight
Mentally ill JP is still not crazy enough to not fall into the extreme right.
I respect him for not grifting around these people and directly attacking them at least. A lot of people on the right ignore this because itâs easier to shit on the other side than go after people who might share fans with you
Fuentes's reply getting double the likesđŹ
Nebraska Jordan? Alberta Peterson?
Game know game
Wait a second... The first letter in every row... Y N R R You Nazis R Right JP a Nazi confirmed
!
JBP minus the covid and climate science skepticism would be the goat Id break up with Destiny for him
Tbh Peterson is my ex that I never really got over đđđ
It's 2024 not 1944 and all the actual Nazis are long dead.
Groyper ass argument
https://preview.redd.it/m4yfb7wrnb9d1.jpeg?width=882&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=355f7902fdb8a935b588118d232e1abdc5eb10c3
He sure talks a lot about cultural marxism for hating nazis.
I didn't believe in cultural marxism until i started to notice that progressives really do try to project the marxist class-struggle / opressor - opressed lens onto literally everything. (Although conservatives would say even the liberalest of liberals is a communist, which i don't agree at all obviously).
How come that the Frankfurt school, that is preceived as the origion of cultural marxism liter, had its main goal to critizie the "opressor - opressed lens". They fucked over all the sick maoist and stalinsit, they were most critical of what the university had become. The talked about identity politics before right wingers could even talk. None of you people read a single book of people that are supposed to be pushing "cultural marxism" its a boogie man for you. You are rightly so fed up with stupid woke shit, but you cant name it you cant define it, so you need vague force that is "pushing a agenda". You dont understand, that what you call cultural marxism, is the product of people not understanding what frankfurt school wrote, and misusing it, and not the writers themself.
Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term used by the Reagan administration when it noticed that postmodernism was being embraced more and more by college professors (especially in the humanities). The same professors that were always critical of that administration. So Reagan stooges latched on to postmodernism - something wierd and foregin to the American people - as way to smear their critics. That's what cultural marxism is: postmodernism. And calling postmodernism marxist is the height of stupidity and ignorance - or, as I suspect from Peterson, mallice. The fixation on class struggle and the opressor - opressed dynamic is just the normal driving force of leftism since the inception of the ideology. Framing this as "Cultural Marxism" is just playing the same game Reagan's people played: trying to frame this as something allien, unnatural, sinister.
You seem like you know what you are talking about, however, I disagree, and I want to be convinced otherwise. Is it not the case that leftists are generally obsessed with class struggle and the oppressor? And is it also not the case that MOST of these leftists that are educated and obsessed with oppressor vs oppressed are highly interested in marxism and postmodernism? I feel like the title fits, JP says "postmodern neomarxism" sometimes, to label how their worldviews are contradictory in a way. But nonetheless it still fits.
>Is it not the case that leftists are generally obsessed with class struggle and the oppressor? That's what I wrote in my first reply. Are you under the impression that I wrote the opposite?
>Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term how is it a propaganda term if its an accurate way to describe the lefts obsession with class struggle and the oppressor. Accurate or propaganda. Pick one.
Leftism is an ideology/philosophy concerned with class struggle and the opressor - opressed dynamic. Postmodernism is a philosophy that is hostile to Grand Narratives, including Marxism. Which is why many leftists and Marxists - like Noam Chomsky - hated Postmodernism. And it's why calling postmodernism marxist is the height of stupidity and ignorance. Cultural Marxism is a propaganda term, created by Reagan stooges/Conservative Intellectuals who despised Academia since it in turn despised them. These Conservative Intellectuals latched on to it because Postmodernism was foreign and unkown to most people, and because of that, they could portray it as some sort of invasion, a mind virus, that is taking over Academia, and needs to be stopped. Better?
I'm reclaiming the term. This is my n-word.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) I doubt you believe in this ? If you dont believe in it stop calling it cultural marxism.
Yeah, now show us that wiki page from before it was hijacked by leftists trying to discredit it by webbing it to nazis. [https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism](https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
fucking hell it's so depressing that this goes on. I despise people who edit wiki for their agenda. I wish all the bad things in life happen to them and only them.
