420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Anger masturbation by Ebenezer Hendlekig - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:56:11 EST ID:9xHHmrI5 No.207907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1489899371727.jpg -(473997B / 462.89KB, 1170x620) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 473997
It seems like most people these days aren't looking to engage in what is classically considered a "discussion" or even a "debate". People have become so entrenched ideologically that it makes discussion and exchange of ideas all but impossible.

I don't think it's nostalgic to say that the rhetoric of this period is more polarized than it was a 5 years or even a decade ago at least in the context of American politics. When people have a difference of opinion there is no discussion there is only the reinforcement of preconceived notions and the stroking of the anger boner. People have come to enjoy the righteous anger they feel when their lighting up someone who has the "wrong" political opinion.

This sort of thing happened in the past but it was mint everyone doing it to each other all the time. Everything has devolved to the point where it's a nonstop rage masturbation fest on both sides. No one wants to learn, no one wants to admit that they might be wrong, no one wants to actually solve any problems. They just want to be right and someone else be wrong, we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".
>>
Angus Fuckingford - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:27:56 EST ID:yejEFop0 No.207909 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489937276373.jpg -(25530B / 24.93KB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So how do we reverse this? With the advent of social media, a lot of people have become addicted to the thrill of being angry all the time. This has it uses in the proper channels, but when you have people getting angry all the time, it's going to result in people getting burnt out. I've seen very few acknowledge this. If anything it seems to be implied that if you get burnt out then you're worthless. Just taking time to take a break from the rush of it all is discouraged.

Some are way too obsessed with dying in a blaze of glory without realizing that they can use that energy to benefit themselves and others instead of crashing and burning. This lifestyle that is being encouraged by all sides isn't going to be sustainable and we'll be seeing a lot of people crashing and burning.
>>
Angus Fuckingford - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:34:59 EST ID:yejEFop0 No.207910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207909
Also, I've seen some disturbing trends with people bragging about liberal tears when Trump won with how popular it was to brag about male tears I know that also meant sperm but I don't think the people saying it cared a few years ago. We've become extremely petty to the point where we're willing to destroy ourselves if it means getting a chance to drink some terms.

How did it get to this point?
>>
Thomas Blythehood - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 13:52:38 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489945958348.jpg -(29577B / 28.88KB, 278x181) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207910
I think it's the natural progression of the double down politics that are rewarded in this system. Admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness, it usually works out much better for you to stick your fingers in your ears and double down on whatever path you're going. People will support you as long as you sound confident. "It didn't work this time, or the last twenty times, but that's only because the other side was undercutting us. This time it's going to work, I promise, pls gief donations thx."

>>207909
How do we reverse this? I've no idea tbh. There has to be some kind of massive cultural shift away from this kind of discourse. I can't see that happening without either some kind of horrible global catastrophe or some kind of religious/spiritual reawakening on a global scale.
>>
Beatrice Hoffingset - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:05:48 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207909
How to reverse this? Look to what Europe is doing? It appears that if you want to reverse it, you need to look how discussions are done outside the USA.
>>
Hedda Famblefuck - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:13:42 EST ID:i/DMGlHX No.207913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207912
What exactly is Europe doing?
>>
Graham Chibblehutch - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:40:18 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207912
I don't think letting in an unreasonable amount of migrants is going to solve anything.
>>
Edward Hublingchen - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 02:19:18 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207907
Honestly I think this is mostly a historical illusion or epiphenomena than something that's actually taking place on its own. People are more willing to expose themselves to new ideas than at any other time in history, because information is available to a greater degree than at any other time in history, but we're still just apes. So by and large when you equip the mass with that kind of knowledge they don't use it to actually grow, they use it as a new kind of stick to beat the other monkey's brain out.

So for most of human history, you just had people being too ignorant and insulated to actually have interesting ideas or discussion (remember until the advent of public education learned debates and discourse were solely the purview of the wealthy) and naturally we don't have records of the kind of awful shit people might shout at you in the street in ancient Athens, only records of political debates and philosophical discourses. So a period of time where the creation of records is limited to a highly cultured set will always appear to be more civilized than one where all elements of society can contribute to the record. This was still true as recently as the '90s in the first world, when centralized media still had it's vice grip on the public consciousness, and is more or less still in effect in certain parts of the third world.

Moreover, in our history, we have people who were utilized as physical pawns in debates that were carried out as actual wars between the 'debate participants.' I would take the shit-flinging in the comments section of [insert site] over being conscripted to travel to a distant land to try to kill all the turban-wearing dudes who disagree with me so they can't disagree with me anymore, because some guy told me the creator of the universe wants me to and I don't know shit about shit enough to question it. So by and large it has always been the case that the average person doesn't care about the nuanced discovery of the truth, but about being the last monkey left alive.

It really comes down to that we're smart enough to realize we are stupid but not smart enough to actually fathom or overcome our stupidity as a species. So if you decide to let everyone in the world believe whatever they want, give them a venue to every kind of belief that exists, but don't change the fact that humans are barely one peg above chimpanzees in terms of primitive, tribalistic groupthink, then belief itself will become a tool in tribal war, for as long as it takes for the mass of humanity to evolve to the point that, up until recently, only a small percentage of the population was able to reach.

TL;DR: we're in this shit for the long haul guys, there is no easy or direct solution other than 'people, as a whole, need to grow up.'
>>
Edward Gunkinfudge - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 04:42:13 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489999333929.jpg -(56671B / 55.34KB, 700x1097) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well I guess what can be done is to change one's own outlook and behaviors, to listen and communicate honestly with respect.

Also with humor people are more likely to actually listen rather than knee-jerk reacting. Satire perhaps. Relating with them about something in common.

Individual acts aren't going to have a significant effect on society, a drop in the ocean obviously, but what if there's a trend... A positive attitude personally will at least improve the discourse and understanding of those involved.
>>
William Clottinglock - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:03:13 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207914
>unreasonable amount of immigrants

American retard detected. Immigration stream has been shrinking for a year now. Of course, the retarded media in the USA won't tell their retarded countrymen that.
>>
Priscilla Snoddock - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:54:31 EST ID:0Tn8plNY No.207918 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207917
>immigrant stream has been shrinking
Yeah, that's because most of them are already there.

Way to take the bait though, you're really proving the point in the OP.
>>
Edward Hublingchen - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:24:48 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207920 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207914
>>207917
>>207918
Holy fuck fuck fuck can we just have one thread about the actual meta-problem and not devolve into the very shit we are trying to reason about? I'm going to suggest that any and all political talking points be banned ITT.
>>
Shit Bonkinham - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:55:54 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207918
Point of what? Ebenezer is talking about the polarization in society. I am not polarizing. I am calling a fucking retard out on objectively false information. That is a completely different discussion. Because polarization is about opinions and a lack of commkn ground. Facts are devoid of opinions and require no common ground because facts just are, exist.
>>
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:57:50 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207923 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207921
Dude, do you not see the irony of calling someone a retard in a thread that is about the tendency of these sort of discussions to devolve into rage wankfests? Graham's comment was stupid but yours weren't any better. I mean, c'mon.
>>
Shit Bonkinham - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:46:06 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207923
I'm sorry, I don't see the irony between calling a fucktard that lies about objective facts in reality and the polarization in discussions.

Lying about facts and calling someone out on lying isn't a discussion. It's a reaffirmation of reality.
>>
Ernest Sapperridge - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:52:33 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.207926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207920
>I'm going to suggest that any and all political talking points be banned ITT

but banning anything is encouraging censorship and that only served to provoke/embold these wankfests. Instead of banning everything, just learn to ignore bait and move on.
>>
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:45:02 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207925
What facts have you stated here? You've let someone's comment (which is, at best, ignorant and at worst bait) cause you to lash out at them and generalize them. You haven't even answered what Europe is doing to stop this sort of polarization the OP is talking about. What does immigration have to do with it? Or what doesn't it have to do with it? I'm not even defending their comment either. What you've posted is exactly the sort of rhetoric that the OP is describing that is making things worse.

