💊 Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

[QT 219]

The funniest thing about this thread are the Peterson apologetics and the NEETs assblasted about pissing in bottles and told to clean their room.

 

[Christ crown of porns]

On the serious though, Peterson is vaguely interesting at the very most. How the fuck do so many sad sacks ascribe so much personal meaning to a fucking dip shit leaf on par with Freud in regards to repressed incest shit?

 

[Feline Darkmage]

So if a general feeling of decline is not the cause what is the cause ?

Corruption, division, late stage capitalism... a lot of things.

I notice a trend that people who would otherwise be bashed for being exceptional are expected to be given a free pass if they're "good soldiers in the Culture War". At best they try to casually paint it as an 'enemy of my enemy' thing, but there's a pretty common trend of trying to get people to lay off of people if they're perceived as important assets in fighting SJWs.

It's a phenomenon I like to call Political Trollshielding. It can happen to anyone, but it is most prominent in the right-wing segments of our userbase and on /cow/. It all boils down to "I don't want to reflect on possibly being a cow for agreeing with these out there ideas and please go troll those icky feminazi SJWs instead of me and my internet idols."

Frozen is bad enough, but https://youtube.com/watch?v=AKvLxr9E7oU
The cult of personality seem to hold strong influence with the weak minded or otherwise psychologically malleable.

And children/ angsty teens, are the most malleable.

Why are you searching for little sister TF fantasies on youtube? Is that what you jack it to in your spare time? I hope you just pasted the last thing in your clipboard on accident because that had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

 

[queue-anon]

People keep talking about "our culture going to shit", but I've seen no proof that they aren't just people longing for a past that never existed. It's not as if things were wonderful in the past and then feminism and gays came along and ruined everything like some folks like to say. What is your big issue with the current culture? Trannies? Despite like what it can seem like they're a very small percentage of the population. Young people are fucking more and praying less? That's been a complaint from old people literally since the beginning of civilization. Political polarization? Yeah, it sucks, but acting just as exceptional as the folks you;re fighting against isn't the answer. Show me how things are actually that bad.

Young people are fucking less, and that's because they're socially isolated and alienated from each other. That's one big cultural shift that's not good for anyone.

I'm inclined to think that social isolation/alienation is causing a lot of other cultural shifts, such as politics getting more polarized, people talking over each other instead of to each other, and people demonizing each other for wrongthink. It's a bit more difficult to demonize someone when you see them as a whole person, and you're not seeing them as a whole person if you're not meaningfully interacting with them.

 

[Lemmingwise]

This might be the most memorable moment in the debate. Where Peterson wants to warn against bloody revolution and when he does, a couple of people start to cheer for bloody revolution.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Okay. I've finally had the chance to keep my promise.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kWPmtmYCEm8
What is your point, exactly, Prog?

So anything not “traditional” is propaganda?

And let’s say it was created as propaganda? How is it a worse message than “traditional” fairy tales?

I'm calling your bluff: what, exactly, is the evil brainwashing propaganda in "Frozen"?

Appreciate the link to the video, @Kalishnakov. But @ProgKing of the North and @Senior Lexmechanic both called your bluff. Not once in the sixteen minutes does Peterson actually demonstrate what makes Frozen propaganda.

He implies it, but he goes off on so many other tangents ("it's like a funnel", "socialist realist, but they kept their academies open", "Picasso was painting on glass", "Pinnochio gets a little moralistic, but it was the '30s") he never once takes the time to show a detail of why Frozen is propaganda, but Beauty and the Beast is art.

And the thing is, I already like Beauty and the Beast far more than Frozen. I've seen Beauty and the Beast at least a dozen times, and could never imagine getting bored with it. I've seen Frozen once, and I really don't care if I ever see it again. I should be on Peterson's side, but he doesn't bring up any actual examples.

It's the same problem he has with any subject: Peterson goes out of his way to never narrow his focus. Broad scopes have advantages, but they're useless for nailing specific points. Peterson doesn't bring up even a single scene from Frozen, nor any of the other films he mentions, nevermind explaining his objections to said scene he didn't bring up.

Also, who the hell drinks Coke Zero? Even non-alcoholic beer has more beveragical merit.