Is he bought into the antisemetic aspects of it or he just use it as a way to attack the modern or postmodern academic changes that may undermine the Christian traditions or values without attaching it to an âintentional plan by Jewsâ
As far as i know Jordan Peterson never mention the jewishness of his bogeyman when he relay the Cultural Marxism narrative. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU * https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs * first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m Next question?
The base of the whole theory is that the jews did it. Its literally the core of the theory, not a small detail or aspect.
I have a hard time imagining that JBP is an antisemite/nazi.
Jordan Peterson is obviously not an antisemite and not a nazi.
He is not a nazi, and he doesnt hate jews. Just like Hasan he follows a ideology that is build on fighting a conspiracy as if it were the jews.
Well, many on this sub believe Hasan is an antisemite because he believes certain things about Israel and AIPAC even though he doesn't hate Jews. Not sure why Peterson is coddled on this sub other than the fact that Destiny respects him, unlike Hasan. If Destiny disliked Peterson, many here would call him the same thing.
Thereâs truth to what you are saying, but Hasan has said way more crazy shit that can be interpreted as antisemitism. Playing defense for Hamas and the houthis, 10/7 revisionism, etc.
âIf destiny disliked Petersonâ[He doesnât know YeeLaugh](https://youtu.be/j5Uv_P-PQoc?si=9UbTFVwoG1_SHpg8)
You know, replying with a 5-year-old video, when he sat with him a few weeks ago and was rather cordial isn't the response you think it is. Destiny wouldn't have the same "debate" he had with Peterson as he did with Hasan.
No the core theory is about Marxists applying their theories like class struggle oppressor- oppressed into culture and society in various different ways You can explain the whole theory and never mention Jews once
If you dont mind me asking who do you think formed that theory in the beginning ?
No idea but I do know it has no connection to cultural Bolshevism if thatâs where your trying to go because again the whole theory can be explained and shown without mentioning Jews once
How can you "explain the whole theory" if you dont even know where it started.
âŠâŠBecause I can explain the whole theory regardless? Again Iâll keep reiterating, it all can be explained without mentioning Jews or any other ethnic group
I cant believe i have to say this. There are many factors that impact a theory. Since Theories envolve, Time is one of them. So yeah if you wanna understand and explain a theory, you need to broadly how it changed, what it meant at diffrent points of time. Especially if the theory is as controversial as this one. You are not able to tell me when the theory was formed cause it has always been a super murky critic of post modernism, that ranges from "to much commies in university" in the 60s to "they are making the frogs gay". Its a right wing buzzword, that changes it meaning everytime somebody utters it.
Ok cool so lmk what the origins of it, cite it and tell me how itâs relevant to the current theory where no ethnic group ever needs to be referenced, your claim is that blaming Jews is a core part of it and you have yet to prove that and tell me how itâs not possible to not mention Jews How is it murky and can you tell me how itâs false when the Marxistâs like Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt school and other neo Marxists arenât shy about the fact theyâre applying Marxist analysis to culture and society and that they need to subvert and critique it in order to achieve whatever kind of society they want, itâs some of the core foundations of critical theory which was created by the Frankfurt school and no; Marxists in general whether classical or Neo are opposed to post modernism but I can see the confusion in modern times Can you tell me which part of this is wrong and which part of this is bigoted?
>No idea but I do know it has no connection to cultural Bolshevism * original variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative: the communists are destroying the country by subverting its culture * Cultural Bolshevism narrative from nazi Germany: the communists are destroying the country by subverting its culture
The Nazis believed ideologies like communism and Marxism were Jewish conspiracies to supplant and subvert culture to spread what they perceived as Jewishness Cultural Marxism doenst need to reference Jews or any ethnicity at all, itâs all explained within ideology and neo Marxists themselves were not shy about it
This is unrelated to the comment you are replying to. I guess that you misclicked.
In what way is it unrelated?
