Entertaining. I don't know enough about Peterson to really appraise the video, though.
I disagree with the statement that people flock to perterson out of self help daddy, but rather videos like him talking to a sjw and how bat shit crazy and wanting someone to make sense of it while not looking like a piece of shit themselves kinda of daddy.
And in that respect he's a snake oil salesman. He lacks even a basic understanding of the concepts he's become popular for criticizing. His whole routine is just typical right-wing scaremongering with some words he overheard his colleagues use thrown in.
This was really thoughtful. ContraPoints is always good shit.
All I could think about was Peterson watching this, and how he's going to react to that mannequin whatever with his name on it.
"something something postmodern neo-marxist assassination attempts!"
I always look forward to Contras videos whenever I get a notification about them. Well produced, entertaining, educational and always weird.
I don't get what people are so excited about with this video? It took thirty minutes for her to essentially say that Peterson is wrong about "post-modern neo-Marxism" because post-modernism and Marxism are hypothetically opposing philosophies, but doesn't seem to really critique any of his actual ideology or views beyond this disagreement over wording, which isn't even absolute. I agree Peterson defines "post-modern neo-Marxism" too loosely and really overuses the term, but even then I think it's pretty obvious what he's talking about when he applies it: people who use post-modern thinking to question, invalidate and break down existing structures and principles in society, and then rebuild them in a way that suits themselves according to a more collectivist and somewhat authoritarian mindset.
Aside from that, her criticism of his Cathy Newman debate example was flawed from the start; "Peterson says something basically agreeable but implies something else on top of it, so your only debate options are to argue against something fundamentally true or try and guess what he means". First off, what happened to the third option of asking him for clarification? If you're debating someone and you think they're sneakily implying something, you do actually have the option of discussing it further instead of going for the two extreme retard-poles of debate. Her example of these sneaky implications is him saying "there are biological differences between men and women", and she says the implication in the context of "women in the workplace" is that clearly women suck at being CEO's and government officials because of biology.. Which isn't at all what he's implying, and he even explicitly says otherwise in the very same Cathy Newman interview. There is no implication that biology makes women less useful or competent at work, there's no implication at all: he clearly makes the case that biological dispositions to certain psychological traits like dominance and assertiveness influence whether women reach high roles, which is what the conversation was about. To claim that he's implying women just suck because of biology and there's no way for us to confirm or deny this sneaky agenda of his is flat out wrong and super deceitful tbh.
I really feel like I must be missing something here because this just felt like 30 minutes of "haha lol i read philosophy" and sex jokes, with a really bad mischaracterization of a single Peterson Point™ slipped in near the end.
Jordan Peterson, like contra correctly pointed out, does not have any real ideology. He speaks and says nothing. You can't criticize a person who says nothing of substance
Seemed like her main point was that although JP has some valid criticisms of the left, he mostly just echoes vague, contemporary conservative talking points under the guise of intellectualism while baiting his opponents into making leftwing ideals look bad.
I mean, really? I don't think people would bother taking the time to call him all sorts of names and vehemently disagree with him if there were nothing to disagree with. Saying that he doesn't have an ideology is just kinda silly. You can disagree with that ideology but.. I don't really know where you're getting the idea that an obvious ideologue and "philosopher" (not trying to use that in a necessarily positive way but still) has no ideology.
It's simple.
Whenever any person wants to counter argue to JBP they want to grasp on to his ideas
IE:
Minorities need to fix their own conditions & we shouldn't help them
It's normal and good for some people to live super shitty short lives and others to be ultra rich
Women should go back to the 50's gender roles
Women are partly responsible for their own sexual assault
We should all be christian and believe in god
But they're always grasping at straws because there's always two miles of leeway for interpretation because he only heavily implies some things rather than stating them. That's why people say that he has no ideas, it's because pretty much everything he says is a motte and bailey and it really makes things annoying.
This was all explained in the video of course.
So what's left is to show him being blatantly wrong and or blatantly hypocritical but then they say "well you're not engaging with his ideas!"
I don't know enough about Peterson to say anything for sure, but I think he has a point in some ways. I watched a debate between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty recently, and one of Matt's comments on it after the fact was that it's hard to pin down what Peterson actually thinks, at least in this case he just talked at length in vague terms without really getting very far at all.