>>207926
I don't think censorship is the solution, but I do think that the issue is that people just react and post instead of actually thinking about what they say and read, so they end up just posting the first thing that comes into their mind. Or just read whatever that see and react to it without actually thinking about what they just read. This problem has really only gotten worse over the years with stuff like twitter.
>>
Shit Bonkinham - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:33:47 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207928
>You haven't even answered what Europe is doing to stop this sort of polarization the OP is talking about.

Because I don't know. All I know is that any political discussion in Europe is far less polarized than in the USA. I was hoping to see people discuss why Europe has so much better discussions than in the USA, but then that retarded the future immigrant fucknut had to post his retarded meme reply and everything went to shit.
>>
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:12:38 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207930 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207929
>I was hoping to see people discuss why Europe has so much better discussions than in the USA

I've been reading some books about introversion that may clear that up somewhat. Culture in the US heavily encourages extroversion. It's not obviously the only aspect, but with how things like social media practically encourages people to be attention whores (see: Trump's twitter) you have systems in place where it's encouraged to outyell each other, regardless of the consequences. So you end up with a lot of people who tend to be introverted trying to be as extroverted as possible at the cost of getting any sort of intelligent discourse done. And with technology being designed so that extroverted qualities being rewarded, a feedback loop is created and we're in this mess that we're in now.

I didn't really think much about the smartphones ruining everything meme, but after some reflection there's truth to it. Pre-smartphone internet was seen more as a introverted space, but with them making the internet a lot more accessible so that people who didn't usually spend their time on computers could do so, the internet became more of a place where extroverted qualities were encouraged a lot more and it basically escalated. It is a huge generalization and I'm not an expert in any sense, just making a completely uneducated observation that may be completely off track. I don't think this is something that the internet specifically created, just made it a lot more visible, and it's much more easy to exploit until people learn better.

tl;dr - Americans tend to yell and react before thinking and social media encourages that to our detriment.
>>
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:15:23 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207934 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207926
So it's censorship if you come into my house and start shouting in my face and I say that I don't want to talk to you about that here? No, it would be censorship if I went into your house and put tape over your mouth and tied you up. Being able to control the content of a discussion is the only way a discussion can take place.

So I'm saying that, since every other place in the goddamn world is overrun with this kind of shit, that to have one thread on one crappy imageboard about why that is the case, and NOT letting it get over run with the very shit in question, is sensible. If not, would you say it's censorship that the contents of books are only placed within the books that they belong to, and not randomly placed within other books you might want to add them to?

But that's irrelevant anyway, because every single post after the first few in this thread is just a big fat QED on why this shit is presently unable to be resolved in any rational way.

>>207930
I don't think it's just a US/Euro thing with the evolution of who uses the internet. The people who first adopt advanced technology are always more intellectual, bookish, and likely to be introverted types, whereas in the general population extroverts are more common. So, the only way to keep the internet introverted would to have been to keep it away from the common people, which we all know could only ever last so long. I mean, relatively speaking, people were feeling the same way about the change in userbase of the internet when AOL and the like came out vs the previous pure enthusiast userbase, so it's not just social media that has been causing this process, it's the dissemination of tech in general.
>>
Reuben Cocklewater - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:48:16 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490132896051.jpg -(278366B / 271.84KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207915
I feel like you're getting to the heart of the issue here. I agree that there is more information available to a larger amount of people than ever before; however, I don't think that, that has translated to a larger percentage of the population utilizing the information to become more "enlightened". It seems like people are merely using the greater availability of information to search for data that will fit the narrative they already believe.

>>207934
Your analogy is flawed for a few reasons. While you may feel like 420chan is your house it is, in fact, a public forum. It's a place where anyone is free to voice their opinion, regardless of how ignorant or "wrong" you perceive it to be. Let's also not forget the fact that you were the one who responded to a 1 line, throw-away comment with a stream of profanity and vitriol. If anyone here is shouting here, it's you.

I don't think the way to encourage a more open and thoughtful discussion is by calling people "fucking retards" and completely discounting their opinion. Or is that how they do it in Europe?
>>
Reuben Momblestone - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:56:40 EST ID:5T+lpeRC No.207936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207935
>While you may feel like 420chan is your house it is, in fact, a public forum
no it's MY house specifically get the fuck off my lawn the both of yous
>>
Lydia Pemblefuck - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:49:45 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207935
>>Someone uses an analogy involving a house
>>So you assume they are actually claiming the thing they are making an analogy for IS a house.
No, that's just silly, I was explaining why controlling the content of a thread is totally unlike censorship. Do you have a response to my question about whether the contents of books should be 'censored' into only being within the books their belong to?

Despite the fact that 420chan is a public forum, chan culture has long established that the OP of a thread is able to establish the boundaries of the discussion in that thread. While I'm not OP, I'm merely suggesting that the boundaries for the discussion OP laid out are good and we should follow them. Moreover, I never called anyone a retard, or called anyone wrong. I wasn't even talking about how people do things in Europe except with reference to the internet, that was d4DXKOh3, so I don't think you know who you are talking to.

Especially since I am the person you quoted in both your replies, yet you said on the one hand I am getting to the heart of the issue and on the other that I am just shouting vitriol. Which is it?
>>
Charles Blellermare - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:42:00 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207939 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207935
>Let's also not forget the fact that you were the one who responded to a 1 line, throw-away comment with a stream of profanity and vitriol. If anyone here is shouting here, it's you.

That was me. If you don't know how the fuck the ID system works here, perhaps you don't have quite so much to say about how 420chan operates, and should relocate back to the future/stormfront.

And you seem to misunderstand that one would want a more open and thoughtful discussion with motherfucking retards that shout blatant false information and bullshit. For a discussion to be able to take place, you need opinions, not facts. You cannot have a discussion about facts. That's useless.
>>
Phineas Foblingstone - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:10:32 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207907
>we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".

Mmmmm that is some poetic philosophy right there.

Yeah, I debate people all the time. I present facts, I present logic, I keep a totally open mind, like if they present facts I was unaware of I will be prepared to change my mind. But, that pretty much never happens. I get into an argument with someone about something I know at least a bit about, they come at me with extremely simplistic opinions they've probably just taken from someone else and put zero thought into, I ask them to produce facts, they either can't or they produce false facts (debunked facts) or they produce facts I'm already aware of. And at this point it's obvious that I know more than they do and that they're not willing to learn from me, because as I gently try to change their opinions, they enter fight or flight mode, and they either fight until they feel, on the inside, that they've won, even though they've just been throttled by facts and logic, or they just walk away from the situation entirely and write me off as a cunt.

I once had to reference several laws and several historic events in the USA to a UK libertarian who insisted that discrimination based on race/religion/anything should be legal in businesses. At the end of the argument, he said to me that he learned nothing from me, but that he hopes I learned from him. He shut out his mind to the facts and history and laws I presented to him, yet expected me to accept into my heart his extremely-naive libertarian views that are backed up by nothing, and he insisted that America isn't free because we can't legally discriminate in business. He also kept insisting that business laws and private property/home ownership laws be identical. As a student of business, I think that sort of idea is absolutely crazy, yet he used his libertarian idealism to insist that I'm wrong, the USA is wrong and that he's right.

At the end of the day, I guess some of us are just logical, while most of us are just emotional. Feel me?
>>
Lydia Pemblefuck - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:59 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207940
Yet, haven't we all (at least those of us in the US) gone through a ringer recently about how stating that you know more than the other person, even proving you know more than the other person, accomplishes nothing, and leaves one defeated while still feeling smug and with no recourse or strategy for moving forward other than reiterating that they're actually the ones who are right?

That may not be anger masturbation, since indeed more logical heads usually have less emotional temperaments, but it's logical masturbation still, because no discourse actually took place.

I have a thought experiment which may help clarify people's positions on this idea. Ignoring extreme cases who will not respond to anything, do you think it's the case that of most people, there is some sequence of words, actions, or evidence/'evidence' you could show to them that would eventually convince them of any idea whatsoever?