 

[samuraicrack]

Don’t know anything about Zizek but it’d be cool if someone could confirm if this is a real quote

 

[ADN_VIII]

In your learned opinion, what aspect is the sperg? Specifically?

All of it is the sperg. He's going off on a movie aimed at 10 year olds like the director called him up and told him that the movie is all about his failings.

 

[The best and greatest]

So anything not “traditional” is propaganda?

And let’s say it was created as propaganda? How is it a worse message than “traditional” fairy tales?

People throw that word around at anyone and everyone now. The term is so all encompassing that if you write a book telling the world what it ought do then you're a propagandist. Which I can agree with semantically but it sort of robs the word of any bite if we start considering the likes of Stephanie Meyers a "Propagandist" now.

 

[Cheap Sandals]

So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.

 

[The best and greatest]

So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.

Since I'm already familiar with Peterson's material I didn't really hear anything new from his first thirty minutes, basically a refresher of what he's already said. I was amused by his opening remark about tickets for the event being worth more scalped than some other show though.

 

[La Luz Extinguido]

Not Tumbler.

Kinda, here we make fun of your sacred cows and getting offended is your own disservice for our amusement, but slightly like tumblr we do have our own sacred cows ourselves that will trigger most users here, try to find out which ones.

 

[Jmz_33]

There was no Sperg out. End of. Your singular goal is to attempt to make a lolwcow of him based on the fact that you dislike what Peterson has to say in general. To deal with your own self loathing, you lash out in a banal attempt with leftist smear campaign of " Har har har he so lolcow, he sperg!"

The entirety of your 'argument.'

Edit: You mad boi?

Dude you are denying that such thing as culture exists ?

The culture of the future is made of what ? Of what people read and watch.

You can't just lol yourself out of this one because it is exactly through movies, music and books, small and big that, that culture changed in the last decades.

Even brainwashing kids to buy frozen mercy is a creating in them a culture of consumerism for example.

So you telling us that movies have no impact on the culture of people ?

Oh boy, do I love me some troll shielding hooligans. Can’t get enough of them.

 

[KillThemCrackasBabies]

On the serious though, Peterson is vaguely interesting at the very most. How the fuck do so many sad sacks ascribe so much personal meaning to a fucking dip shit leaf on par with Freud in regards to repressed incest shit?

They're losers, and they were never really reached out to and taught shit. I'm not going to accuse all JP fans of having Daddy issues, but it's more than apparent how many of them legitimately see the man as a father figure. The only thing I personally can take away from it is that it's the first time they've really been offered any form of advice from anyone who appeared concerned for them (compared to, say, PUA or dating assistance type communities, which give the impression of being more condescending).

 

[RichardMongler]

So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.

Thanks for this. I didn't tune into the debate, but it's been said that Jordan Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading The Communist Manifesto. For so much time spent preparing for the big event, the dude was astoundingly underread. He could've spent time reading up on Das Kapital (the absolute minimum for anyone remotely interested in Marxism), The Frankfurt School, Situationist International, The Fourth International, dialectical materialism, labor theory of value, surplus labor, Joseph Dietzgen, Theodor Adorno, György Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, Gilles Deleuze, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, et cetera. Yet he was only familiar with The Communist Manifesto, a text that is far from a philosophical treatise.

It had long been speculated that Slavoj Žižek would run circles around Kermit, and virtually every commentary on the debate echoes such sentiments. Even Nick Fuentes was despondent, stating that the right-wing has lots of homework to do before throwing down with the big boys:

 

[Cheap Sandals]

Thanks for this. I didn't tune into the debate, but it's been said that Jordan Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading The Communist Manifesto. For so much time spent preparing for the big event, the dude was astoundingly underread. He could've spent time reading up on Das Kapital (the absolute minimum for anyone remotely interested in Marxism), The Frankfurt School, Situationist International, The Fourth International, dialectical materialism, labor theory of value, surplus labor, Joseph Dietzgen, Theodor Adorno, György Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, Gilles Deleuze, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, et cetera. Yet he was only familiar with The Communist Manifesto, a text that is far from a philosophical treatise.