I feel bad for you if that's all you gathered from this video. After an opening that explains the things Jordan Peterson gets right about leftist and progressive politics and saying that for some people his message can be quite valuable she more or less cleanly dismantles his arguments about the totalitarian left and "postmodern neo-Marxism" climaxing, in my opinion, when she reads from a post-modern feminist that word for word sounds like something Jordan Peterson and people on the right would say about "SJW's". It's far and away the best rebuttal to Peterson's criticisms of the left that I've seen personally. If you have a better one though I'm eager to check it out. This was the first Contrapoints video I've seen and it was thoroughly engrossing.
Tangential thought not really relevant to the video itself: I really liked the part where Dave Rubin, the Great Moderate, was having a three way conversation with two right-wingers. What a great illustration of the last two years.
ill never stop being baffled at how sure people are when making these claims. The idea itself of a clinical psychologist who became an inspiration for people by just saying nothing is a vastly ignorant observation of someone rephrasing existent ideas to communicate them in the best way to people who are seeking a philosophy and meaning in the current state of mind. Its a very easy way to destroy the efforts of synthesis that have very well worked for Peterson the past year.
Of course i dont agree with everything he says and a bunch of his ideas arent actually claims i would support. I also believe you dont hate on all a guy represents just because hes part of something you dont agree. I found Peterson in a state of mind where a lot of his classes gave me lots of focus on how i was living, and how i was being blind on a certain extent about what i wanted and how i was planning on doing that, and why i could grasp my suffering in all that jazz. I assure you lots of people are agreeing with him harder than i am, and ignoring that fact by giving him only credit as a trickery spokesperson who has nothing to say but has his way with words is dangerously ignoring a more complex truth behind why hes working for a lot of people.
At this points, friend also point out he as a right winged moron who hates fags and you cant also ignore that lots of his claims, in a surface level, can be used for conservative morons as bias confirmation of male superiority on biological facts, which is not at all what you get from Peterson if you listen to him more than 3 minutes into his lectures.
All i would say is that you can miss this guy by a mile by surface talking about him rather than listening to him. As myself, i have.
Hmm, you know this looks pretty similar to that whole thing where someone where a charismatic figure uses a benign self-help philosophy to easy people into ignoring or accepting their other, more malicious views. I guess we'll just have to see if people start turning up dead in puddles of Flavor-Aid at the Peterson Ranch.
Another example I can think of when it comes to him "baiting" in the Cathy Newman interview was when he stated that the philosophy that guides trans activists is the same philosophy used by Mao and Communist Russia to imprison and murder millions of people. When you, reasonably, ask how trans-activism could lead to gulags he says it doesn't directly, just the underlining philosophies. When you respond that this philosophy hasn't lead to the deaths of millions Peterson interjects with a "Not yet", where the implication is that people who follow that philosphy will lead their societies to the same dark futures as those communists ones. It's reasonable to infer this from Petersons comments because philosophy alone can't lead to this conclusion; someone has to be "pulling the levers" as it were under those philosophical underpinnings. It's smoke and mirrors, where the objective is to take trans-activism (which you can replace with with basically any leftist or progressive stance) and tie it to the nightmare of Stalinism or Mao, while leaving yourself an out.
The perk of psychology is you know how to sway people's emotions, read them, and pull them into traps. One of the first things you learn as a cop is being able to do all 3. Just because jordan went to school and got it that way, doesn't somehow make his points valid. Like said in the video, he uses his psychology to pull people in by stating very obvious and agreeable points, then traps you into thinking his absolute bonkers ideas that make no sense down to the wording. How does allowing trans people being able to be called by their preferred pronouns end up with a fucking dictator chopping heads? Why does a woman get partially blamed for being raped because she wore something that turned on someone? What does christian values have to do with improving your life? why is forcing your kid to be the way you want them to be a good thing?
Like great, if jordan somehow gave you insight into your life and how to improve it, great. But the entirety of what i just said proves the dude is a fucking nutter. Life is suffering, but majority of people realize this, and put goals in their lives to have purpose. That's what makes him dangerous, and he knows how hes doing it. He lures you in with easy to obtain, common info, then sinks in his more insane nonsense passively with loaded questions.