If so, then my suggestion to move away from philosophical masturbation and into genuine philosophical intercourse would be to do it scientifically. If we genuinely believe in whatever the X good thing we think to be the case that we try to convince others of is so, but there is Z amount of difference in the reaction we get from the reaction we want when we apply Y argument, then we need to stop worrying about whether we think Y contains the elements we think it should, since by the postulate of our thought experiment there is SOME value of Y that would get us the Z we want.

In plainer english: we need to stop worrying about convincing people the way WE think it is convincing to say, and try to learn to speak their cultural and ideational languages, see from their perspective, and keep continually learning and course correcting (and seriously applying the scientific method in analyzing the success of our corrections probably wouldn't be a bad idea too) so we can have genuine *dialogue* rather than increasing the volume of our *statements.*
>>
Emma Debberfoot - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:29:23 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490239763598.jpg -(108392B / 105.85KB, 400x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207940 How 'bout logos and pathos instead of one or the other.

>>207941
Dig it very much so. Dialogues over diatribes. Maybe it'll plant seeds, meaning they wont admit the validity of some of what you were saying, but reconsider it later, and recognize some truth, then maybe gradually change their perspective. Pretty hopeful hypothetical.

Giving someone your full attention (or as close to it) and listening is important to understand where they're coming from. In time one could probably formulate better arguments that refute common tropes. It sounds selfish written that way. The intention really should be to have an enjoyable conversation that's fruitful in some way, not to win. Of course you want to prove what you believe is worthy of believing. If the belief isn't well grounded why do they/you choose to believe it?

I think we should always recognize our own ignorance, the limitations of truth from one perspective, forever seeking yet unable to ever get there. Everything said and written should have a caveat to it: this is a partial truth as I know it. So even from someone with a seemingly shitty analysis and perspective, they may have some gems to share. If you're willing to listen to them, truly. I think people are often more aware then given credit, picking up on the nuances of a situation, consciously or not, and can tell if you're really listening. If you are, maybe they'll do the same.

Active listening is a cool pratice, meaning after their statement you reiterate what they'd said, like an interviewer prompting an elaboration or focusing-in on a specific detail. The point is you verbally acknowledge what they communicated. After their reaction to your acknowledgement, such as: "yeah, that's right" (resolution), or "nah, not quite. Its blah blah blah" then they clarify and you understand better then if you'd thought you'd understood and didn't say anything. After resolution you ascert whatever it is you gotta say, they'll react to that, and if it didn't get through, listen, aknowledge, and repeat until resolution is reached, then reassert. Being so mechanical about it will probably interfere with a fluid and fruitful conversation so idk, maybe on a more difficult conversation that wasn't going to be fun to begin with.

On a side note, I think being well articulate can have drawbacks too, just because someone your talking to isn't as expressive doesn't mean they don't have knowledge and experiences to back it up. But changing one's attitude and vocabulary to fit in isn't honest nor thy true self either.
>>
John Gannergold - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:28:06 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207942
Amen to all of that. I agree that active listening is precisely what we should be practicing if we want to get to this place. We almost do active listening now, except we are hunting in what we listen to for flaws that can become vulnerabilities, without recognizing that perhaps what we perceive as flaws represent misunderstandings or miscommunication by either us or them.

On the subject of changing how you speak to relate to people who may have different backgrounds than you: I struggled with this for a long time. For a long time I was unable to turn off high articulation and broad vocabulary when talking normally to people, and it was a huge turn off for them. I persisted because I thought, well, if I know the correct words and way to speak, and I know I am using it correctly, it's THEIR fault if they don't understand. But that's just the big problem of 'anger masturbation' down to the level of linguistics.

I realized that the purpose of speaking in a debate or discussion is not to express my identity, or demonstrate my capacity, but to actually put this idea lodged in my head into someone else's head. If the way I am transmitting that signal to them isn't getting through, then the communication isn't serving its function which is as much my responsibility as theirs. Just food for thought.
>>
Samuel Cindlefield - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:37:27 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207945 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490503047991.jpg -(497073B / 485.42KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207943
Blame goes all ways, yes. Still, alot of people aren't listening, and it takes reasserting to get your point across sometimes. Humor is definitely more engaging than serious academia. Mixing the two could work, but the academia side has got to be succinct and to the point, not long-winded where their eyes glaze over. Again, I don't think you should change yourself to suit someone elses tastes or comprehension. Being self-righteous or angry about it doesn't help, except like jerk off the ego. If the point is to plant a seed or to convert them to a viewpoint, it makes sense being flexible and amorphous is effective.
>>
Barnaby Hummerden - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:43:18 EST ID:UR1te4jq No.207951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490755398732.jpg -(146285B / 142.86KB, 920x598) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yep, like hippies and the establishment had such an open dialog back in the day.
>>
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:56:12 EST ID:uRNFOzYS No.207953 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>all people are rational and all people are emotional, with some leaning more towards one or the other.
fixed.

>fixed.
As you can see above, the real danger in sharing knowledge here is in the conceit that can come with it (or be perceived to come with it).

If nobody objects to a little ideological vomiting onto the page, I'd like to say that being a dick, or attacking someone's character, is almost never productive or conducive to good discussion. Even when we're right, it's not warranted behavior imo. For example, take the first anger fap in this thread:
>American retard detected. Immigration stream has been shrinking for a year now. Of course, the retarded media in the USA won't tell their retarded countrymen that.

and see how much more inviting it becomes when you strip out the needless attacks:

>The immigration stream has been shrinking for a year now. Of course, the media in the USA won't tell their countrymen that.

Even if we think somebody is retarded for holding a view that conflicts with our own and/or is wrong, we'll be more persuasive if we refrain from attacking them over it, not to mention we'll live in a kinder world.
>>
Fuck Wuddlehat - Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:17:06 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207955 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207907
recently I found Jordan Peterson on YouTube.
>Tl;dr: he's a douche fascist nutjob and I've been listening to him to satisfy my own anger masturbation. sorry for the wall of text but I enjoy writing.

I had innocently typed 'postmodernism' into the search bar and the first page of results showed his name numerous times. Having never heard of the guy I put on a 40 minute video of one of Peterson’s lectures, titled simply ‘Post-modernism (sic) vs. Modernism’, which I ended up listening to three times back to back but not because it was a good lecture. I have since listened to hours upon hours of him speaking and now, frankly, feel guilty for it.

I have, I think, a decent working knowledge of postmodernism as I had taken classes on it, read quite a bit about it and written about related topics while at university, but that was a while ago. I wasn’t a philosophy major at the time so the larger framework of postmodern philosophy was a little lost on me, I was used to seeing the trees but not the forest so to speak. Now, in this case I was looking for a kind of refresher on the basics, a 101 level course, for the sake of wasting some time in a productive but leisurely way on a Sunday afternoon.
Peterson does not offer what I was looking for though, instead I’ve come to think of him as an utter sophist and his speech the ranting of angry white males. He makes extraordinary claims about postmodernism, which should be laughable to anyone with a basic understanding of it: that it is an ideology, that it is essentially Marxism and extremely leftist, that it denies any kind of objective truth or reality, that it is equatable with various social justice movements. It takes a while to fish out the core arguments Peterson has about postmodernism – or what he calls postmodernism, because I don’t think he has any real idea of what he's talking about – and so I've clocked up probably a large number of hours listening to him speak. I could spend my time now refuting him and explaining why he is wrong on almost every count but that is not the point here.
Instead I have come to the conclusion that Peterson is nothing more than a hack, in more ways than one. If you search Google for 'youtube postmodernism' it delivers a number of video results from YouTube. These are the videos I was intending to find when I struck upon Peterson, reasonable and informing videos of an educational nature. But on YouTube itself Peterson is the overwhelming result delivered and he is aware of this, not quite boasting but certainly acknowledging his apparent popularity on YouTube in one of his speeches. However, i am sure, like book sales these results can be manipulated: who is to say that a bot can’t watch a video?