It had long been speculated that Slavoj Žižek would run circles around Kermit, and virtually every commentary on the debate echoes such sentiments. Even Nick Fuentes was despondent, stating that the right-wing has lots of homework to do before throwing down with the big boys:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OUwSpJ_c2OQ

Running circles around him is right.

I can only imagine what Peterson fans felt when they watched their hero struggle and finally just request Zizek to define Marxism when it was obvious Peterson had no idea what what going on.

When you have weeks to prepare and you end up just asking your 'opponent' to educate you... wellllp... it's not exactly an intellectual tour de force...

 

[UngaWunga]

I didn’t expect this thread to be so full of tender lads tough guy posturing and calling posters BOI because the absurdity of their prissy middle aged daddy man’s meat sweat drenched rant about how the Ice Lesbian is somehow bad because....the queers I guess?

Peterson fans are a trip.


It was such a treat to watch Zizek show him as what he is: a guy who read enough Wikipedia summaries that he was able to convince a certain breed of dullard that he’s smart.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Petersons problem in the debate as @Cheap Sandals said is he isnt used to debating men like Zizek. The basic truth is the people he usually debates are tacitly okay with this system but want it made a little 'nicer' for all their posturing the only real differance if they succeed is the haves will have more variety in terms of pronouns and race wereas the have nots will look more like Appalachians than baltamore. Zizek fucking hates everything about our current system and thinks sjw shit is a waste of time.
Interestingly the left wing soarces are downplaying both of them. Because they correctly perceive both of them as a threat to their cosy affluent pc island in an increasingly dystopian society.

 

[Gorilla Tessellator]

My take on the debate:
Both JBP and Zizek are clowns in the Clown World. They are avatars representing certain semi-dead ideas. JBP - decent suit conservatism, Zizek - thrift store leftism.

I think many posters forget that they both participated in an "intellectual" show. It's astounding to me that you take it for granted that entire show was a spontaneous event without a script.

Zizek is definitely more witty than JBP, and so it looks for the casual observer that he 'won". He also doesn't care much about his career, while JBP clearly has jitters of a fresh rock-star, hence he is obnoxiously self-promoting and self-conscious. He is also insufferably verbose, and I hope this debate and following backlash will prompt him to just cut on his words. He appears to love to listen to his own voice, and he just uses too many words to express himself.

Another reason JBP got some spanking is that he comes from the Anglo-Saxon bubble, and he has clearly only book idea what totalitarianism is. Zizek on the other hand, grew up in a country were there was actual oppression of political dissidents. It's not an accident that many look at the Slavs now as the hope of the Europe. They are simply never going to accept PC BS, because they viscerally understand what propaganda (in the original meaning of the word) is, and how to defend yourself against it.

However, I have a question for you: what exactly was revelatory in what Zizek said? German toilets?
Weren't you surprised that he agreed with JBP on many points?

The main goal of the "debate" was to model future debates, and in this regard I think it was a smashing success for both clowns. They also definitely didn't cry on their ways to their respective banks.

 

[UngaWunga]

Zizek indeed doesn’t offer much in the way of alternatives or solutions. He’s a critic and all honked out out critical theory. He has a whole video called Don’t Act, Think!

I do wish we had another leftist public intellectual who could pick up the ball from where Zizek’s critiques end and begin to popularize some kind of tendency. I’m personally tendency agnostic and just wish some of the eggheads would pool behind a single leftist tendency that’s actionable and likely to be popular, but wonks and eggheads are a troublesome lot.

Funny tho. Zizek has made a lot of his bread and butter offering Marxist and Lacanian analysis of film, probably even some Disney ones. I guess the difference between when he and Jorp do it is that Zizek is actually smart and has read the books he talks about, and doesn’t seem like he’s on the brink of tears every time he speaks.

Jordan Peterson is a dude who has apparently devoted his whole career to explaining the intricacies of how he misunderstands Jung’s Answer to Job.

Just read Answer to Job. It’s a fascinating book and much more engrossing to read than to listen to some Canadian bootleg Ichabod Crane trying to stretch it to cover his weird, kind of sad views about gender.

He’s like some kind of Bizarro World Robert Anton Wilson.