Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Snake_Baker]

That's what I said. He read it when he was 18, then again for this debate.

Okay, that's what you said.

 

[EasternTiger]

I hear that Trump is quite fond of the "Slovenian Sensation"... if you know what I mean.

Brilliant

You sir have been dominating the forum of late.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This isn't a debate.

 

[EasternTiger]

So basically Zyzzles agrees with most of what Jordan said...except for the oceans.

Feel for Jordan having to slug through the commie manifesto. It's like reading the Jerilderie Letter and then having to use it as source material for the affirmative 'Why shooting at police is a bad idea.'

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Feel for Jordan having to slug through the commie manifesto.

We've listened to his political critique on the assumption he's read and understood these ******* texts.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This is s**t. It's a debate. They're not scrutinising each other's ideas at all.

 

[EasternTiger]

We've listened to his political critique on the assumption he's read and understood these ******* texts.

Really?

He clearly states at the start of Maps Of Meaning he's only read the manifesto once, when he was in college, and then he threw it in the bin after his professor steered him towards Jung and the writings of Kerouac.

I thought it was common knowledge.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Really?

He clearly states at the start of Maps Of Meaning he's only read the manifesto once, when he was in college, and then he threw it in the bin after his professor steered him towards Jung and the writings of Kerouac.

I thought it was common knowledge.

It's not common knowledge.

I think he thinks Zizek is a Marxist.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Don't need to analyse Mein Kampf multiple times to be aware that nazism is a really bad idea. Sometimes history speaks for itself.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Don't need to analyse Mein Kampf multiple times to be aware that nazism is a really bad idea. Sometimes history speaks for itself.

He's using the ideas presented by Marx to critique modern socio-political movements though. Others have noted he has a very cursory understanding of those he claim are post modernists, or cultural Marxists.

Have you watched it? I'm done. They're talking past each other.

 

[EasternTiger]

He's using the ideas presented by Marx to critique modern socio-political movements though. Others have noted he has a very cursory understanding of those he claim are post modernists, or cultural Marxists.

Have you watched it? I'm done. They're talking past each other.

It's not like you actually paid to watch it ya cheap bastard. Spend some money FFS!

 

[its free real estate]

Zizek: "I am awarrre of diminishing poverty, but do you know, for example, about South Africa? It's a terrifying situation on the edge of the civil world. To be very brutal, the only thing that happened with the end of Apartheid is the old ruling class was joined by a new black ruling class which is not doing a good job, so they arrre playing the race card...'It's still the consequence of white colonialism etc."

LOL Kidd Vicious is going to s**t a brick when he hears that.

Ziz ain’t wrong there.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's not like you actually paid to watch it ya cheap bastard. Spend some money FFS!

Who'd win in a punch on?

JP is obviously fitter, but I reckon Zizek would pull out the knuckle duster he'd hidden in his stained, no brand Y fronts.

 

[its free real estate]

So basically Zyzzles agrees with most of what Jordan said...except for the oceans.

I haven’t watched the thing but this wouldn’t surprise me at all.

 

[EasternTiger]

Who'd win in a punch on?

JP is obviously fitter, but I reckon Zizek would pull out the knuckle duster he'd hidden in his stained, no brand Y fronts.

Look, on paper the Canadian has the height and reach advantage.

Ziz is slavic though. Never underestimate a slav in a fight to the death.

In every other respect, they are virtually identical!

 

[ShanDog]

Look, on paper the Canadian has the height and reach advantage.

Ziz is slavic though. Never underestimate a slav in a fight to the death.

In every other respect, they are virtually identical!

Canadians can hide a mean streak beneath their pleasantries too. I'd pay to watch that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So basically Zyzzles agrees with most of what Jordan said...except for the oceans.

A theoretician and an analyst had a discussion that barely intersected.

It was never going to be fruitful.

Zizek made some people think, and Peterson further ratified his views based upon psychological analysis.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I can almost hear him say it.

 

[CheapCharlie]

 

[CheapCharlie]

I can almost hear him say it.

You can swap Farmville tips with Zizek

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

A Marxist critique of the debate. The thrust is a common one; Peterson doesn't know Marxism. The article doesn't contest his expertise within his field; it clearly shows his shallow understanding of a political theory he has tried to critique.

Peterson’s presentation of the fundamental tenets of Marxism is a ridiculous vulgarization, to say the least. He sounded like someone who barely skimmed its key texts.