Peterson himself, like Sam Harris, is a psychologist, and seems reasonably knowledgeable about many biological facts of life, facts that mark women as different from men for example, but anything remotely social he despises and barely wishes to consider any validity to it. The whole transgender debate he kicks up could be boiled back down to "nature vs. nurture", however Peterson does not wish to consider for a second the nurture side of the argument, for him there is only nature and then there are evil Marxist philosophers (he uses the alt-right buzzword ‘Social justice warriors’) trying to start a revolution. But why would a man so uninformed on the topic of postmodernism continue to stand up on stage and talk about it? And why would it be so apparently popular?
As I said, his speech is that of an angry white male -which he calls free speech-, and it is to them he speaks. If he has any authentic support it is from them: people who feel angry about the contemporary world and feel out of place within it and disturbed by many modern features of the world. Indeed Peterson stepped into the spotlight by kicking up a fuss about legislation affecting transsexuals, typifying the AWM stereotype. Peterson is obviously not interested in the pursuit of knowledge about postmodernism, he has not produced a single written document on the subject, an intellectual cop-out as it means his ideas cant be reviewed by his peers; he is apparently only interested in the acquisition of an audience. What he then manages to do, is take all that anger and frustration about the modern world and turn it against the Humanities as they exist in universities.
Peterson is not the first conservative to take aim at the liberal bastions that undeniably are universities and specifically the humanities departments within them. Indeed, he seems to take all his pronouncements on postmodernism from a book titled ‘Explaining Postmodernism: scepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault’ by Stephen Hicks, published back in 2004. Peterson has thus taken up the mantle of the conservative crusade and stepped into the limelight to continue the relentless assault upon any attempt at explaining the world from a structuralist perspective which he names ‘social constructionism’.
When you search google for 'war on the humanities' you will find news articles about funding being cut by governments following austerity policies. No more money to art, philosophy, social research; the so-called 'less profitable' fields. You will also find articles defending the humanities, arguing that they are essential to proper functioning democracies: it was only in brutal places and times like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany where the humanities were wiped out, and it was deliberate of the rulers then to wipe them out so that they could solidify their rule. Also you will find that studying in the humanities will teach a person to think critically and to be able articulate his/her ideas properly in writing at least. What benefit would Peterson gain from attacking the Humanities? simple, more money to his own field: psychology.
Although my argument here becomes conspiratorial, -fuck it!- what i've researching now for more than a week or two leads me to the following conclusion: whether or not Peterson is conscious of it, he is continuing an effort of the political right wing to eliminate the Humanities all together from educational institutions and by extension produce a population that thinks less critically and is more subservient to power. He is therefore my enemy and the more I learn about him and try to understand him, the more I find myself agreeing with Žižek, a true enemy is not simply a friend that you do not understand. Following from that, why the hell should I tolerate him?

For that matter, should I not feel enraged at Peterson? It is the endless ironies that Peterson like many of his ilk perpetually produce that is truly incendiary. They speak in echo-chambers, claim their free speech is being denied, accuse their opponents of pseudo-science, regard culture as a warzone etc. all amounting to towering hypocrisy. YouTube exists for entertainment, to satisfy emotional needs, isn’t anger one of those needs? Why should I feel guilty for listening to him for hours on end? Is he not there simply to satisfy my ‘anger masturbation’?
>>
Fuck Brookway - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 15:48:49 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207957 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207955

I've been watching his videos for quite some time so it's interesting to see another perspective on him

>but anything remotely social he despises and barely wishes to consider any validity to it.

I don't think that's true at all. He's a psychologist and a scientist and acknowledges the role of both nature and nurture. He elaborates on the biological/in-born aspects of our identity and (rightfully) criticizes people who think people are some sort of blank slate shaped by culture, or who don't properly take into account the nature side of things.

You keep saying he doesn't know what he's talking about but the you don't elaborate so I dunno what to do with that even though it's kind of important given the things you're saying about him.

>If he has any authentic support it is from them: people who feel angry about the contemporary world and feel out of place within it and disturbed by many modern features of the world.

I don't know why you believe this considering that most of his videos are simply lectures of his psychology courses. He puts out a lot of valuable stuff that touches on things that are both timeless and contemporary, so I really don't think most of the people who watch his videos are just looking to get their angry white male fix. People go to Fox News and Breitbart for that, they don't watch some guy on youtube talk about Piaget.

>for him there is only nature and then there are evil Marxist philosophers (he uses the alt-right buzzword ‘Social justice warriors’) trying to start a revolution.

That's simply a mischaracterization. And the revolution in academia you reference has been ongoing for years.

>But why would a man so uninformed on the topic of postmodernism continue to stand up on stage and talk about it?

How is he uninformed? What is he wrong about? As for why it's popular, it's struck a chord with people. These things blow up for a reason, like he's said he touched on something that was bubbling under the surface waiting to come up and be worked out.

>As I said, his speech is that of an angry white male -which he calls free speech-,

I don't know why you characterize him as an "angry white male" or even know what you mean by that. And of course he has the right to say what he has to say just like anyone else.

>and it is to them he speaks

He speaks to his students and the people who watch his videos on youtube. He's primarily addressing himself to Canadian college kids, male and female, of whatever ethnicity, so that's just silly. As for the people who support him, it's the same. 20 year old women and 60 year old men all derive value from the things he teaches. All sorts of people in the youtube comments on his videos supporting him and etc.

>Peterson is obviously not interested in the pursuit of knowledge about postmodernism, he has not produced a single written document on the subject, an intellectual cop-out as it means his ideas cant be reviewed by his peers;

He's a practicing psychologist and a college professor and a researcher. Why would he spend his limited time writing about postmodernism? That's not his field, nor is it really his main focus at all. He touches on it when it becomes relevant to whatever it is he's discussing and it's often relevant because it's seeping into everything in our culture. Not publishing academic work about something doesn't mean you don't know anything about it. And publishing academic work about something doesn't mean you necessarily have anything worthwhile to say either.

>Indeed Peterson stepped into the spotlight by kicking up a fuss about legislation affecting transsexuals, typifying the AWM stereotype.

You're really hung up on trying to fit him into this "AWM" box you've created. He made videos about Bill C-16 in Canada and they garnered a lot of attention. He made the videos, and you can watch them in full yourself and see this, to draw attention to what he saw as troubling implications for Canadian civil rights contained in the bill. He objects to the state being used to compel speech any kind of speech, which I think is definitely something to be concerned about. It's the difference between NOT being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and being forced to speak in a certain way. The latter is a much more extreme form of social control backed up by the full lethal force of the law. The transgender issue is irrelevant. It really has very little to do with that at all.

>What benefit would Peterson gain from attacking the Humanities?

I agree with everything you said leading up to this, and the funny thing is I'm sure Peterson would too. What gives you the impression that he's attacking the humanities? Whenever I've heard him talk about the humanities as a whole it's only been with the highest praise of their utility and role in forming mature, educated beings, and lament at what's become of them in recent times. If anything he champions the humanities and all they have to offer. He draws on the humanities constantly, through stories and myth and literature and etc.

>whether or not Peterson is conscious of it, he is continuing an effort of the political right wing to eliminate the Humanities all together from educational institutions and by extension produce a population that thinks less critically and is more subservient to power.

Something he tries to emphasize again and again is the role the humanities and proper education can play in INOCULATING you against tyranny, against ideology, to keep you from being a slave or enslaving others. I think you're way off base here. He constantly tells his students to criticize and think clearly. One of the reasons he studied psychology in the first place was to address why and how things like the Nazi regime, the Soviet gulags, the Holocaust, and etc. happened and how they could be avoided in the future. The last thing he wants is for people to be more subservient to power.

>why the hell should I tolerate him?

Tolerate? Like you can't suffer the existence of some stranger. What happens when you stop tolerating someone? To answer your question, you should "tolerate" him because he's a human being. What an odd thing to ask.

>For that matter, should I not feel enraged at Peterson?

You should not, because you've profoundly misunderstood him and what he has to say.

>They speak in echo-chambers

He's a college professor who does peer reviewed science and puts his words out there for anyone who wants to hear and even comment on. The opposite of an echo chamber. If I had to guess I'd say echo chambers would be something he has little affection for.

>claim their free speech is being denied

Well, that's what the bill he was concerned about does in fact do. It's now law in Canada by the way. That's to say nothing of the people who just itch to shut down dialogue at every turn if they find the content objectionable.

