Jordan Peterson debate on the Gender pay gap, Campus protests and Postmodernism - General

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067306]There are plenty of things in society that override our instincts without anything bad resulting from it. Going against instinctual urges [I]is[/I] human nature. You're operating on the baseless assumption that any system that counteracts human instincts is doomed to fail, and conclude that any attempt to counter our intrinsic flaws will be fruitless.[/QUOTE] This is a fallacy. Just because going against your instincts works sometimes, doesn't mean it will work every time. Hierarchies in human society still exist for a reason, if they weren't they would be phased out already. They are efficient. For example, if you have one army with a clear chain of command and another army that's just a bunch of guys with rifles and everyone is equal, then it's pretty obvious which one one would win a war. That and any attempt to remove a hierarchical structure would create a power vacuum, almost by definition.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53067328]This is a fallacy. Just because going against your instincts works sometimes, doesn't mean it will work every time.[/QUOTE] You're misinterpreting the argument. Its purpose isn't to prove that hierarchies are dispensable, but to disprove the notion that humans instinctively building hierarchies means hierarchies are necessary. [QUOTE]For example, if you have one army with a clear chain of command and another army that's just a bunch of guys with rifles and everyone is equal, then it's pretty obvious which one one would win a war.[/QUOTE] Why do people keep bringing up the military when it's obviously a special case? War requires quasi-instant coordination, something that isn't a requirement in the vast majority of civilian enterprises. Even in our highly hierarchical society, you'll have a hard time finding a civilian hierarchy as strict as the military. [QUOTE]That and any attempt to remove a hierarchical structure would create a power vacuum, almost by definition.[/QUOTE] That's like saying that replacing a dictatorship with a democracy will create a power vacuum. Less hierarchy doesn't mean less structure and rules. [QUOTE]Hierarchies in human society still exist for a reason, if they weren't they would be phased out already. They are efficient.[/QUOTE] "Horses in human society still exist for a reason, if they weren't they would be phased out already. They are efficient." said a man before the invention of the automobile. Did you read my post? Even if "it's the only currently existing structure thus it's necessary" were a receivable argument, it would be disproved by the fact that companies which do away with the traditional hierarchical structures and thrive regardless [I]already exist[/I]. Rigid hierarchies have flaws too. They create an information bottleneck near the top which leads to problematic decisions in large structures because the top layers is too removed from the concerns and issues of the bottom ones. Employee satisfaction is also abysmal in companies with very rigid hierarchies that leave no wiggle room. Turns out giving more individual responsibility to every employee, despite the so-called 'fact' that we're wired to function in hierarchical structures and nothing else, ends up greatly increasing they satisfaction with their job [I]and[/I] increases efficiency as long as decentralization is correctly set up.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067471]You're misinterpreting the argument. Its purpose isn't to prove that hierarchies are dispensable, but to disprove the notion that humans instinctively building hierarchies means hierarchies are necessary.[/quote] What? That's exactly the same thing, you're trying to prove that hierarchies are dispensable regardless [QUOTE=_Axel;53067471]Why do people keep bringing up the military when it's obviously a special case? War requires quasi-instant coordination, something that isn't a requirement in the vast majority of civilian enterprises. Even in our highly hierarchical society, you'll have a hard time finding a civilian hierarchy as strict as the military.[/QUOTE] Civilians also need coordination [QUOTE=_Axel;53067471]That's like saying that replacing a dictatorship with a democracy will create a power vacuum. Less hierarchy doesn't mean less structure and rules.[/QUOTE] Representative democracies are still absolutely hierarchical, so no, they don't create a power vacuum. [QUOTE=_Axel;53067471]"Horses in human society still exist for a reason, if they weren't they would be phased out already. They are efficient." said a man before the invention of the automobile. Did you read my post?[/QUOTE] This is not an argument, it might make for a sick zinger, but you can't actually convince anyone with this. You can take any retarded idea and make it sound like the next big paradigm shift with this. [QUOTE=_Axel;53067471]Even if "it's the only currently existing structure thus it's necessary" were a receivable argument, it would be disproved by the fact that companies which do away with the traditional hierarchical structures and thrive regardless [I]already exist[/I]. Rigid hierarchies have flaws too. They create an information bottleneck near the top which leads to problematic decisions in large structures because the top layers is too removed from the concerns and issues of the bottom ones. Employee satisfaction is also abysmal in companies with very rigid hierarchies that leave no wiggle room. Turns out giving more individual responsibility to every employee, despite the so-called 'fact' that we're wired to function in hierarchical structures and nothing else, ends up greatly increasing they satisfaction with their job [I]and[/I] increases efficiency as long as decentralization is correctly set up.