Take his comments on the inherently hierarchical and exploitative nature of people: when Marx and Engels said that all history is the history of class struggle, they were talking about all written history. Human beings lived without classes for millions of years. The creation of class society — where a minority appropriates the surplus labor of a majority — is a relatively recent phenomenon, and for Marx and Engels it is the production and reproduction of real life that is at the center of human beings’ interactions with nature.

Peterson has convincingly talked about hierarchies of competence before. But he takes his biological argument and overlays it on a political-economic theory he has only skimmed over. Marx didn't argue that humans wouldn't be organised along individual talents or knowledge; but that capitalist society was enforcing an exploitative hierarchy that was limiting productive and creative capacities of workers. I don't necesarily agree with this, but it's clearly another Peterson blindspot.

As for Peterson’s claims about hierarchy, he constantly conflated hierarchy with class society. He never demonstrated why the privilege of one class to exploit another is essential to human existence. Further, when Marx argued for the overcoming of class society, he did not think that human beings would end the need for political organization. For Marx, the political “state” has a very specific meaning as an organ of class society. In overcoming class society, people will still need structure and organization; they will still need to deliberate, argue, and pursue things in common through struggle and debate. As Norman Geras put it in his defense of Marx against “Seven Types of Obloquy,” under communism, forms of public power would be based in democratic and elective principles.

Also, Peterson overlaying the prole/bourge thing with his identity politics and moralism templates was weird. Marx saw labels of worker/oppressor as the final stage before those identities were shed. They weren't utilising the identity, Marx was hoping they would overcome it. Peterson got big on the back of criticising id pol; shoehorning it in here was intellectually lazy.

To the best of my knowledge Marx didn't speak in terms of morals. He saw capitalist class society as arising out a specific set of historical and economic circumstances that would be replicated with or without immoral capitalists. So claiming the workers were portrayed as 'good' was again, weird.

 

[its free real estate]

For Marx, the political “state” has a very specific meaning as an organ of class society. In overcoming class society, people will still need structure and organization; they will still need to deliberate, argue, and pursue things in common through struggle and debate. As Norman Geras put it in his defense of Marx against “Seven Types of Obloquy,” under communism, forms of public power would be based in democratic and elective principles.​

This is such sad bullshit. It is pathetic anyone actually believes it.

 

[EasternTiger]

Capitalism wins hands down in the pursuit of happiness.

Marxists are a bunch of miserable, zero sum game campaigners.

 

[yebiga]

Whilst very entertaining and possessed by a legion of literary demons, zizek would do well to spend time fine tuning and clear thinking thru his ideas to be able to elucidate them with some level of coherence.

What was apparent to me was that both men appeared to agree on virtually all pertinent points.

As a debater, zizek was missing in action. And Jordan did his normal impenetrable dissertation of how things really are. Of course, no matter how brilliant or important it is to outline how things really are - it can never be as exciting as how things might be.
Zizek trades in flights of fancy, brilliant insights, thrilling tangents and more but he doesn’t possess a coherent structure.

Jordan was ready for a title fight but found himself opposed by the half time entertainment. Of course that is an exaggeration but not exactly.

Jordan remains imperious
And zizek remains brilliant

There was a lot more common ground than many would have expected

I enjoyed this immensely
Not sure those who paid some of the sums bandied about quite got their money’s worth.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A Marxist critique of the debate. The thrust is a common one; Peterson doesn't know Marxism. The article doesn't contest his expertise within his field; it clearly shows his shallow understanding of a political theory he has tried to critique.

Peterson has convincingly talked about hierarchies of competence before. But he takes his biological argument and overlays it on a political-economic theory he has only skimmed over. Marx didn't argue that humans wouldn't be organised along individual talents or knowledge; but that capitalist society was enforcing an exploitative hierarchy that was limiting productive and creative capacities of workers. I don't necesarily agree with this, but it's clearly another Peterson blindspot.

Also, Peterson overlaying the prole/bourge thing with his identity politics and moralism templates was weird. Marx saw labels of worker/oppressor as the final stage before those identities were shed. They weren't utilising the identity, Marx was hoping they would overcome it. Peterson got big on the back of criticising id pol; shoehorning it in here was intellectually lazy.

To the best of my knowledge Marx didn't speak in terms of morals. He saw capitalist class society as arising out a specific set of historical and economic circumstances that would be replicated with or without immoral capitalists. So claiming the workers were portrayed as 'good' was again, weird.