>accuse their opponents of pseudo-science

Well, yeah, sometimes that's an accurate charge.

>regard culture as a warzone

You don't even know him, and frankly misunderstood him, and yet you declared him your enemy and asked why you should "tolerate" him. I'd say you were the one making it into a warzone but culture has always been a warzone in a sense, ideas play themselves out, even through actual warfare, good ones survive, bad ones don't. I am curious what exactly you meant by this.

>YouTube exists for entertainment

Well, partly. You can watch cat videos or college lectures or learn to play an instrument. It's just a video medium, it doesn't exist for any certain use of video, aside from what it doesn't allow.

>isn’t anger one of those needs?

If you're angry it usually means something's wrong. Seeking out things to be angry about doesn't seem like very beneficial behavior.

>Is he not there simply to satisfy my ‘anger masturbation’?

He's there to teach you something if you listen and stop trying to pigeonhole him
>>
Rebecca Nicklehall - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 18:06:18 EST ID:xap85RxW No.207958 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491084378749.png -(190189B / 185.73KB, 540x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207907
>>
Rebecca Sevinghall - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:56:51 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207960 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207957
i've listened to Peterson extensively and know quite well what he has to say. As I said: "He makes extraordinary claims about postmodernism, which should be laughable to anyone with a basic understanding of it". I'm assuming you dont have a basic understanding of postmodernism so I'll direct you to this http://links.org.au/node/32. Try comparing what Peterson says on the topic of postmodernism to a reliable source like that. You'll find out soon enough that it's utter sophistry that Peterson peddles and the only ones buying it are AWM's .

I also see you are from the other side of the aisle so I dont expect you to understand my perspective, but I think it's explained quite clearly. By cutting it up into individual yellowtexts you arent going to make it more comprehendable. For example:
>I don't know why you characterize him as an "angry white male" or even know what you mean by that
I can direct you to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male but I said clearly:
> If he has any authentic support it is from them: people who feel angry about the contemporary world and feel out of place within it and disturbed by many modern features of the world

I've tried to understand Peterson's perspective, and by extension the perspective of those that agree with him but what I find is mischaracterisations, scapegoats, a deep antipathy to social sciences and the humanities in general, reactionary arguments and even outright strawman arguments. As I said, it's not my point here to refute him, I'm far more interested in understanding the motivations and goals/desires of him and his ilk.
>>
Barnaby Dartridge - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 17:53:10 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207961 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207960
>>motivations and goals/desires of him and his ilk
He is intellectual justification for radical reactionary sentiment. Kind of the way radicals like to parade around anyone from outside their target demographic, or even from the demographic they are against, supporting them, because it seems to imply some deeper philosophical underpinning to the reactionary sentiment.

Any person who has a degree and supports a reactionary philosophy is going to be turned into a god by the adherents of that philosophy, precisely because intellectual and academic support of their ideas is so thin. If a majority of academics endorsed alt-right ideals, no one would care about what Peterson has to say. Because he is one of the only ones, he is worshiped.
>>
Esther Cammledock - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 18:49:44 EST ID:V2xMGSRV No.207963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207961
Exactly. In doing so he exemplifies the 'warrior' figure for that reactionary movement, thus a culture warrior.
>>
Henry Purryshit - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:28:46 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207970 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207960

Since you claimed that you could easily list the things he's wrong about regarding postmodernism, why don't you do so? It would be beneficial to me and anyone reading to know what you were referring to and better our understanding. I'm not going to wade through that and go rewatch things I've already watched when you could just lay it out in five minutes.

>I also see you are from the other side of the aisle

Huh?? What aisle? And who says this aisle has only two sides? I hate this metaphor. Nobody's political beliefs fit easily into one of two boxes if they've actually thought about them. Mine certainly don't. Aside from that, it's really not relevant, and the only possible inferences you could have made about my political beliefs from reading my post is that I don't approve of concentration camps or compelled speech. Kind of odd that you assume we can't have a conversation and come to an understanding based on pretty much nothing.

>> If he has any authentic support it is from them: people who feel angry about the contemporary world and feel out of place within it and disturbed by many modern features of the world

You're simply wrong. As I said, all kinds of people watch his videos and benefit from them, and given that his students are canadian, and men, and women, and from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds...Fun fact, when the C-16 thing blew up he got letters from transexual people regarding it. I think it was something like 20-1 supporting him, with most of them saying that the activists involved don't speak for trans people as a whole. I don't think your hypothesis holds up to examination.

>I'm far more interested in understanding the motivations and goals/desires of him and his ilk.

Well, you can't really do that when your knee jerk reaction is to stereotype him. As soon as you do that you'll forever be lost in ignorance because you'll be trying to understanding something whose properties you've distorted in your own mind to fit this stereotype you've created.

>>207961

>radical reactionary sentiment.

What radical reactionary sentiment?

>If a majority of academics endorsed alt-right ideals

What alt-right ideals does he endorse?
>>
Sidney Chessletan - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:43:07 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207970
>>What alt-right ideals does he endorse?
He's an intellectual apologist for Christianity in academia and his mis-framing of the free-speech/compelled-speech debate has been echoed as an underpinning of the alt-right's denunciation of political correctness, and he certainly is a hero to a lot of them, although I don't know what exactly his views on the term would be.
>>
Edwin Suffingfadge - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 04:59:55 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207973 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207970
> easily list the things he's wrong about
I did: "that it is an ideology, that it is essentially Marxism and extremely leftist, that it denies any kind of objective truth or reality, that it is equatable with various social justice movements."

> your knee jerk reaction is to stereotype him.
again, if you read the post properly you would realise that it's not a knee jerk reaction but a conclusion come to after trying to understand it over hours of listening to him speak, literally "more than a week" spent on giving his views a chance.

> What aisle?
if your going to have a discussion debate you're going to have one arguing in favour and one arguing against. You want to support Jordan Peterson, I don't, we're opposed to one another. You are then arguing for a conservative, i'm not.

> As I said, all kinds of people watch his videos and benefit from them
I'll just refer to what the other poster said: "Kind of the way radicals like to parade around anyone from outside their target demographic, or even from the demographic they are against, supporting them, because it seems to imply some deeper philosophical underpinning to the reactionary sentiment."
>>
Archie Tillingbanks - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:01:18 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207975 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207972

>He's an intellectual apologist for Christianity in academia

So that makes him alt-right? No, sorry. I would also say that that's an oversimplification and brings to mind something more along the lines of mainstream religious thinking than what he actually talks about.

>his mis-framing of the free-speech/compelled-speech debate

Do explain how exactly it's a mis-framing, if you would.

>although I don't know what exactly his views on the term would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fInko6WL9No

In this video he explicitly discusses the alt-right. He essentially says that alt-right philosophy is incomplete, that it doesn't properly take into account the fact that the state can be horribly abused, and that it has a foolish propensity to devolve into anti-semitism/racism. Definitely sounds like a true believer and standard bearer of the alt-right movement to me.
>>
Archie Tillingbanks - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:14:18 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207976 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have to divide this into two posts because I hit the character limit.

>>207973

>"that it is an ideology, that it is essentially Marxism and extremely leftist

When I go to your link and ctrl+f "Marx" I get 49 results.

>But Marx himself also had a complicated relationship to Romanticism that is sometimes not fully appreciated. He could not halt at naive endorsement of the optimistic vision of the eighteenth century philosophes. Truth, reason and progress were problematic after all. As Marx demonstrated in the Communist Manifesto, they could be put to monstrous uses just as well as they could be mobilised in the service of revolutionary capitalist expansion. This suggests a two-sided relationship to modern philosophy, or a two-sided theory of modernity.

This is critical; it shows the underlying assumption that philosophy, to them, is a contest between two opposing camps. You're either with the Marxists, or the modern inheritors of Marxist thinking, or you're with the capitalists, the oppressed or the oppressor, however they choose to define those groups on any particular day.

>Many postmodernists bid for the mantle of radical politics on the grounds that all universalist ideologies that have emerged from Europe are inescapably bound up in the dominant discourses of capitalism and imperialism.