[/QUOTE] Which companies did away with hierarchy completely and still thrive? I can not think of a single example. You'll probably say Valve, but that's not true. If you read the credits of any Valve game, it still has lead programmers, lead writers, lead artists, etc. Give me an example.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067471] Why do people keep bringing up the military when it's obviously a special case? War requires quasi-instant coordination, something that isn't a requirement in the vast majority of civilian enterprises. Even in our highly hierarchical society, you'll have a hard time finding a civilian hierarchy as strict as the military. [/QUOTE] My guess is because it's a very convenient example. It's indeed extreme, but not that far off the scale that there's just no comparison. Count in civic security/public order, government, many communication-intensive industries too (mining, heavy industry, various types of power-related industries), some financial organizations. None of these are quite as extreme as military, but all require hierarchy just to function. Like, there're indeed tons of examples of decentralized structures being more efficient, and then there're structures that outright demand centralization. Haven't we seen this kind of back-and-forth discussions too many times? Bringing examples kinda doesn't work as an argument when discussing the pro's and con's of hierarchies in human societies simply due to variation in our activities. There have to be other arguments, which I personally don't know tbh. It's just that [i]this one[/i] leads to circular discussion, wastes everyone's time and participants just picks favorite examples and stick to them.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53067552]What? That's exactly the same thing, you're trying to prove that hierarchies are dispensable regardless[/QUOTE] No, that's not the same thing. I really don't know how to point that out to you more explicitly, other than suggest you take a course in logic and argumentation. [QUOTE]Civilians also need coordination[/QUOTE] Not instant coordination that explicitly require a strict hierarchy. Current companies have varying degrees of hierarchical stiffness, none of which matches the rigidity of the military. [QUOTE]Representative democracies are still absolutely hierarchical, so no, they don't create a power vacuum.[/QUOTE] A typical hierarchy (IE dictatorship) is a pyramid with a single or a few individual at the top. In a democracy, the individuals 'at the top' are elected by those 'at the bottom'. Technically, the people are the governments' boss more than the other way around. Similarly, alternatives to hierarchical structures are [I]still[/I] structures, with rules and processes. To argue that those alternatives create a power vacuum ignores the fact that they still are structures with checks and balances. [QUOTE]This is not an argument, it might make for a sick zinger, but you can't actually convince anyone with this. You can take any retarded idea and make it sound like the next big paradigm shift with this.[/QUOTE] So I take it you're not going to actually address the argument, then? I suppose that means we've established that something being the current norm doesn't mean it's necessary. [QUOTE]Which companies did away with hierarchy completely and still thrive? I can not think of a single example. You'll probably say Valve, but that's not true. If you read the credits of any Valve game, it still has lead programmers, lead writers, lead artists, etc. Give me an example.[/QUOTE] There are companies outside of the gaming industry. Ironically, Valve is a pretty bad example of a non-hierarchical system because it confuses a lack of hierarchy with a lack of structure. If you want actual examples, there's FAVI, which is the only shift gear factory in Europe that can still compete with countries with lower labor cost. Buurtzorg, a Dutch home-care organization that changed from a standard hierarchical, dehumanizing quota-riddled nightmare into a decentralized structure made of autonomous cells with emphasis on long-term care, achieved incredible success and had other home-care organizations adopt their model. ESBZ, Morning Star, Holacracy, Sun Hydraulics, Heiligenfeld, and more. Of course, not every company that attempts to do away with hierarchy succeeds. Because it needs to be replaced by a functioning structure. The mere fact these structures exist, however, is enough to prove that a hierarchy isn't [I]absolutely necessary[/I] for an organism to function, nor is it the most efficient system.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;53066967]"Human nature" is a meaningless argument. There is no evidence supporting the notion that humans are programmed to act in a certain way. I think human behavior is strongly linked to the material conditions of their environment and society.[/QUOTE] Seeing as a lot of people are disagreeing on this,could anyone tell me what human nature is,and which behavior most 'natural' to said human nature,which is not,and why. [sp] seriously human nature to me is the most abstract argument i have ever heard [/sp]