Also a PHD doesn't mean you're suddenly more intelligent or right, jordan uses it as a crutch to get recognition and confirmation from people who don't know better.
I don't get why does it matter whether Peterson has an ideology or not, clearly all that matters is that he is not very articulate about the fine points of it unless pressed and is content to leave people guessing and embarrassing themselves as it plays into strengthening his rhetorical position by comparison.
He is also content, whether maliciously or by ignorance, to misuse certain terms and mischaracterize both other positions and concepts whenever he sees fit in a way that makes his narrative more coherent, as has been made clear in this video with the strange term "postmodern neo-marxist" which relies on connotation more than any accurate interpretation and understanding of either postmodernism or neo-marxism. That he considers a unity of underlying philosophy running everything he opposes can be made clear for listening to several of his lectures, as the pattern makes itself evident pretty early on, even if he does consider some who have fallen into the influence of this grand memetic demon as unwitting tools for agendas against their interests.
What does it matter that he has a point if he consistently shows to misuse terms for his own benefit, instead of maybe for one second attempt to understand he does not know as much as he takes himself for knowing, and that he might have gotten some things wrong? He misleads others, for whatever reason, and this bothers me. If you seek great self help you would be equally well served looking elsewhere, preferably the works of dead people who have nothing to gain from the social power becoming such a guru affords them, which would at least counteract the potential of getting bamboozled by this man.
As was said earlier in many threads where this topic has been tackled, everything JBP says was said earlier by others with both more depth and eloquence and with a lot less controversy. Which to be fair is the real problem I have with this guy, he stops people from reading texts of actual worth by posing as some enlightening middleman who will make you smarter by just listening to a lecture or two, perhaps even buying a book of his on the side (again, whether he does this knowingly or not is irrelevant to the fact he clearly should have noticed this effect by now).
What? I definitely never got any of those from what I've heard of JBP.. Have you considered maybe he doesn't think these things that you seem to think he's implying?
This is pretty funny to watch, because she's trying to conceptualize all the subjects in question (neo-marxism, marxism, postmodernism, modernism etc) under the reasoning of group/class identity. And is so entrenched within that position, fails to recognize it in any capacity. Despite this being Peterson's fundamental objection, and thus fails to confront any of his actual arguments.
For example, she posits that marxists, postmodernist feminists and so on are mutually antithetical groups with no common grounds or interests. Despite however, these being offshoots of the same underlying body of reasoning, all predicated on vanilla OG Marxism. The fundamental issue here is that all these bodies of reason are slight variation on the marxist assumption that class/group membership/identity is paramount (dichotomized against the individual), and that society is simply an assembly of these groups with mutually antithetical interests that will inevitably engage in continuous class conflict to advance each group's interests, invariably at the expense of the other classes, which will inevitibly result in chronic oppression of the weaker group by the dominant. In classic marxism, that's the Bougia and the proletariat, and in postmodernism, simply groups arbitrarily designated oppressor and the oppressed, which we'll get back to. They may disagree on the conceptual framework with which to apply this reasoning, but the axiomatic claims remain the same, and those claims are the true problem, so it doesn't matter how much you fractionate it's children into distinct groups, their common traits make them different manifestations of the same problem/reasoning.
Furthermore, her definitions of the terms "neo-marxism" and "postmodernism" are wrong and misleading, again as a consequence of her operating within the group identity position to begin with. Firstly, she describes neo marxism simply as marxism. Which is bizarre, since why would there be a distinction if they're the same thing? Neo-marxism is simply using marxist reasoning upon arbitrarily designated groups/classes within the postmodernist power game model of society, which i'll get to, as opposed to 'merely' constrained to economic classes as in vanilla marxism. So her definition is simply completely wrong.
Secondly, she only describes half of postmodernism's foundations, and fails to elaborate on the significance of what she does describe. And simply ignores the other half of the body, which isactually the very foundation for contemporary identity politics, despite the claim of "There's nothing postmodern about identity politics". But let's address the first claim about postmodernism first.