>Identity politics flows logically from this broader censure of universalism. It is derived from the postmodern condition of fragmentation and decentring, according to postmodernists.

>In this context, it was odd, though significant, that Jacques Derrida revised his political views in 1993. In an attack on Francis Fukuyama's proclamation of the end of history, Derrida "deconstructed" the new mood as "manic triumphalism". Instead, he said that this was the darkest of times. Global capitalism has created more misery than ever. What is needed is a return to the "Marxian spirit of opposition" in the name of a promised justice and democracy (as opposed to their actually existing forms).

>Anti-corporate and antiwar movements are drawing the links and bringing into focus the institutional order of modern imperialism. Their "rhetoric" variously stresses equality, human rights, peace and social justice values that echo the critical traditions derived from the Enlightenment. Postmodernist relativism can offer little guidance to the way the activists in these movements understand the world and try to act in it. In fact, nothing could be further removed from postmodernism than the widespread Anti-corporate and antiwar sentiment that has emerged.

This link is a good overview and critique of postmodernism from a left-leaning perspective, so thank you.

>that it denies any kind of objective truth or reality

>Michel Foucault developed a theory of knowledge and power during the same decade. In it, there are no underlying logics of human society or "history" as such. The past can not be understood by criteria of truth and falsehood. Instead, truth and falsehood are relative, as every past system of knowledge has defined them differently. Knowledge is therefore not a product of some universal search for an adequate grasp of the objective, but instead should be seen, in at least its modern forms, as an exercise of disciplinary or "pastoral" power. Power is not experienced as oppression or coercion necessarily or indeed primarily. It is the prevailing formation of subjects through practices of knowledge or discourses. This is a formidable salvo fired at Enlightenment thought: Western knowledge is saturated with power and nothing much else. Consequently, instead of developing a politics around the recognition of class or state power, Foucault argues that power is everywhere in the instrumental rationality of modern bureaucratic society. It is everywhere and yet centred nowhere in particular.

Well, there you have it. And again everything comes down to power vs power, a mind-numbing and one-dimensional way of looking at the world inherited and transmuted from Marx.

>Foucault later modified his views, becoming more ambivalent.14 When this was pointed out, he denied that his modifications represented a break from past views and responded to critics by saying that they had misinterpreted his work. In any case, his earlier message had been echoed by others and was taken as the Foucauldian orthodoxy by his followers. His earlier message had already reached a receptive audience.

Uh oh.
>>
Archie Tillingbanks - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:14:53 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207977 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Jacques Derrida's post-structuralism deals with the knowable in a different way.15 Western thought since the Ancient Greeks has been based on the search for the origins, foundations and principles of things, for truth if you will. Consequently, it has revolved around logic. This search for foundations and certainty has been erroneous, in Derrida's estimation...The objective can be grasped, as the truth is almost present and often just below the "surface of appearances" (to borrow Marx's phrase). However, Derrida argues, the subject is deeply embedded in the human condition of prior consciousness (or discourse) that prefigures real objects and the capacity of the subject to signify them with words. An unmediated grasp of reality is therefore impossible, but so is escape from the metaphysics of presence embodied in the textual production of meaning. For Derrida, "There is no outside-text" or anything to reference for acting subjects, which is not to say that there is no objective reality, in his view, but rather that it cannot be known.

So one of Derrida's claims is that truth is inaccessible, which is one of the main differences between postmodernism and other philosophies. This difference is profound and does exist.

>There is, however, one important difference that distinguishes it from the German tradition represented by Johann Fichte and Frederich Schelling as postmodernist: the objective world is not disavowed completely, but rather is beyond reach or comprehension. In rejecting the search for origins (or causes), Derrida abandons not only the Enlightenment, but also the foundation for a transformative politics that openly pursues far-reaching solutions. Derrida later called on practitioners of deconstruction to apply their craft in more practical and political ways, perhaps a tacit recognition of the limitations imposed by post-structuralism on activists.

>that it is equatable with various social justice movements

You only have to read some of the things I've already pasted to see the relationship. Marxist presuppositions litter postmodernist thinking to a great extent, and postmodernist presuppositions underlie a lot of social activism occurring today. If you don't see the connections you simply aren't looking hard enough.

>it's not a knee jerk reaction

I can only come to the conclusion, as I was getting at before, that you simply didn't understand him, or misunderstood him, because the conclusions you came to don't make sense given what he has actually done and said. I also frankly get the strong sense that you were looking for another "angry white male" to put into your box of derision and jumped to conclusions that were unfounded.

>You want to support Jordan Peterson, I don't, we're opposed to one another.

Not so. While I do get the sense that you very well may have come into this with an agenda (hence you framing this as a contest between opposing poles from the beginning, which aligns perfectly with some of the information concerning postmodernist thinkers contained in your link), I engaged you hoping to better understand where you were coming from and even improve my own understanding of him and what he's done, and of the world. I admit to being biased in the sense that I do appreciate him and his work, but that doesn't mean I accept anything anyone says as gospel or anyone as flawless.

>You are then arguing for a conservative, i'm not.

So is that what this comes down to, I'm on the "the side of the conservative" and you aren't? That's a pretty shallow way of going about this. If you said to anyone that knows me that I'm a conservative they'd bust a gut.

>I'll just refer to what the other poster said: "Kind of the way radicals like to parade around anyone from outside their target demographic, or even from the demographic they are against, supporting them, because it seems to imply some deeper philosophical underpinning to the reactionary sentiment."

The assumption here is that this is in fact the nefarious thing really going on, rather than the reality actually being that it's not simply a case of demographics, because that doesn't even come close to explaining the real complexity of the world. Racists claim not to be racists for silly reasons (the black friend card)but there are also people who aren't racist who are painted as such for spurious reasons by people looking for monsters to slay, who then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
>>
Alice Duckdock - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:08:55 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207975
>>So that makes him alt-right?
I'll say it again more clearly so you can understand: I am not making a claim about Peterson's subscription to alt-right beliefs. I am making the claim that alt-right adherents subscribe to Peterson's views because they are ideologically sympathetic. Do you get now how those are two different things? He no like alt-right, alt-right like him. Like how not all web feet are duck, but all duck are web feet. Got it?

>>explain how it is a mis-framing
Debates about whether or not certain kinds of speech ought to have legal ramifications are frequently drowned out by cries of censorship, which is basically Peterson's tactic, he's just more long-winded about it. They all rest on this idea that one should be allowed to say anything, even if saying that thing has disastrous consequences, because the converse, to compel someone to say or not say something, is a more disastrous consequence ethically.

For one this conflates the concepts of belief and speech. We already regulate and compel behavior, and speech is just one kind of behavior, and can influence behavior much more strongly than mere actions can. For the same reason there are certain places and times it is both inappropriate and illegal to shout 'fire!' because that 'speech' directly results in a behavior that harms other people in a legally answerable way, so too are there many other kinds of speech that have direct consequences which someone ought to be legally liable for.

The thought is not being censored or controlled, the idea is not being suppressed from being communicated, it's being suppressed in context where it generates a behavior that ultimately leads to a criminal or civil violation. This is kind of a common sense fact about every day life, that you can't just go around saying whatever and expect there to be no consequences from it, but it's so subtle and nuanced that academics like Peterson or people in general with an agenda against PC attitudes can just stomp all over the nuance by just harping about free speech. It's a bit of a childish tactic because Peterson is well-read enough to know that the debate is more complex than that, that that's not what it's really about, and thus his discourse on the matter is a (intentional) mis-framing.


>>although I don't know what exactly his views on the term would be.
>>sounds like a true believer hurrr hurr
Again, I didn't say he was a believer. I said I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE BELIEVED. You really have your head up your ass and like shadow boxing with shit in there huh?
>>
Basil Clemmleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:24:05 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207988 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207980

Okay, well that's essentially a pointless thing to say, and it doesn't answer the question you were responding to. It didn't explain what he does, nor did it explain the majority of his supporters who have nothing to do with the alt-right at all, as much as some may want to plug their ears and go "la la la" and pretend that only people they can label as bigots support him. I'm sure Bernie Sanders got some support from Communists and the like, should we go after him for that or is that something only a dipshit on Fox News would do? You can probably find shitty people of one form or another who will attach themselves to just about anything. It means nothing.