[QUOTE=Idzo;53067594]Seeing as a lot of people are disagreeing on this,could anyone tell me what human nature is,and which behavior most 'natural' to said human nature,which is not,and why. [sp] seriously human nature to me is the most abstract argument i have ever heard [/sp][/QUOTE] It means naughty things people do that they're too lazy to try and change.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]No, that's not the same thing. I really don't know how to point that out to you more explicitly, other than suggest you take a course in logic and argumentation.[/QUOTE] How about you take a course in making sense? [QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]Not instant coordination that explicitly require a strict hierarchy. Current companies have varying degrees of hierarchical stiffness, none of which matches the rigidity of the military.[/QUOTE] I gave you an example of an institution where the hierarchy is absolutely necessary. Therefor, it can not be done away with like you suggest. I have no idea why I even need to continue this discussion. You're trying to tell me that civilian structures don't need to have as rigid a hierarchy as the military for some reason. Well no shit? I'm not arguing with that, because it's obvious. [QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]A typical hierarchy (IE dictatorship) is a pyramid with a single or a few individual at the top. In a democracy, the individuals 'at the top' are elected by those 'at the bottom'. Technically, the people are the governments' boss more than the other way around.[/QUOTE] How does that change the fact that it's a hierarchy? Do you even know what a hierarchy is? [QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]Similarly, alternatives to hierarchical structures are [I]still[/I] structures, with rules and processes. To argue that those alternatives create a power vacuum ignores the fact that they still are structures with checks and balances.[/QUOTE] Which alternatives though? [QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]So I take it you're not going to actually address the argument, then? I suppose that means we've established that something being the current norm doesn't mean it's necessary.[/QUOTE] I am not going to address an argument that isn't an argument, no. [QUOTE=_Axel;53067593]There are companies outside of the gaming industry. Ironically, Valve is a pretty bad example of a non-hierarchical system because it confuses a lack of hierarchy with a lack of structure. If you want actual examples, there's FAVI, which is the only shift gear factory in Europe that can still compete with countries with lower labor cost. Buurtzorg, a Dutch home-care organization that changed from a standard hierarchical, dehumanizing quota-riddled nightmare into a decentralized structure made of autonomous cells with emphasis on long-term care, achieved incredible success and had other home-care organizations adopt their model. ESBZ, Morning Star, Holacracy, Sun Hydraulics, Heiligenfeld, and more. Of course, not every company that attempts to do away with hierarchy succeeds. Because it needs to be replaced by a functioning structure. The mere fact these structures exist, however, is enough to prove that a hierarchy isn't [I]absolutely necessary[/I] for an organism to function, nor is it the most efficient system.[/QUOTE] I can't even find most of these companies on Google, so they don't really sound that successful to me. And even for those that I could find, I don't see any info about their organizational structure.