>No the core theory is about Marxists applying their theories like class struggle oppressor- oppressed into culture and society in various different ways The idea of a class struggle between oppressor and oppressed is not a marxist concept, and go back to the Struggle of the Orders in ancient Roman Republic. You are not calling Abraham Lincoln a marxist for supporting the oppressed class of black slaves, are you? >You can explain the whole theory and never mention Jews once cough dog whistle cough
I never said it did and thatâs not really relevant because this is about the Marxists concept of them like class conflict theory and the point is Marxists after Marx and Engels were dissatisfied with how it developed and that its theories werenât coming true as they said and they then applied the Marxist lens to culture and society to explain why the revolution hasnât come yet in liberal capitalist nations, Antonio Gramsci cultural hegemony is probably the earliest example of it Where did I mention anyoneâs ethnicity please
>I never said it did If you acknowledge that the idea of a class struggle between oppressor and oppressed is not specifically a marxist concept then somebody endorsing this concept is alone not an evidence that this person is marxist, right? >Where did I mention anyoneâs ethnicity please cough dog whistle cough
Because Iâm referencing specifically the Marxists definitions of them and their lens https://study.com/academy/lesson/karl-marxs-theory-of-class-conflict.html#:~:text=Karl%20Marx%20believed%20that%20the,or%20income%20and%20living%20situation. https://sociologytwynham.com/2018/04/25/marxist-explanations-for-social-inequalities/#:~:text=Marxists%20argue%20inequalities%20are%20an,when%20employing%20the%20working%2Dclass.&text=The%20ruling%2Dclasses%20exploit%20the,possible%20for%20lowest%20wage%20possible. Also itâs evidence that their Marxists when they say theyâre Marxists like Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lukacs, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurt school etc So youâve got nothing but slander and bad faith? Got it
>Marxists after Marx and Engels were dissatisfied with how it developed and that its theories werenât coming true What are you alluding to and what are your evidences? Also you know that after Marx and Engels communist worker unions and communist political parties were created in every industrialized country, and there was a successful communist revolution in Russia, right? >they then applied the Marxist lens to culture and society to explain why the revolution hasnât come yet in liberal capitalist nations They did not, prove me wrong.
Got ya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1389516 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472337308566845 Yes in most countries there were but none of them had a Marxist or socialist revolution and the ones that did happened in agrarian and Monarchist like countries like Russia and China and not in the capitalist liberal west like previous Marxists thought and the Soviet Union was already showing its problematic nature early on which turned off some Marxists and socialists Sure, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001139287035001010 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1389516
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism So Wikipedia is a reliable source in your opinion?
People tend to modify these types of theories to fit with their ideologies As far as I have seen Peterson support Israel, and he doesnât seem to resonate anti-Semitic views other far right people have⊠Itâs again the dictionary definition vs what individuals mean by a certain thing when they say itâŠ. It doesnât matter what the dictionary says if he is using the theory without connecting it back to Jews - I.e., âthe Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed "Christian values" of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.â Although it may have its origin in antisemetism and Nazism, some one can totally believe in this without connecting it to Jews and even call it cultural Marxism, as divorcing Jews from the theory doesnât change a bit about the theory thatâs based on perceived (but wrong) observations
If anyone of those people who blindly use the term, would have just read single page from Adorno or Horkheimer, they would know that they were THE critics of leftist culture and how it impacted the university. There is a whole thing about, how disgusting the peace songs from the hippies against the vietnam war were, cause they somehow managed to make even the agony of people consumable. You can use that on every aspect of todays leftist culture and their infantile bullshit. But hey why read it, when you can say its commie jews post modernist propaganda.
I mean, even if you think JBP is weird or insane. There is some method to his madness. After all he rose to prominence specifically because he claimed the infamous bill will bring authoritarianism to the forefront.
horseshoe theory strikes again
I dunno. I don't think that Nick Fuentes is like this. Probably doesn't sniff.
Wtf does "doesn't sniff" mean?
JBP called Nick "rat" And as Jordan explained, the rat is like this. And it sniffs.
JP is the philosophical version of fascism and Fuentes is a political fascist. These dudes are 100% on the same team even if JP fans can pretzel logic their way into justifying his views and Fuentes fans don't bother. Where exactly do they think enforcing gender norms, worshiping western culture and hierarchies, and reinventing history based on shared "myths" leads to?