Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[Jester13]

Is there anyone who disagrees with Peterson know what he means about post-modernism ideology and why it's a problem? 

[The Lock]

10 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Is there anyone who disagrees with Peterson know what he means about post-modernism ideology and why it's a problem? 

I admittedly had to look it up a bit before this post so I'll likely need more time to think on things, but my initial thought is that we kind of need both modernism and post-modernism.

 

I'm initially thinking that modernism, if not left in check can, and has, screwed over populations which is why post-modernism exists in the first place. Conversely, post-modernism kind of leaves a lot of be desired since it's almost everyone for themselves. There's no unity with it, which I think can potentially create chaos. Really, in a nutshell, modernism is right while post-modernism is left, at least that's what it seems to me, so it makes sense for someone like Petersen to be against post-modernism as it's a left concept.

 

So really, like with left and right, you kind of need both.

[Jester13]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I admittedly had to look it up a bit before this post so I'll likely need more time to think on things, but my initial thought is that we kind of need both modernism and post-modernism.

 

I'm initially thinking that modernism, if not left in check can, and has, screwed over populations which is why post-modernism exists in the first place. Conversely, post-modernism kind of leaves a lot of be desired since it's almost everyone for themselves. There's no unity with it, which I think can potentially create chaos. Really, in a nutshell, modernism is right while post-modernism is left, at least that's what it seems to me, so it makes sense for someone like Petersen to be against post-modernism as it's a left concept.

 

So really, like with left and right, you kind of need both.

It's safe to say that the left-right spectrum can be removed from the conversation, but it's worth diving deeper for sure. I appreciate your willingness, and I think there's a very good discussion to be had surrounding the topic - hopefully some others will add their voices as well... In good faith, of course 

[aGENT]

51 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I admittedly had to look it up a bit before this post so I'll likely need more time to think on things, but my initial thought is that we kind of need both modernism and post-modernism.

 

I'm initially thinking that modernism, if not left in check can, and has, screwed over populations which is why post-modernism exists in the first place. Conversely, post-modernism kind of leaves a lot of be desired since it's almost everyone for themselves. There's no unity with it, which I think can potentially create chaos. Really, in a nutshell, modernism is right while post-modernism is left, at least that's what it seems to me, so it makes sense for someone like Petersen to be against post-modernism as it's a left concept.

 

So really, like with left and right, you kind of need both.

To really throw a wrench in... Peterson isn't really all that 'right' by my estimation, unlike how he's painted.. 

[Red Light Racicot]

9 hours ago, The Lock said:

I guess my question is is this actually the problem or is the problem more of the fact that there's not enough money in the lower and middle class? They may seem like the same problem, but are they?

I'm not exactly the best guy to talk to for this but I'm pretty sure those things are related. 

 

I figure a good way to bolster the lower and middle classes would be to raise the taxes the of the uber wealthy and private corporations big time.

 

Roosevelt did something akin to this in the 30s and it worked remarkably if not outstandingly well. I think its the main reason he served 3 terms.

 

I figure the least these billionaires can do is pay enough so that wealth inequality is no longer poised to destroy our civilization

Edited June 17, 2020 by Red Light Racicot

[Boudrias]

15 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

Wealth inequality comes not from something someone wrote 2 centuries ago, but in the form of a couple thousand billionaires owning the same amount of wealth as about 4 and a half billion people, or if you prefer 26 people owning half the wealth on the planet.

 

These people are either born into it and/or have the luxury to enrich themselves based purely on the fact they have a massive bulk of wealth. You never need incur any kind of overall risk when you have your tentacles into everything, along with the power to influence the market. 

 

Does this sound like a meritocracy? Or... anything close to an ideal situation?

 

Those "Intellectual Dark Web" echo chambers are typically funded by billionaires. If you stick up for the status quo like Peterson does, well... in my opinion it would be more accurate to say you;re actually defending the guys who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

 

 

Jeff Bezos says hi.

[The Lock]

5 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

I'm not exactly the best guy to talk to for this but I'm pretty sure those things are related. 

 

I figure a good way to bolster the lower and middle classes would be to raise the taxes the of the uber wealthy and private corporations big time.

 

Roosevelt did something akin to this in the 30s and it worked remarkably if not outstandingly well. I think its the main reason he served 3 terms.

 

I figure the least these billionaires can do is pay enough so that wealth inequality is no longer poised to destroy our civilization

I'm not going to say I disagree there, but I do wonder if there are other ways and I think it's important to ask these sort of questions in all of this. Unfortunately, I think the main issue for that up here in Canada is the states. If we tax the corporations up here too much, a lot of them would likely just flee to the states where the corporations have a lot more power (and less taxes). This is where having a larger disfunctional neighbour doesn't help us at all. lol

 

So, in theory, what I think you are saying makes sense. In practice, it's perhaps a little more complicated.

[Smashian Kassian]

 

 

 

 

On 6/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

 Give me a break. Obviously there is more to it then that, it's like you think people are just going to just take off their belt and not have to worry if their pants will stay in place:

 

A worker cooperative is a cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote.