Though she does briefly touch on the true claims of postmodernism while comparing it to modernism, she surmises it as "the argument that there can be no grand narratives about humanity/reality". Which is partially true, but not a proper conveying of the claim. The proper claim, which is based on Kant/Hagel's contention against the renaissance and early modernism, is that there can be no objective perception of reality, as you cannot ever entirely detract subjective elements from perception, thereby undermining the concept of objectivity. And that therefore, the idea of objective or transcendent truth is impossible, leaving only the subjective experience of the individual. Though before turning into postmodernism, these ideas passed through the hands of people like Schopenhauer, Heidegger and so on, which is how the idea progressed from Kant's simple "Critique of Pure Reason" (an argument against pure apriori assumptions, though mostly reasonable i find some pretty troubling conclusions in it) to the notion that objective truth is a tool of oppression, as claimed by people like Foucault. So to wrap it all up tightly, the postmodernist claim is not a mild or casual skepticism of absolute knowledge or empirical truth, but a rejection of the idea of universal truth in it's entirety, leaving only subjective perception and arbitrary claims.
But if it was merely that, we wouldn't have a problem. They would claim that objective truths/reality are fallistic, and impossible. And the rest of us would look up from our predictive models of reality, and our technologically advanced age predicated on and a product of the assumption of objective truths, and laugh. But the postmodernists have another claim, the important one that makes postmodernism into an ideological and sociological body, and the one being left out here. And this claim is a product of what happens if you ask "If there's no such thing as a transcendent truth, then how can there be a universal morality?" And this not only applies to modes of behavior, such as "healthy" behaviour, or behavior you could identify as part of the transcendent good, but to the very structure of our society. Our society today is predicated on the modernist set of axioms, primarily that of transcendent good and universal truth. The primary of which is the idea of universal rights at the level of the individual, as opposed to a caste system of different groups operating on entirely distinct principals and standards.
This disparity can be illustrated by comparing modernism's view of reality, with postmodernism's, as initially described by Hagel. Under modernism, all people are subjects of reality, which is an external universal constant, within which we function and are subject to it's rigid nature. But Hegel was the first (in an attempt to sort out problems with Kant's claims about universal abstract truths) to describe subjective reality, as reality being subject to our perceptions, as reality is what we percieve the world to be. Now what this means is, universal truth then cannot exist, as it's predicated on the assumption that external reality is something we can operate ideally within, due to it's rigid and universal nature. But if it's subjective, then that cannot be true, which left the postmodernists (then called Irrationalists) with the problem of "well what the fuck do we do in reality then?". And ultimately, (and we're skipping forward about 50 years here) the answer was that there is no transcendent good for all people to work towards, meaning that thus there's no such thing as mutual interest, and thus, any interests one persues, must ultimately be at the direct expense and consequence of another person/group. Which ultimately leads us to zero sum game group power dynamics, which is where the marxism steps in, and how we get to identity politics.
Now of the postmodernist figureheads, Foccault best embodies the following reasoning, particularly with his ideas of "marginalization" and his characterization of what he believes claims to "truth" are, which contrapoints breifly touches on here. If there's no such things as a mutual and universal good to work towards, everyone or any group who acts in self interest must be doing so at the expense of others, typically willfully. Meaning that any action for self interest is therefore an act of opression against all others. And foccault therefore called claims to universal truths, and indeed the concept of universal truth itself, are simply tools of the west to oppress all other cultures and beliefs. And likewise, any action by the arbitrarily defined "dominant " group is an act of oppression against all others, which he deemed "Marginalization." And this is where we get the claim that all groups must act in terms of power politics against all other groups to sustain themselves.
But how to model and describe the power politics? How to describe a mode of morality to account for this state of being?
Well that's where the marxism comes in. As Derrida so happily and so publically stated, ultimately, postmodernism was a willfull attempt to renovate classic marxism in light of it's failings when used on economic classes, and reapply it to their newly discovered reality of antithetical groups acting against each other under Machiavellian power games. We have groups, we have power games, we have active opression, just remove the economic labels, nest it in postmodernist claims, and hey presto, we have neo-marxism.