I'd like to point out that species of creatures that have strict social hierarchies tend to be insects and that's really it. Mammals as a whole use groups psychology and as a matter of fact one of the most famous 'strict' hierarchies ever recorded, the Alpha male and female in packs of wolves has been debunked for about 20 years. So from the very start the premise that humans and other mammals have strict hierarchies is just patently false. The reason for hierarchies in human society is due to the lengthy continuous development of our cultures and systems of social and economic policy which still tend to favor centralized forms of government and production for high efficiency. We do not yet have the technology nor the policies in place to allow for structured decentralization and while some companies may be starting that process we've seen how it has mixed results. But do not assume hierarchies are 'human nature', they're an easy efficient form of dividing the means of labor. There's nothing instinctual about it. Its just easier to use. [editline]20th January 2018[/editline] There are plenty of things contained within human nature, but they're more focused toward our natural gifts of empathy, sharing, and anger issues.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53067682]How about you take a course in making sense?[/QUOTE] So you're going to keep resorting to ad hominem? Look up the difference between proving a claim and disproving an implication, stop wasting my time. [QUOTE]I gave you an example of an institution where the hierarchy is absolutely necessary. Therefor, it can not be done away with like you suggest.[/QUOTE] If you actually bothered to read the posts you reply to you'd notice I'm not suggesting that. There are domains which require hierarchical structures. My point is that it doesn't mean every single structure should be hierarchical. [QUOTE]How does that change the fact that it's a hierarchy? Do you even know what a hierarchy is?[/QUOTE] Hierarchy: Any system of persons or things ranked one above another. If citizens are both at the bottom and at the top, then it's not a system where one layer is on top of the other. It's not a true hierarchy. [QUOTE]Which alternatives though?[/QUOTE] The ones like the examples I posted use? [QUOTE]I am not going to address an argument that isn't an argument, no.[/QUOTE] Are you familiar with the concept of a counter-example? It's a form of argument. That's what I made. It's not my job to spell shit out for you, especially if you're going to be so damn fucking aggressive against people trying to teach you something. [QUOTE]I can't even find most of these companies on Google, so they don't really sound that successful to me. And even for those that I could find, I don't see any info about their organizational structure.[/QUOTE] Wait, so you rank a company's success based on whether they show up first on Google? That's just fucking stupid. Regardless: - [url=http://www.favi.com/]First result on Google for 'FAVI'.[/url] Their ranking on Google is doubly irrelevant since they're a B2B company. - [url=https://www.buurtzorg.com/]First page on Google for Buurtzorg.[/url] The reason it doesn't show up first is because Google returns [url=http://www.metiseurope.eu/pays-bas-comment-reinventer-les-soins-de-sante_fr_70_art_29974.html]several pages[/url] [url=https://www.soignonshumain.com/buurtzorg/]about their[/url] [url=http://collectiveorg.fr/buurtzorg-comment-le-management-horizontal-a-sauve-les-soins-a-domicile-aux-pays-bas/]management methods[/url] [url=https://pmelink.fr/article/7713/le-modele-buurtzorg-une-revolution-a-suivre-dans-le-management-des-services-de-santea-domicile-ij/]first.[/url] You'll notice Google gives you different results based on your location or browsing history. That makes your claim about companies not being successful if they don't show up first even stupider. I'm not going to hold your hand and show you where you can find information about their structure, just do that work yourself. I wasted enough time arguing with someone who won't address arguments properly and dismisses them with 'no, you' level idiocy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53066959]It has absolutely nothing to do with an "ought." It has to do with having a realistic society. One may even say that a human society won't work well without hierarchies due to the biology of being human while also saying that it ought to not have hierarchies. They aren't the same thing.[/QUOTE] Does this at all touch on what Jordan is saying, though? As far as I am concerned, he is addressing the claims that certain perceived ills are the result of something external, rather than natural human tendency. This doesn't imply that what is natural is something we should aspire to conserve, but that if we want to make changes, we should start by looking at ourselves in the mirror.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067306]This is a moot point. Military hierarchy is separate from society at large. You don't need to apply a strict hierarchy to the entirety of the population to have an efficient army.[/QUOTE] I agree they are separate in one sense, but they are also connected in that they are dependent on one another. My point was merely to indicate a completely flat society would not survive pitted against a completely hierarchical one, but I take it you do indeed accept that a military must be organized in a hierarchical fashion. Let's hope the military leaders of [i]flatland[/i] have no aspirations for power over the rest of the leaderless society. In the rest of the flattened society, who would mediate grievances and enforce the laws of the land? Would whoever was chosen through whatever means (chief, judge, constable) not be socially elevated by this power? [QUOTE=_Axel;53067306]This is, again, deriving an ought from an is. That everything uses this system currently doesn't mean it is necessary. Virtually all advanced civilizations used horses as a way to supply mechanical power, from transportation to agriculture. Nowadays, their usage is anecdotal. Despite being widespread in the past, they aren't necessary for society to function.[/QUOTE] I agreed that it was not necessary in theory, but was trying to say its replacement in reality is predicated on something better (and stronger) coming along. Where is the evidence that a nonhierarchical society at large can even survive, let alone become the dominant system? It seems like pure wishful thinking on your part. Where is the car to the hierarchical horse? Small companies with flatter hierarchical structures are not adequate as an example suitable for a large flat society or nation, as the scaling problems of current flattened structures are well documented. [QUOTE=_Axel;53067306]Considering that nature didn't come up with cars, rockets, widespread electricity and a ton of other highly useful systems, and that we used to live no longer than 30 to 40 years, I'd say blind admiration towards it is misplaced. Yes, it created systems that are highly efficient and we still don't fully comprehend, but it also has failed to come up with impressive innovations that we created. The argument of "nature does it thus it must be better" thus doesn't stand on its own.[/QUOTE] I don't recall saying 'nature does it thus it must be better', you're misrepresenting or reading something else into what I said. If you want to paraphrase me, "nature does it thus, and perhaps there's a good reason for that" would be better.