(10-31-2018 2:59 AM)Macro Wrote:  https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0u

Thanks for posting. I didnt think the video was damning to Peterson, though i think its good to scrutinize him. He makes mistakes, but I dont come away thinking hes a manipulative, bipolar lunatic like some of the comments would have me believe.

I liked Weinstein's input as well. Sam Harris i dismissed after his email correspondence with Chomsky, so thats a bias of my own. The comment below was posted in response to the video you linked, it was made by one of the debaters also on the panel with Peterson and Weinstein. Here is what he had to say about the video:

"As the other person in that debate with Weinstein, all I can say is that you misrepresent Jordan's position, which could be understandable because Jordan often does not offer his ideas in complete syllogistic forms, he is conversational and considers his thought to be constantly in process of refining itself. What makes your misrepresentation of his idea less forgivable is how you spend a considerable chunk of the video being an ass and accusing Jordan of ill will and manipulative intention. What you have failed to represent in your rebuttal is the frame of his basic description of physical reality and how human consciousness engages the world, something which he has stated numerous times. His argument is that the world contains an innumerable and overwhelming amount of facts, and human experience is the condensation and focusing of that potentiality into coherent hierarchies of facts. And so although the fact that you found my fingerprints on a gun is indeed true, its importance, its importance in the hierarchy of facts is subordinate to the reason why you are considering that fact and not the innumerable other places on which you can also find my fingerprints. The argument is that this reason for considering my fingerprints on a gun is a higher truth, the purpose (the word true actually means “on target”) it is the “glasses” through which you even bother looking at one fact rather than another, and that higher truth necessarily moves into the realm of story, of ethics at the least, and ultimately in the type of hierarchy of beings and action which is the staple of religious structures. In this sense, for Jordan, facts are tools, necessarily so because you have to pick the facts you attend to and you do that in order to achieve a goal, even if that goal is only to prove a higher level theory about the physical world. "

- Jonathan Pageau

Hmm bit of weird response to the video and my comments.
I am merely saying Peterson is a post-modernist and dead wrong about his view on truth. I'm saying nothing about his character or his views on other subjects. It was not meant to be damning, nor was it made to make Peterson look bad. This video is arguing a singular specific point - JP's views on truth are complete and utter nonsense.

The guy in the video precisely outlines his reasoning, provides numerous videos and quotes of Jordan Peterson espousing these post-modernist beliefs about truth. Either the video is correct about Peterson's views on truth, or it isn't. If it isn't you should provide reasons as to why it isn't: where was the video logically incorrect, where were they not factual?

The quote from Pageau barely even says anything (in typical JP style). He says the fingers prints on a gun is an important truth, fingerprints on his clothes would be a less important truth - ok, so what? Then he says this is a hierarchy of truth - no it's a hierarchy of what you consider important. In no way is fingerprints on a gun more true than fingerprints on your clothing - facts dont care about your feelings. JP actually says far more than what Pageau is claiming, JP says "if it doesn't serve life, it isn't true" - this is effectively a rephrasing of "if a tree falls and no one hears it, it didnt fall" - the definition of subjective truth. He's right on other stuff, just not this.

Big fan of Harris, but agree his correspondence with Chomsky was poor. But Chomsky wasnt great either.

Gonna pass on the rest dude, thanks for posting the video and sharing your thoughts.

"THE MEANING OF NEO-MARXISM

I think you're looking at the differences between leaves rather than the forest. In the end, the criticism is marxism is pseudoscience, postmodernism is sophism, and feminism simply false, and that these three movements, by making false statements and impossible promises are leading people into sadness and our civilization in decline.

I study the abrahamic > marxist > Postmodern technique of argument (false promises, pilpul (justificationary sophism) and critique (reputation destruction) as the institutionalization of the female anti social personality expression as a persuasive technique. All these are guments use the same technique. They are all false. And they all cause the damage Peterson Claims.

So the none of the details matter - they are but different decorations on the underlying lie.

The term Neo Marxism refers to the transition of the means of UNDERMINING (reputation destruction) from the Marxist economic to the postmodern cultural complaint. Egro, yes Abrahamists > Marxists > Postmodernists > Feminist.

Same technique, same goal, while changing only the critique."

-Curt Doolittle

This is what pseudo-intellectual bullshit looks like gents.

Wtf does marxism (historical materialist methodology from the perspective of class struggle) got to do with feminism (gender equality)? Even if you take marxism to mean communism - an economic system, wtf does that have to do with feminism? What do either of those have to do with the Abrahamic religions?! Comparing apples and oranges.
Post modernism is in contradiction to everyone of these -isms; marxism, feminism, the abrahamic religions are all non-post-modernist.