But how does this relate to my claim that identity politics/Social Justice and marxists are all under the same umbrella, despite the counter claim made here?
Well, she is right to say that postmodern feminism/Social justice and "traditional" marxist feminism/social justice do have a slight problem in that one claims that whatever group desegnation is a collective political body that needs to campaign for their own unique interests, and the postmodernists say "well that group is an arbitrary social construct and therefore may or may not exist". But i contest that they're both operating under the core postmodernist assumption that society is comprised of combative and mutually antithetical groups that must engague in power games that result in class based oppresion, meaning that they very easily fall under the same central category of neo-marxist, and the only difference between the two is the degree to which they believe in social constructivism. The postmodernists simply going muuuuuuuuuuuch farther, contesting that basic biology is a social construct because reasons. Or not, because reasons are a tool of oppression so fuck you that's why.
All this to destroy her claim that "The idea of postmodernist/neo-marxist identity politics is a unifying concept of the left is wrong" is wrong. Though i would describe it as "anyone with equality of outcome as their highest goal", or perhaps just "The radical/illberal left"
As for the rest of her claims about peterson. Well i won't put words in anyone's mouth. In regards to the claim that peterson claims "Transgender activism will lead to stalinism", you can make your own mind up as to the claims he was presenting.
I don't feel that she really did dismantle anything of his. Merely disagreeing with the phrase "post-modern neo-Marxism" on the grounds that "post modernism is against big ideas; Marxism is a big idea" doesn't really feel like much of a dismantling, it just makes me think they're not even trying to understand what he means when he uses the phrase (which I tried to address in my first comment). The fact that a singular post-modern feminist is reasonable and holds an opinion that JBP might hypothetically agree with also doesn't magically invalidate his criticisms of other left-wing people. It'd be like trying to say there's no criticism to be made of Republicans because there's a few good ones; yeah, not every single person in _____ group strictly adheres to the box we draw over groups, but we're generalizing because it is useful to us to speak of a majority, or at least of a distinct subset of people we think are problematic. Like, can someone explain to me what in this video painted JBP as being "wrong", other than a semantic disagreement over the term "post-modern neo-Marxism"? Because it seems like beyond that, none of the actual arguments JBP usually makes were addressed.
are you trilby harlow
This is incorrect, Neo-marxism does not in any way necessitate the use of postmodern conceptions of the relationship between power and truth. Do you have any proof for this?
Foucault was merely skeptical of any claims to universal truth being untainted by the lens of power/authority dictating them, as he has demonstrated was used in the past with the term of "madness". That is to say that there is in his view (and the view of others, like arguably Derrida) no way to outrun bias in an attempt to describe objective truth, nothing new when it comes to epistemological skepticism at its base.
No, """they""" (demonstrate who exactly, as not all postmodernists agree on this point fully) claim that it is naive to assume one can outrun the subjectivity inherent in language in describing objective reality (Foucault obviously said more than this, this would be simply a somewhat faulty connecting thread between those grouped as postmodern philosophers) when deciding what is healthy and what is true is very useful for maintaining a social status quo. Groups, under a proper critical postmodernist view, would be as illusory and arbitrary as those society already claims exist, which undermines the very idea of identity politics (and historically, Foucault for instance caused some controversy by his line of thinking coming into clear conflict with idpol)
Postmodernism in this context is merely epistemological pessimism. Predictive scientific models are very clearly approximations, not objective truth, as is necessitated by their validity hanging on falsifiability.
This is more correct than the points you describe elsewhere, but again it would be wrong to assume most postmodernists claimed there is no objective grounds to existence, only that any conception of the universal derived either empirically or from ideals will always be polluted by the political (in the sense of the social status quo) to some level (some took it further than others, but the postmodern outlook does not necessitate taking it that far). Basically, they would deny Randian Objectivism and Scientism, but to go further depends on the specific pomo doing the talking.
From my understanding, he merely posits that anyone who falls outside of normativity as dictated by the powers that be will inevitably be oppressed, and that to promote a new view of normativity is to necessarily play with power. If you have more sources on this I would appreciate if you linked them here.