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53067738]So you're going to keep resorting to ad hominem? Look up the difference between proving a claim and disproving an implication, stop wasting my time. If you actually bothered to read the posts you reply to you'd notice I'm not suggesting that. There are domains which require hierarchical structures. My point is that it doesn't mean every single structure should be hierarchical. Hierarchy: Any system of persons or things ranked one above another. If citizens are both at the bottom and at the top, then it's not a system where one layer is on top of the other. It's not a true hierarchy. The ones like the examples I posted use? Are you familiar with the concept of a counter-example? It's a form of argument. That's what I made. It's not my job to spell shit out for you, especially if you're going to be so damn fucking aggressive against people trying to teach you something. Wait, so you rank a company's success based on whether they show up first on Google? That's just fucking stupid. Regardless: - [url=http://www.favi.com/]First result on Google for 'FAVI'.[/url] Their ranking on Google is doubly irrelevant since they're a B2B company. - [url=https://www.buurtzorg.com/]First page on Google for Buurtzorg.[/url] The reason it doesn't show up first is because Google returns [url=http://www.metiseurope.eu/pays-bas-comment-reinventer-les-soins-de-sante_fr_70_art_29974.html]several pages[/url] [url=https://www.soignonshumain.com/buurtzorg/]about their[/url] [url=http://collectiveorg.fr/buurtzorg-comment-le-management-horizontal-a-sauve-les-soins-a-domicile-aux-pays-bas/]management methods[/url] [url=https://pmelink.fr/article/7713/le-modele-buurtzorg-une-revolution-a-suivre-dans-le-management-des-services-de-santea-domicile-ij/]first.[/url] You'll notice Google gives you different results based on your location or browsing history. That makes your claim about companies not being successful if they don't show up first even stupider. I'm not going to hold your hand and show you where you can find information about their structure, just do that work yourself. I wasted enough time arguing with someone who won't address arguments properly and dismisses them with 'no, you' level idiocy.[/QUOTE] Whatever. If you're going to be a condescending asshole (wow, you're a fucking teacher now, trying to teach me something, holy fucking shit), think that namedropping a few obscure companies is an argument, start using the ad hominem fallacy and then hypocritically calling me out on it when I respond to it by doing the same, then I don't want to have anything to do with this discussion.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53067827]I agree they are separate in one sense, but they are also connected in that they are dependent on one another. My point was merely to indicate a completely flat society would not survive pitted against a completely hierarchical one, but I take it you do indeed accept that a military must be organized in a hierarchical fashion. Let's hope the military leaders of [i]flatland[/i] have no aspirations for power over the rest of the leaderless society. In the rest of the flattened society, who would mediate grievances and enforce the laws of the land? Would whoever was chosen through whatever means (chief, judge, constable) not be socially elevated by this power?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why you're opposing a totally hierarchical society with complete anarchy. My point was more aimed at organizational structures in general rather than the political system. But a completely hierarchical system would be a dictatorship, since every level has total say on what the levels below them should do, and no say on what the levels above should do. Democracy is an example of a non-hierarchical system, since there is a power balance between the three branches of powers (judicial, executive, legislative), and the population that those powers have an impact on has a say on who gets to wield that power. Its structure takes the form of several loops, not a pyramid, so nobody truly is 'above' anyone else. Compare that with your standard company, where the shareholders have power over the CEO, who has power over executives, all the way down to the operators, who have no say on the direction the company should take. [QUOTE]I agreed that it was not necessary in theory, but was trying to say its replacement in reality is predicated on something better (and stronger) coming along. Where is the evidence that a nonhierarchical society at large can even survive, let alone become the dominant system?[/QUOTE] Well, I'm not sure if we could say democracy is the dominant system yet, and its implementation is of varying efficacy depending on the structural model that's chosen. But I think we can be sure that it's a sustainable system at this point. [QUOTE]Where is the car to the hierarchical horse? Small companies with flatter hierarchical structures are not adequate as an example suitable for a large flat society or nation, as the scaling problems of current flattened structures are well documented.[/QUOTE] If we're talking about scaling problems I must mention that hierarchical companies have their own ills on that front, among which the bottleneck effect I mentioned earlier, which would be alleviated by giving more autonomy to the local structures. I also think it should be cleared up that non-hierarchical structures are not 'flat', that's a misrepresentation. A proper non-hierarchical structure is made of properly defined roles (which is not the same thing as individuals) connected with one another in a web-like fashion. The interactions between the different roles are clearly defined, but they don't imply a relation of dominance. [QUOTE]I don't recall saying 'nature does it thus it must be better', you're misrepresenting or reading something else into what I said. If you want to paraphrase me, "nature does it thus, and perhaps there's a good reason for that" would be better.[/QUOTE] Well, the fact that it exists in nature shows that it works [I]to an extent[/I]. But nature only produces local optima, so it's not guaranteed to be the best solution.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53067844]Whatever. If you're going to be a condescending asshole (wow, you're a fucking teacher now, trying to teach me something, holy fucking shit), think that namedropping a few obscure companies is an argument, start using the ad hominem fallacy and then hypocritically calling me out on it when I respond to it by doing the same, then I don't want to have anything to do with this discussion.[/QUOTE] How to Concede You didn't have an Argument 101. If you're going to abandon a thread, just abandon it. Instead you tried climbing back on your high horse only for the stirrup to come loose, whip around the bottom and get a horse cock slap as it rode away.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53067844]Whatever. If you're going to be a condescending asshole (wow, you're a fucking teacher now, trying to teach me something, holy fucking shit), think that namedropping a few obscure companies is an argument, start using the ad hominem fallacy and then hypocritically calling me out on it when I respond to it by doing the same, then I don't want to have anything to do with this discussion.[/QUOTE] lmao Buurtzorg isn't a 'obscure company'