 

In other words a perfectly valid business model where workers are actually involved in a meaningful way rather then having everything relegated to someone who makes decisions for them.

 

We already have these in North America, but they are far more popular in Europe because they are not terrified of Socialism.

 

However, you definitely have a good point. It's certainly possible the system is not realistic,. I'll admit, something like the abolition of the state sounds rather pie in the sky-ish. 

 

Good line. 

 

If management is elected then do they make more money? Have higher status? Wouldn't that be a neo-bourgeoisie status to some degree? And if its a democracy then it would be susceptible to corruption. But I guess you can never have a perfect system either way. 

 

I think workers can be involved in a meaningful way in private business aswell, if they care to be important to their company. No one's stopping you from working harder & trying to take on more responsibility. I guess the difference is private business leadership cares about the company success and tries to identify the most competent people to take on the responsibility rather than a model that distributes the responsibility before hand. (in the case of your first example)

 

 

On 6/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

 

But rest assured, you don't have worry about a Marxist takeover anyways. Pretty much no one has ever heard of the CPC (Communist Party of Canada) who obviously have no significant power or influence. 

 

I don't understand how you guys get so worked up about something that is practically nonexistent. You'd think Peterson would at the very least be able to produce an extensive list of names belonging to influential people who actually identify as Cultural Marxists, along with the kind of evidence that justifies his paranoia as to their apparent mustache twirling agendae, but no of course not that's never going to happen

 

White supremacist groups & radical right wingers are (statistically) practically nonexistent aswell, yet the spotlight gets shone on them constantly nowadays. 

 

Can't remember the last time I heard about the all the garbage we dump into the ocean, yet you see radical right wing stories constantly, as if they make-up half of every community. So that point goes both ways. And one gets alot more coverage than the other.

 

Regarding your last comment, I think its pretty well documented that he's laid out his points culturally on the post modern, PC/anti-'patriarchal'/social constructionist types. And if you go on twitter it actually doesn't take too long too find some of those people. 

 

 

On 6/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

 

My main problem with people getting pissy about this kind of thing is that it creates a resistance to adopting programs that are hugely beneficial.

 

Did Marx say  "Make sure you seize farmlands to ensure tens of millions of people starve to death"

 

"Have the Government seize temporary control over the means of production, but if they don't feel like giving it to the people ever, then that's okay"

 

"By, the way, about 15 years in you can go ahead and abolish labor unions, because it turns out those don't really matter. Ignore what I said about them before"

 

"Make a sure a totalitarian seizes control and creates a cult of personality which creates an environment where no one is allowed to speak in opposition for fear of death or perhaps even worse, decades of brutal slavery"

 

I don't understand why you think you can have it both ways. You seem to admit this is something that can't be done, and you may well be correct, and yet you're like "Oh, and by the way all the terrible things Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc did, those are actually Marx' fault." Again, this an absurd post-hoc way of looking at it. These despots were purely selective about how they wanted to proceed and largely filled in the gaps with a blatant disregard for human life. Worst of all, it totally ignores countries that exist today that were and are far more faithful to Marxist principles and enjoy some of the best quality of life on the planet.

 

Imagine the blueprints for a car, lets call it Marxism. It has the potential to run perfectly fine, but must be built methodically. Dudes like Stalin come along and forcefully take the blueprints, then either switch out many of the important parts or remove them altogether.

 

This car is of course nothing like the original plan but it still runs fairly well. Among other things it kills a lot of people because, for example, you've removed many of the safety features.

 

Here's the thing. Its pretty clear in reading Marx - atleast Communist manifesto, as I've yet to read DK - that there's a real underlying disdain for the bourgeoisie, an entire class of the population. And thats middle class, not just ruling class. 

 

Like the line I quoted before; 'no longer compatible with society'. So at the very least you've (meaning Marx) determined they are a fundamental problem in society. Okay, then:

a] what does that mean exactly?

b] if they are a fundamental problem, then something has to be done about the problem, so how do you go about correcting the problem?

 

That second question is where the atrocities came in during the 20th century. So maybe Marx was in favour of merely incarceration rather than firing squads & death camps? Either way he identified the 'problem' the leaders taking from his ideology acted on.

[Timbermen]

On 6/16/2020 at 8:43 PM, Jester13 said:

Is there anyone who disagrees with Peterson know what he means about post-modernism ideology and why it's a problem? 

I admittedly don't know much about it. Looking at the wiki page. I have to get ahold of a book by Derrida or Foucalt.

Peterson has said they sneak marxism in the back door and pointed out some of the things that are happening now. The refusal to argue, shutting down the opposition leading to violence, like we see now. He completely predicted that while talking about post-modernism and what was going on at the university's at the time.

He did said he liked some of their ideas, he talks about Derrida and Foucault alot.

 

Here's the wikipage 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

 

Interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida developed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction. 

 

Deconstruction is the name of a Bill Laswell album. There's one called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis as well.

 

Check out the Bill Laswell thread i'm doing in the White Noise section. Seems like you'd like this stuff. It's in chronological order.