>They all rest on this idea that one should be allowed to say anything, even if saying that thing has disastrous consequences, because the converse, to compel someone to say or not say something, is a more disastrous consequence ethically.

Anything? No, I've never seen any evidence that he has any issue with the already existing limitations, such as incitements to violence or genocide or saying something in a theater that will cause a stampede. Most people who support free speech generally feel the same way I imagine. The important thing is that if you ARE going to infringe on free speech, it should be for an extremely good reason, and certainly not for the sake of enforcing some sort of political agenda.

>For one this conflates the concepts of belief and speech. We already regulate and compel behavior, and speech is just one kind of behavior

It isn't just one kind of behavior at all. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of western civilization and liberal democracy. Without it everything else collapses, because we use our freedom of speech to talk things through and search for truth and the best course of action. If you're no longer allowed to hash something out because the state has said something is verbotton, you're fucked. And the state itself won't even be operating as well as it could because it isn't taking into consideration any disagreements or issues that may exist surrounding the fundamental presuppositions that they've decided to restrict speech about (such as the faulty assumptions built into Bill C-16).

>For the same reason there are certain places and times it is both inappropriate and illegal to shout 'fire!' because that 'speech' directly results in a behavior that harms other people in a legally answerable way, so too are there many other kinds of speech that have direct consequences which someone ought to be legally liable for.

>it's being suppressed in context where it generates a behavior that ultimately leads to a criminal or civil violation.

Well, yeah, that's what laws are...the issue is whether a law should exist that compels people to speak in a certain way, or embeds into the legal code certain assumptions about sex and biology that aren't sound. That would be a bad thing, and that's why he takes issue with Bill C-16. But you don't even begin to broach that subject.

>This is kind of a common sense fact about every day life, that you can't just go around saying whatever and expect there to be no consequences from it

I don't think anyone has said that at all. There are consequences for anything anyone says. Most of those happen in realms that have nothing to do with the law, as is appropriate. I'm sure he's well aware of this.

>just stomp all over the nuance by just harping about free speech

No one is doing that. The lack of nuance is something you've imagined in your own mind. If you watch his most recent video he spends the first part of it outlining in detail, again, exactly what his problems with the bill are. He didn't spend that time just saying "free speech" over and over again. It's actually quite nuanced! If anyone is lacking in nuance it's the people who make silly, one-dimensional assumptions about people and the things they say and believe as if that makes them true.

>Again, I didn't say he was a believer. I said I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE BELIEVED. You really have your head up your ass and like shadow boxing with shit in there huh?

I wasn't saying you did, just pointing out how absurd the things people say about him and the people who agree with him are, mostly as a response to tweedle dum over there.
>>
Henry Hannerhall - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:03:40 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207988
>>it doesn't answer the question you were responding to
I was answering a question about 'the motivations of him and his ilk.' I offered my opinion on the latter and directly stated I have no knowledge of the former, but you just then decided to tear into me about what HE believed. Did you maybe just realize you thought you were arguing about something that no one was actually arguing with you about? I also never made the case that everyone who supports his ideas was alt-right, I just mentioned them as a large group of his followers, but apparently you took my mere mentioning of them (when their endorsement of him, FOR WHAT LITTLE IT MATTERS, is a recorded fact) as a call to crusade.

To make this even clearer for you, I'm not saying it's good or bad that he has any connection to the alt-right, whatsoever. That's just fine, and my opinion on him does not rest on who else agrees with him or supports him -- those were just surrounding facts about his case. I disagree with his thinking based on it's own merits, irrespective of what other people think about his thinking.

>>never seen any evidence that he has any issue with the already existing limitations, such as incitements to violence or genocide
>>If you're no longer allowed to hash something out because the state has said something is verbotton, you're fucked
What if the political agenda you want to hash out is an incitement to genocide? We've already reached the contradiction point of this argument right there.
If it's true that there are consequences for the things you say, and some of those things lead to violence or genocide, and those things are illegal, then the state has already said hashing out certain things is verboten. So are we fucked? No.

>> he takes issue with Bill C-16. But you don't even begin to broach that subject
I wasn't even trying to get into that with you, but since you insist, Peterson's objection to C-16 is either an accidental or deliberate misunderstanding of the law. He claims that not using people's preferred pronouns would make him a hate criminal, but that's nowhere within the C-16 law, and legal experts who have been asked about it have explicitly stated that he is mis-characterizing both the intent and the actual policy established by the law.
Most of his complaints stem from the fact that he is an employee of the government, dispensing government-funded education. In that sense his speech is very much not free -- it must be within the guidelines established for him as an employee by his employer. So much of his argument is chafing against that, and would not apply to a non-government employee or non-educator.

Lastly and minorly, he claims he could be thrown in prison for not using pronouns correctly. If he was found to be commiting a human rights violation (which, again, misgendering someone is NOT under this law, but would have to be something like advocating the genocide of trans people for this law to apply) he would not face jail time, but at most, a fine or community service. In this way the degree of punishment is entirely appropriate to the corresponding negative consequences, especially when you consider what the guy's job is and who he works for, and so it is entirely within the context of the kinds of limitations we already put on speech, like shouting 'fire.' He's just worried about his job because he has been a belligerent in the PC war for a long time, and he knows the people who sign his checks are on the opposite side of him. That's why he harps on and on about a law that doesn't do what he says it does, nor leads to the bogeyman he's trying to make out of it.

One more thing
>>[Speech] isn't just one kind of behavior at all...it's the cornerstone of western civilization
Get over yourself a bit. Speech is just a behavior of compressing air with our ape meat flaps to get the attention of other apes. Yes yes, our civilization might be dependent on it, but our civilization itself is just composed of a bunch of apes engaging in weird behaviors.
>>
Martin Brissleman - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:16:59 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207976
hey, here's a tip: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf As I said, it's where Peterson gets all his ideas about postmodernism from. It's also a work of propaganda in my eyes.

Marx was a very important figure for almost all of philosophy to follow, as important as Kant, Nietzsche, Freud who were also important to postmodernists. However Marxism is a Modernist ideology, postmodernism is a departure from modernism and thus also from marxism. Again, you would know this if you had the faintest clue about what youre talking about.

There are two main components of an ideology:
>Goals: how society should work
>Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement
Postmodernists prescribe neither. Described in the article as an 'ideological mood' it is cynical and skeptical towards any kind of total theory of society, it is fragmented, decentered and by no means coherent enough to constitute an ideology.

> If you don't see the connections you simply aren't looking hard enough.
This is a game you are playing, you are trying to construct a picture of postmodernism. Now matter how hard you or Peterson or any other reactionary zealot tries you will not convince me of your picture. And I can do the same right back at you
>If you dont see the connections between Peterson (biological essentialism, traditionalism, phobic attitude to socialism, reactionary ideals) and FASCISM well then you just arent looking hard enough.

easy, isnt it?

>The assumption here is that this is in fact the nefarious thing really going on, rather than the reality actually being that it's not simply a case of demographics, because that doesn't even come close to explaining the real complexity of the world. Racists claim not to be racists for silly reasons (the black friend card)but there are also people who aren't racist who are painted as such for spurious reasons by people looking for monsters to slay, who then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
watch the first fucking minute https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBsR7-SiLPY his audience is 90% male.
>>
Martha Sombledid - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:06:51 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207999 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207995
>Marx was a very important figure for almost all of philosophy to follow, as important as Kant, Nietzsche, Freud who were also important to postmodernists. However Marxism is a Modernist ideology, postmodernism is a departure from modernism and thus also from marxism.