So this debate has sort of devolved into something else now with publications covering various troll campaigns on Cathy Newman. [quote=The Independent]Channel 4 News is hiring security experts to carry out an analysis of the incident and is considering police involvement.[/quote] And also silly opinion pieces like this. [t]https://s13.postimg.org/y60ceasd3/1516558492552.png[/t] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cathy-newman-abuse-channel-4-jordan-peterson-metoo-backlash-latest-a8170031.html[/url] Atleast Jordan Peterson is doing the right thing and looking at this from a constructive POV. [quote]Mike Deri Smith, deputy head of digital at Channel 4 News, tweeted that a quick search had revealed more than 500 comments calling Newman a “bitch”. Peterson, who is interviewed in today’s Observer magazine, said that when he became aware of the abuse allegations he “immediately tweeted ‘if you’re one of those people doing that, back off’, there’s no excuse for that, no utility’.” He said the experience had left him trying to put himself in Newman’s position. “There is no doubt that Cathy has been subjected to a withering barrage of criticism online. One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to try to imagine what I’d do if I found myself in her situation and how I would react to it and understand how it was happening. But they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous.” The interview was reported in gladiatorial terms by online commentators, many of whom claimed Peterson had emerged victorious. He said this gave him no satisfaction. “All credit to them [Channel 4 News] for posting the whole thing unedited. I was certain when I left that interview it would be cut to my detriment. I don’t feel like I won. It would have been a more satisfying victory if we had been able to talk about the ideas that are simmering under the surface that are driving this remarkable response to the interview. We missed an opportunity. A cynical person might say, ‘Dr Peterson, you got what you wanted. It’s very good for your book sales.’ That’s all well and good, but in some sense those are kind of stupid victories, given what’s at stake.” ... Peterson said the reaction to the interview was typical of many of the more vitriolic debates now being waged across society. “It’s a little microcosm of those culture wars, which is why people are responding to it so crazily.” A particularly fractious part of the interview centred around the reasons for the gender pay gap. “It’s complicated,” Peterson said. “We need to be sensible and think it through. There are lots of reasons why people are paid differently in the workplace, but we seem incapable of having an adult conversation about it. It’s got to be ‘oh my god, it’s the oppressive patriarchy’. Jesus Christ, man, that’s not the answer to everything.” He suggested an antidote to ill-informed, short-term social media debate was more nuanced, meditative journalism. “Look at the popularity of longform journalism and podcasts,” he said. “It’s nonsense that young people have a limited attention span, or that there isn’t an audience for the in-depth treatment of something.” And he has an idea for one such project. “If Cathy is interested, maybe we could model a conversation. That would be a good thing.”[/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/21/no-excuse-for-online-abuse-says-professor-in-tv-misogyny-row[/url] Luckily it just seems like posturing by some 3rd-party figures as Cathy Newman seems to be relatively fine. [media]https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/953680606528921600[/media]