 

  

wiki

'the postmodern impulse in classical music arose in the 1960s with the advent of musical minimalism.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Timbermen

[Smashian Kassian]

On 6/16/2020 at 3:29 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

Wealth inequality comes not from something someone wrote 2 centuries ago, but in the form of a couple thousand billionaires owning the same amount of wealth as about 4 and a half billion people, or if you prefer 26 people owning half the wealth on the planet.

 

These people are either born into it and/or have the luxury to enrich themselves based purely on the fact they have a massive bulk of wealth. You never need incur any kind of overall risk when you have your tentacles into everything, along with the power to influence the market. 

 

Does this sound like a meritocracy? Or... anything close to an ideal situation?

 

Those "Intellectual Dark Web" echo chambers are typically funded by billionaires. If you stick up for the status quo like Peterson does, well... in my opinion it would be more accurate to say you;re actually defending the guys who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

 

 

 

Well what exactly is "the status quo"?

 

Peterson advocates for equality of opportunity. He's put over Bjorn Lomborg's book "how to spend 75 billion to make the world a better place". Is being in favour of improving education, fighting diseases, decreasing world starvation, exc. protecting the status quo? Is the viewpoint that too much inequality is bad protecting the inequal status quo?

 

I agree with some socialist ideas to a point. I consider myself left on social issues. I guess a question I would have is; is the fact some people have a disproportionate amount of money (resources) at their disposal always a bad thing?

 

Bill Gates was already one of the richest people on the planet when he introduced internet explorer. Is it not a good thing he had the company with the resources to make that happen? Or would it be better if that money was re-distributed so more 'everyday' people could afford a faster car & bigger house earlier in life? I realize this is a very tough question to say the least, but its atleast worth thinking about. (And I also realize there are people in those positions who have different agenda's aswell)

 

I think a problem socialist ideology faces is free will. And that kind of fits in line with a point that Peterson makes when he brings up gender differences being profound in the most socialist/egalitarian countries (when the thought was it would become less profound).

 

Its like that article I brought up earlier. It was a great article about inequality & how some people win the 'genetic lottery', being born into situations where conditions are perfect for their character & competence to be developed to its potential. Something like being born into a rich family as you say. Where parents instill in the them the habits that are required to be a highly successful person, vs people who don't have the same fortune. And it was meant as a counter to Peterson repeatedly bringing up competence hierarchies. And I agree with that aswell (which is why I made my point about raising children being so important earlier in the thread). I agree too much inequality is bad, but where it gets muddy for me is when you go about how to correct that.

 

And getting back to the problem of free will; also the underlying assumption that people are just going to sacrifice the freedom necessary to reach & maintain that highly successful level. 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Smashian Kassian

[Timbermen]

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

On 6/17/2020 at 8:22 AM, Boudrias said:

Jeff Bezos says hi.

add in Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Ellison, Larry Page....This idea that the richest all inherited their wealth is nothing more than urban myth. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html

 

In fact 70% of families loss their wealth in just the second generation.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10

 

 

[BoKnows]

9 hours ago, Timbermen said:

 

Here's one of the best

 

[Gurn]

On 6/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

Give me a break. Obviously there is more to it then that, it's like you think people are just going to just take off their belt and not have to worry if their pants will stay in place:

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

 

 

 

Good line. 

 

"you wear a belt to hold up your pants, but the belt goes through belt loops to hold up your belt; so who is really doing the work?"       Mitch Hedberg.

[Zfetch]

On 6/12/2020 at 1:37 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

His awesome personality?

 

In all seriousness though, while some women do exclusively date rich, powerful and attractive men (regardless of those men's deficiencies); that's obviously not the case for all women; otherwise we would indeed live in the world Percivall fears where elite men would sleep on piles of attractive women like Smaug's hoard and the regular Joe's would be SOL.

That's exactly what happens bro.

 

Basketball bruthas smashing 10k women in their lives. Enough to make a bouncy bridge across the Nile river. Enough ass to make a donkey jealous. And guess what bubba? You're that donkey.

[HerrDrFunk]

13 minutes ago, Zfetch said:

That's exactly what happens bro.

 

Basketball bruthas smashing 10k women in their lives. Enough to make a bouncy bridge across the Nile river. Enough ass to make a donkey jealous. And guess what bubba? You're that donkey.

Nah, you're mixed up. John Praxis is the one who's jealous. Though I don't have the wealth or power to attract women on the basis of those alone, I generally do well enough when it comes to dating and relationships that I don't feel inadequate in comparison to the guys who do.  

[Timbermen]

   THURSDAY NIGHT SHOWDOWN : Capitalism VS Marxism 

Kind of funny both have been marginalized by official academia for disagreeing with LGBT Ideology.

Thats 70 books by Zizek that will be burned by the SJWs. (debate starts about 8 minutes in.)

 

[GLASSJAW]

i would love to read a JP acolyte's interpretation of the debate above

 

[Timbermen]

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

i would love to read a JP acolyte's interpretation of the debate above

 

You first.

[GLASSJAW]

35 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

You first.

he seems like a panicking christian moralist to me, and one who doesn't appear to have read much Marx at all (let alone Foucault, Derrida, and the other bogeymen he discusses)