Not postmodernism, a term he himself hasn't really used, but deconstruction, and it is not an attempt to "renovate marxism" but rather a continuation, in his mind perhaps less dogmatic, of marxian critique, that is a break from many marxist assumptions. To call him neo-marxist is misleading in that he disagrees with core concepts put forward by marx (the pillar being his grand narrative of progress and the struggle and eventual victory of the proletariat). Power was more the domain of discourse of Foucault, Derrida was more interested in the relation between language and reality.
No, postmodernists (again you use this as a single category when its a very, very broad umbrella of sometimes mutually exclusive views, but I will entertain this use of the term) might contend that even basic truths as formulated by the science of biology might be compromised by the interplay of knowledge and power, language and meaning. To claim otherwise is at best a description of one view derived from postmodernism, and at worst an overarching strawman to easily combat.
I take it you haven't really read any postmodernist philosopher to a point of sufficient understanding as my points here would be a lot more evident, but rather listened to Peterson and others speak on this subject. This is precisely what bothers me about JBP, and others like him - namely, that people take them at their word rather than engaging with the actual first-hand theories.
If I'm wrong on any of this, please correct me with sufficient backing in the actual texts, as I would like to learn from any such mistakes as I might have made by stating any of this.
From your post I can tell that you have never watched a single Jordan Peterson video and just read some buzzfeed article filled with nothing but lies. For example, you say that Peterson believes that allowing trans people being called by their preferred way leads to dictatorship. If you watched even one video/podcast where he speaks about the matter you would know that he clearly states he does not object to this. He objects to the state forcing people to call trans persons by specific pronouns because it's clearly Orwellian for any government to control speech.
I also like how you just asked a bunch of passively loaded questions while criticizing Peterson for doing the same thing.
I think we can both agree that it would be good if people didn't inflict psychological harm on a group that has been historically marginalized, right?
I wouldn't say snake oil salesman, you have something to promote like a tv program, comedy tour, book, etc to get on talk shows and news programs, I don't remember to name of it or lingo but you do have a person who helps you get booked on said program, (podcasts like h3h3 are more reform). Once you get booked, the subject matter during the interview can be whatever especially matters not related to what you're promoting. For instance him on bill maur, he talked about his self help advice book and talked about problems in/with social justice which bill maur also has problems with.
The contra video acknowledges problems with academia, but it isn't to be described as post modern neo-marxism. So jordan peterson get's some of the low hanging fruit but it's not getting the right creek with piss coming down stream. And the low hanging fruit which sane people see, is forbidden by people not helping.
For instance, he might comment on the "my culture is not your prom dress", where his physiological background can give how this is hurtful and how bullies will shame. Him saying, "he's this kinda of bully now, because he's brainwashed by a post modern neo marxist agenda", contrapoints gives the argument to be incorrect.
I do see someone else better suited for the idea, "he's not qualified for anything he's talking about" is ben carson, a neurosurgeon who turned to politics.
On a different topic to this video, I do like this because it points out yes and no and explains why to the no, (I know more now about post modernism now). Also never saw him as the daddy figure until now, which is a good point.
But that's the point, hes saying having protections for trans people who are harassed will somehow lead to a Orwellian nightmare just because it prohibits hate speech. Its absolutely bonkers, and thanks for proving my point. Its not the government controlling speech, its the gov telling you that you can't be a cunt to this person on purpose. Wow, sounds a lot like racial hate speech. Are you going to protest down the street because you can go up to black people and call them niggers without getting arrested? Of course not, why shouldn't the same be applied for trans people too. I already know, because trans people are icky and weird. And in Jordan's mind (which has been discredited multiple times) transgenderisim is a disease and should be repressed instead of being encouraged.
I've seen videos and interviews, every single time he does exactly what i said he does (nice buzzfeed accusation lol). Easy to agree answers, loaded questions to push his bullshit ideas, and retreating to his PHD/"such an intellectual" card when people don't fall for the loaded question. The man is a giant fraud, and there's literal hundreds of actual intellectuals who would easily discredit him while not pushing insane nonsense as "having the country tell people that purposely harassing a person is Orwellian" all the time.
All this is funny considering you are so worried about shit like Marxism, but turning a blind eye to the actual Orwellian nightmare that's happening in the government as we speak.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