i love the term cultural marxism because it literally makes no sense its literally two smart sounding words someone picked to describe "person i hate" man i sure hate those post modern capitalists, they're just as bad as those darn alternative black metal anaracho-stalinists

[QUOTE=Mud;53070315]i love the term cultural marxism because it literally makes no sense its literally two smart sounding words someone picked to describe "person i hate" man i sure hate those post modern capitalists, they're just as bad as those darn alternative black metal anaracho-stalinists[/QUOTE] How does it not make sense though? On a purely definition level it is applying Marxist theory to culture and society, in whole, all aspects. Oppressor and oppressed, etc. You can't grasp that concept?

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;53066967]"Human nature" is a meaningless argument. There is no evidence supporting the notion that humans are programmed to act in a certain way. I think human behavior is strongly linked to the material conditions of their environment and society.[/QUOTE] Factually false. [editline]21st January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Mud;53070315]i love the term cultural marxism because it literally makes no sense its literally two smart sounding words someone picked to describe "person i hate" man i sure hate those post modern capitalists, they're just as bad as those darn alternative black metal anaracho-stalinists[/QUOTE] "This thing offends me and thus is not real" doesn't really track when a social movement co-opts or outright adopts a particular philosophy, which in this particular instance has happened.

[QUOTE=27X;53070474] "This thing offends me and thus is not real" doesn't really track when a social movement co-opts or outright adopts a particular philosophy, which in this particular instance has happened.[/QUOTE] If you're gonna spout literal Nazi conspiracies you should at least learn about them. 'Cultural Marxism' exists today as an uneducated criticism of Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School. Sometimes today it still is used to describe the 'communist jewish degeneracy' that it was originally coined for, and there is a lot of crossover. Critical Theory isn't simply 'applying Marxist idea to culture', and furthermore to suggest that emancipatory movements are the results of what some German dudes wrote in the early 20th century is just absurd. Black people didn't suddenly start caring about their oppression after they were told of Marxist class analysis, and the suffrage movement was smashing windows long before Adorno and Marcuse started writing. You can't even get a proper answer about what 'Cultural Marxism' is theory wise because definitions vary wildly depending on who you ask.