This is what happens when you politicise everything. You cant see straight, every idea is seen through the prism of your pre-existing political ideology.

Macro, I think he was referring to cultural marxism and how it branched off Frankfurt/Horkheimer. Feminism and cultural marxism share the idealogy of victimhood and resentment. Both schools of thought believe in equality of outcome. SJWs derived from feminism and cultural marxism. I disagree re postmodernism, but that's only because SJWs exists. Postmodernism is the practice of moral relavitism and subjectivism. SJWs are the perfect real world example. Basically it's okay to burn down a campus if someone don't feel like using their gender pronouns. But of course those who disagrees are evil. Put together the imaginary oppression from feminism and cultural marxism with the complete lack of moral definition by postmodernism and we have the typical SJW. You simply can't identify as a transgender siamese kangaroo from Oz and demand unique individual rights unless you include all doctrines.

Define for me cultural marxism in your own words plz. I dont know what it is, and google didnt really help. I've just heard rw-ingers use the word to mean everything and anything they dislike politically/socially.

Cultural marxists aims to destroy nationalism and cultural pride by claiming all cultures and sub-cultures are equal. It's just a more ruthless way of practicing traditional marxism. They don't try to only hurt your pocket, but resort to character assassination, mass media - and Hollywood brainwashing and other dubious methods as Steffie pointed out earlier. In other words I'm a bigot/racist/nazi for thinking that my country and my people are the best on the planet. I have to respect cultures where they stone rape victims to death because some pink-haired fat woman said so. Yet we're consistently voted the greatest country to live in. A rich person never earned their fortune and Italian renaissance architecture pales in comparison to modern Amazonian jungle huts. Fat shaming and preferring hot women with smooth legs makes me a poster boy for the alt-right movement no doubt. Only cultural marxists are up to date. The world will be a beautiful place when you're required to donate 80% of your income to endangered zer/zie black eskimos to compensate for my white privilege.

I'm curious, though. What's your definition of right-winger?

This is just cultural relativism. Or moral relativism. Related to post-modernism sure.

Marxism is a analytical methodology of history Marx used and his communist conclusions - communism is not the idea we are all equal - it implicitly accepts we are different; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". The word cultural marxist makes no sense - just standard politicising.

A communist by definition believes his economic system is the most moral (it is not argued that communism is the most productive economic system, but rather the fairest). A communist would argue that a different culture which operated under capitalism is inferior. They therefore are not cultural relativists. Cultural relativists would say; well both systems are fine because different cultures.

The word right wing means a lot of things - but today it's pretty much people who believe in liberalism/free markets for businesses and govt control over private individuals (ie traditional religious morality).

Like you said, marxism is the idealogy of equality of outcome. In other words, an obese self entitled slacker with an iq of 70 should have the same economic rights and privileges as a hero fire fighter who just rescued 40 kids out of burning school. Cultural marxism preaches the same. Every culture and subculture should have the same social justice and privileges as everyone else. Like throphies for participation and enrolling more black students than asians with the same GPA at Harvard....because they're black.

Yeah, communism is so great because there were never any desperate people fleeing from Soviet Union, Cuba and China to the land of the free. Americans are longing to set roots in Venezuela. I'm hearing good things. I also wonder why Brazil suddenly turned right wing.

Ah yes, Crazy Bernie. The man who claims Scandinavian countries are great because of "democratic socialism". It doesn't exist. We're great because we the people have an unspoken understanding of not fucking with eachothers shit. We believe in making our own luck and hard work. The reality is that the welfare system isn't necessary because we help eachother anyways. It's called being a decent citizen. We value peace and prosperity. We laugh at politicians who try to lecture us about what it means to be good. If anything, the politicians are holding us back from further greatness. We're the best region in the world because of the people. The political system has nothing to do with it. And whoever says Scandinavia is socialist have no clue. You don't build immense GDP ratios without capitalism and productivity. We're actually more capitalistic than the US in recent years. The welfare system is grand, that's true. But keep in mind the wheels aren't greased unless the majority gets their hands dirty. If you're serious about wanting all those things you said be willing to work harder and pay 75-80% taxes. You simply cannot impose the Scandinavian model onto other countries and expect the same results. Easpecially when Sanders and Ocasia-Cortez have no clue about what's going on here. Free healthcare my ass. I pay $30 for every doctors visit and 25% VAT on all meds. While you're ahead check out taxes on cars in Denmark. Or better yet, move to Sweden. They'll take anybody in. That way you can see if the so called "democratic socialism" is fucking great.