This. You'd think those retarded alt-right the future immigrant faggots would understand the basic fact that post-modern philosophy by nature is philosophically opposed to any and all modernist schools of thinking.
>>
Wesley Cruddleworth - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 12:31:18 EST ID:cZOw2tsZ No.208220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207999
this is a thread trying to be aware of rage gratification you know

and also, Marxism is exactly what spawned postmodernism. It didn't fall from the sky....it was designed to be the transition, if not by Marx, by his publishers.
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:54:57 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208220
>>Marxism is exactly what spawned postmodernism
Not whole cloth though, and not for decades. Marx was just part of the intellectual movement of his time, he didn't do anything particularly special that someone else wouldn't eventually have put together on their own. Post-modernism is a logical evolution out of modernism, in fact, a lot of the contradictions in modernism necessitate the generation of post-modernism, as the contradictions in every past phase of thought generated the next, as the contradictions in post-modernism are now generating what is soon to follow.
>>
David Turveystone - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:48:03 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208222 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208221
Marx kind of did do something special. He had a philosophy kindred to hegel's before hegel was well published. That we can know can compare both of their writings from their youth.

The entire point about in order for a thing to be called an idea it must be free, and that can't be the state because the state is like a cog in a machine. That what people miss is the greek version of a state a religious living organism, or "community."

Hegel wrote that people's spriit was trapped by giving it to the state because that idea requried for knowledge of self or self prescene, self certainty, always already spirit won't work. Because the idea isn't free, in logic or in the idea in itself the state always sends spirit to the same places.

Marx was able to convert that idea to a materialistic conception. The state leads to means going to the same material places, and the same effect happens to individuals. Essentially making the master and slave relationship somewhat permanent.
>>
David Turveystone - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:57:01 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208222
That's why people are anti-idealists or conceptionists of ideals the way they are today. Like slavoi zizek. In other chariteristics like zizek's conception of an atomospheric absolute skull going through phases of culiminations of itself he is an idealist, because he is hegelian in that sense. What Hegel is saying before that movement took off is idealists were more divided by being defined by physical or by idea. Hegel metaphysically could be said to say that ideas are what are really real. But he and also marx are not idealists the way we envision, and that is what the state passage in hegel's philsophy is about. What is a trapping in ideals, is more about how state is not suitable to be called an idea or be the ideal in other words. Because it as an idea isn't free.

Plus the other proof against that is that in hegel and marx, negativity or antithesis takes part leading to sublimation, subsuming, synthesis, or the next stage.

That's different than ideal as we are judging it today.
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:12:22 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208222
Well yes it was special that he did it, but it was an idea waiting for someone to discover it, that was inherent in ideas such as Hegel's (who, himself, really only made a characterization that was waiting to be made.) I'm not discounting Marx's achievement, I'm just stating that he didn't create post-modernism in its entirety. He himself was a cog in the machine of the evolution of human thought; modernism was already in effect, post-modernism was eventually inevitably going to emerge, no matter who in particular was involved.
>>
Wesley Habblewater - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:55:25 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208224
He was a cog in human thought. But as much as the idea was big enough that it needed to be found, Marx was intelligent enough in his seeking that he found it.

It's important to give them credit. In the same way that we should give musicians credit. It's not as easy to say works of creativity would be here from one artist or another because they were embued with so much of the living being that did them, that even if they articulated a form and a genre that later changed music, we still would not say it.

But the same is true of hegel and marx.

They actually figured out the these philosophies just as much because of creativity and the expeiriences and people they had in there lives. If hegel hadn't had his sister, christiane or schlegel his college friend, it's not as easy to say he would have worked out the idea of divisions of thought the way he did. But being as touched by schizophrenia as he was, he did. In the same way it's not easy to say we would have had the phenomenology of spirit without hegel.
>>
Wesley Habblewater - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:57:30 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208225
not schlegel but Holderlein.
>>
Cyril Gingerhood - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:28:41 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208225
Again, I really don't want to minimize Marx's achievement in any way. But you can't tell me that post-modernism wouldn't exist if Marx hadn't existed, which was my point in saying that in the first place.

Also, to your comment about musicians; yes, if Mozart had never lived, I don't think we would have his symphonies. But, if Euclid never lived, we would still have the laws of geometry more or less as we have them now. One comes wholly from the individual (as an element of course of the artistic movement of their times) while the other is purely a discovery in ideal space which can always be made.

I would suggest that political ideas like Marx's fall somewhere in between these two in the spectrum, where there is a certain 'thereness' which will inevitably be discovered, mixed with the unique qualities of that individual in bringing them to light.
>>
Nigel Gepperpad - Sat, 10 Jun 2017 04:19:16 EST ID:TXzq2wrO No.208228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208227
Exactly.

Human ideas and inventions are just like evolutionary features. Doesn't matter which animal evolves the features, they'll show up eventually. And they will keep showing up among multiple species throughout time.

Reality as is enforces that certain thoughts are constructed, and certain inventions are made.
>>
Sidney Brookway - Mon, 12 Jun 2017 23:03:51 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208229 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And i thought this was about getting angry and beating off.
>>
Shit Carryfield - Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:52:41 EST ID:jDHD98qF No.208254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1498258361903.jpg -(118021B / 115.25KB, 540x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207915
>we don't have records of the kind of awful shit people might shout at you in the street in ancient Athens
Just an interesting note; we kind of do have this. Or more accurately, we have some graffiti from Ancient Rome, and it's actually pretty similar to modern day bullshit. Like one example says 'Theophilus, don’t perform oral sex on girls against the city wall like a dog' and If anyone sits here, let him read this first of all: if anyone wants a screw, he should look for Attice; she costs 4 sestertii'. So perhaps you are right, at least in your idea that people then and people now are basically the same then and now.



I wrote an essay a while back saying something similar, in fact. That rather than the tail end of human existence, this is just a new stage of humanity. We're just getting the truth faster and harder than people ever have before. And yes, that sudden new burst of stimuli kinda fucks with your ability to function. We need to get used to dealing with all this new information, learn how to exist with it. Most of human behavior is learned, in fact some very credible scientists think that even emotions may be learned(not that they don't exist, but happy/sad/angry/etc are made up ways to represent thousands of brain states that could be classified differently). It's sorta like we hit (another) puberty as an entire race. Now's that awkward period where we're insufferably and maybe even a bit self-harming as we learn to deal with these new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting.

I mean people thought New York City was coming to an end a while ago. The Economist Thomas Malthus predicted that it'd be buried in horse shit. Because you know, when the main mode of transportation for a major city shits multiple times a day it's only a matter of time before it all builds up. And apparently it was believable because the streets really were filling up with horse shit. But then someone came up with the car, and those worries disappeared. Ingenuity saved the day then, and I don't see any reason why human ingenuity won't likely save the day now. Whether it's in the form of some ridiculously awesome invention, or just people learning to live with one another.

And learning to live with one another is the main thing. I see all sorts of people throwing around all sorts of phrases. Alt-rightism, post-modernism, ancapism, libertarianism, etc etc etc but it's all bullshit. We have two hundred posts of that here but all it ended up as an academic exercise that amounts to the debate version of ping pong. And that's what happens every time.


If you really wanna solve anything you have to ask why that is. Why can't we all sit down and have a discussion as humans about connectedness and humanity? Are we too jaded as a culture to have a sincere discussion about love without nullifying it every five minutes? Is it just too boring, would we rather entertain ourselves arguing about subjects where we can yell about Postmodernism and namedrop Hegel and Nietzsche?

I know that sounds stupid and lame and whatever, but I know it works from personal experience. I won't give too many details to prevent another flame war, but I'm part of a minority group and I'm part of organizations that ally with other groups, minority and otherwise, to work together and affect positive change. Even though there's a lot more talk of caring about one another than political theory, we've gotten some pretty big changes in police departments and the way they handle mental illness, in affordable housing, and in other stuff. All that to say, I'm beginning to doubt that acting like you know better than everyone else is REALLY the best way to improve things. Don't get me wrong, I grew up on the internet so that stuff comes second nature to me as much as anyone else here. But I'm finding that making real change is a lot more lame and less-impassioned than a philosophical debate on post-structuralism.
>>
James Finnerwater - Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:47:08 EST ID:3LVcJZJN No.208257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208254
Doesn't it fellate the anger that the demand stays in place while the means falls apart.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.