[QUOTE=27X;53070474]Factually false. [editline]21st January 2018[/editline] "This thing offends me and thus is not real" doesn't really track when a social movement co-opts or outright adopts a particular philosophy, which in this particular instance has happened.[/QUOTE] First of all, you're doing exactly what the interviewer did, straw-manning, because Mud never said they were offended by the term. You put those words into their mouth. Second of all, no social movement has ever adopted 'cultural marxism.' Media and academia are just left leaning because the people in those groups are left-leaning because we live in an age where art is extremely humanist and in favour of the common man.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53070520]If you're gonna spout literal Nazi conspiracies you should at least learn about them. 'Cultural Marxism' exists today as an uneducated criticism of Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School. Sometimes today it still is used to describe the 'communist jewish degeneracy' that it was originally coined for, and there is a lot of crossover. Critical Theory isn't simply 'applying Marxist idea to culture', and furthermore to suggest that emancipatory movements are the results of what some German dudes wrote in the early 20th century is just absurd. Black people didn't suddenly start caring about their oppression after they were told of Marxist class analysis, and the suffrage movement was smashing windows long before Adorno and Marcuse started writing. You can't even get a proper answer about what 'Cultural Marxism' is theory wise because definitions vary wildly depending on who you ask.[/QUOTE] And none of that has anything to do with the fact that several groups, a couple of them leftist have adopted using the term as a general descriptor both pro and con, which is my point. Any subjective distaste for what it represents is immaterial, which was my point. The rest is literal reaching argumentation on your part. You might go back and realize there are no goal posts for you to move around in my post because there is neither praise nor condemnation present in it. [quote] straw-manning [/quote] No such animal. Whether the term is pro or con is entirely dependent on his point of view, whether the term and it's meaning are existent is not dependent on anyone's [B]opinion [/B]because this thread wouldn't exist otherwise, and apparently it does.

[QUOTE=27X;53070743]No such animal. Whether the term is pro or con is entirely dependent on his point of view, whether the term and it's meaning are existent is not dependent on anyone's [B]opinion [/B]because this thread wouldn't exist otherwise, and apparently it does.[/QUOTE] "No such animal"? First of all dude, just say "I'm not doing that," "No such animal" doesn't mean what you think it means. Secondly, you're doing the DEFINITION of straw-manning. He never mentioned anything about being offended, but you wrote: [quote]"This thing offends me and thus is not real"[/quote] As a distillation of his arguments, putting words that he never said into his mouth.

[QUOTE=27X;53070743]And none of that has anything to do with the fact that several groups, a couple of them leftist have adopted using the term as a general descriptor both pro and con, which is my point.[/QUOTE] So uhh...you gonna fill us in on who these groups are or is that information confidential or what?

[QUOTE=27X;53070474]"This thing offends me and thus is not real"[/QUOTE] why would i be offended by sad insecure men screaming gibberish that vaguely sounds intelligent lol [editline]21st January 2018[/editline] if anything it makes me feel sorry for them

Cultural Marxism is to Alt-Righters and"I say I care but Don't" MRAs as patriarchy is to Radfems and Buzzfeed Branding Shitlords. [editline]21st January 2018[/editline] A nebulous, constantly changing term that just so happens to also operate like a conspiracy theory.

[QUOTE=Mud;53070315]i love the term cultural marxism because it literally makes no sense its literally two smart sounding words someone picked to describe "person i hate" man i sure hate those post modern capitalists, they're just as bad as those darn alternative black metal anaracho-stalinists[/QUOTE] It really isn’t that hard of a term to understand as previously mentioned. Personally I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though. Since ideas like deconstruction from Derrida can be directly correlated and Cultural Marxism is just too much of a blanket term.

I’ve gotten answers from people against JP but not people who are for/with him. How am I a Marxist for wanting equality for LGBT individuals?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53072280]I’ve gotten answers from people against JP but not people who are for/with him. How am I a Marxist for wanting equality for LGBT individuals?[/QUOTE] I don't believe that wanting equality (we would need to clarify what "equality" means in this context) is being argued as Marxist. The argument is that the LGBT activists are generally also Marxist.