There was a thread on an anti-Peterson subreddit a while back by a philosophy professor who had to teach Peterson fanatics. Unsurprisingly, his influence has not led to a renaissance of conservative philosophers, but instead a whole lot of guys who are too easily triggered to research and discuss ideas they disagree with. A fan also shows up and attempts to lecture OP about how he's part of the propaganda machine for merely including Marx in his curriculum about the history of philosophy.
It's important to note that this is on reddit, where socialism is a hot idea and the idea that there are infinite gender is taken seriously ther.
A lot of that reeks like "That Happened," but knowing how stupid freshman college students are, I'll assume they are telling the truth.
Postmodernism is loosely-defined and maybe they're misusing the word to some extent, but what they mean by it is pretty clear. I know very little about this subject, however, but I will say when JBP and others talk about the "Frankfurt sshool" as being the genesis of these ideas is probably retardation and much wider social trends are probably a much better explanation as to why things are what they are today.
I find people warm on postmodernism describe what postmodernism is supposed to be in theory, and JBP and others describe what post-modernists do in practice. For supposedly rejecting grand narratives, the post-modernists of the past have been very cozy to radical communism, and none of them were supporters of capitalism. They can pretend that the Sokal hoax was no big deal, but it really does reveal how little rigor or sensibility there is in those circles. Even Noam Chomsky has criticized postmodernism, mostly on the grounds that it's all obscurantist bullshit.
And Women's Studies departments, hell, any identity studies department, they are all propaganda. I took Black Studies in college and let me tell you, Jim only scratched the surface of the Kehmet community and didn't go into their actual retarded and poorly written "scholarship."
I do believe this shit is happening, because it's always been happening; just they don't see a problem and agree when that flavor of bullshit the redditor expresses are ones where they agree with their point of view. I wouldn't doubt there are young scrawny neckbeards doing this shit. I think it's less about Peterson specifically and more the horrors of the youtube generation.
Some other examples of Jordan's wisdom:
15:05 - You can't stop smoking without supernatural intervention
41:28 - There are no godless artists, they only think they are atheists
1:04:50 - "Do you think if all humanity would cease to exists would God still exists?" "Dunno how to answer, it's too hypothetical." meander meander
See, that's part of the Gouldian non-overlapping magisteria crap, which Peterson subscribes to and somehow thinks things like beauty, music, culture, and religion are all a category distinct from empirical science. The bullshit here is that religion makes actual claims about reality, about celestial intelligences that are noncorporeal out there somewhere that display intentionality curiously similar to the organisms that arose over millions of years and evolved the intelligence and behavior to be able to make them up. I had one instructor that summed the retarded idea up, attempting to defend it, and it's very Petersonian language games: "Science is about the how, religion is about the why." Or something to that affect.
Jordan's arguments are dishonest here, because he can't seem to recognize the definitions of the words the way people generally accept them. He's claimed that critics like Dawkins have only attacked a young child's view of god, when everyone knows full well that most religious people believe god is an actual entity possessing drive and intelligence even personality quirks, that somehow interfaces with the real world yet presumably not being made up of subatomic particles.
I think his view of god is that it is something so beyond compression and words he cannot properly express it... and while that may be true, Peterson is unable to no anthropomorphize such things just like all similar theologians are.
The natural selection argument has damaged theology greatly, since we've figured out man's "purpose" in the world and why mankind is here. These arguments are the last hold outs they really have left, these are the arguments they think will persuade atheists since atheists have a higher time of defending the idea of an objective morality than religious people do (which is why I deny there is such a thing). All the other conservative commentators say similar things, Peterson is just more vague about god because the conservatives already know which god they follow.
Peterson's arguments often are tantamount to language-games where he uses a nonstandard definition of a word and believes other people are going to adopt his definition head canon. It's really fucking obnoxious banging your head against these people because you run into the problem over and over again. He has his own definition of religion none of us would by into and then he'll criticize Dawkins who is using a definition that doesn't apply to Peterson's, where Dawkins actually specifically excludes the metaphor-based theology. Peterson has a lot to say about Dawkins, but I know he hasn't read him because whatever you think about Dawkins or The God Delusion, Dawkins was painstakingly careful to define religion and the underpinning philosophies, specifically to evade the same dumb criticisms JBP makes.
