Jordan Peterson’s Book Pulled from New Zealand Shelves Following Mosque Shooting - Sensationalist Headlines

https://puu.sh/D4G1J.png Reading his explanation of Cultural Marxism. its beat for beat the same shit that the conspiracy theory version of cultural marxism is.

He isn't. He injects his pseudoscience into his lectures.

Fuck this. Every Jordan Peterson thread is the same. It doesn't matter how many criticisms people put forth, it doesn't matter how many paragraphs people write, it doesn't matter how many opinions from other professionals they cite. Without fail, someone will walk in to tell you that you can't criticize him. Either because he's "helped people" (despite one of the primary reasons why Peterson's a manipulative cunt being the poor separation between his self-help material, something which inherently appeals to vulnerable people, and his political agendas) or because he's a "professional" (despite most of his stint in the spotlight being in regards to areas in which he has no expertise), or because anyone who criticizes him hasn't read his stuff (despite this coming from people who will not read or address any of the criticisms made either) I'm tired. Peterson is a particularly frustrating subject to address because of his hypocrisy in regards to "being precise in your speech". He's not alt-right, he's not a crazed ethnonationalist, but he sure as fuck is a hypocrite. Oh, the unbound precision and clarity of speech of a man who's never met a hypothetical he didn't like, eternally "just asking questions" https://youtu.be/-9MnM7N_k3I "Well I'd be against it too if it was backed by cultural marxists" - without a second thought he runs with the 'cultural marxist' claim on a plebiscite he's not even familiar with. It's worded as a hypothetical so it's defensible through plausible deniability. Further peppering it with "maybe"s and "probably"s, he begrudgingly states that it may help integrate gay people into "standard society", he posits that it might address the "public health crisis of promiscuity", yet the main issue Peterson laments is that gay marriage has not appeased the radical left neomarxist plan to eliminate "traditional modes of being" by driving a wedge in society, as if that is its purpose. What starts worded as a mere hypothesis is solidified into the idea that gay marriage is, inherently, a part of the radical marxist toolbox of eroding civilization https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM From 37:28 to 39:26 "Well men are gonna have to stand up for themselves. But here's the problem: I know how to stand up to a man who's unfairly trespassing against me, and the reason I know that is, because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined. Which is, we talk, we argue, we push... and then it becomes physical. Right, like, if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. Ok, that's forbidden in discourse with women. And so, I don't think that men can control crazy women. I really don't believe it! I think that they have to throw their hands up in... in not even disbelief, it's that, the cultural... there's no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough or crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away." -Reminder: there is no understanding whatsoever that this is about getting physical with someone who gets physical with you first- "Or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each other, in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there. Especially if it's a real conversation, and it keeps the thing civilized to some degree. You know, if you're talking to a man, who wouldn't fight with you in any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can't see any way... For example, there's a woman, in Toronto, who's been organizing this movement, let's say, against me and some other people who are gonna do a free speech event, that she managed to organize quite effectively, and she's quite offensive, you might say, she compared us to Nazis, for example, which, you know, publicly, using the swastika, which wasn't something I was all that fond of, but I'm defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me." https://twitter.com/saeen90_/status/955889027957297152 And a choice quote from his book https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/7db88a0e-da7f-45fa-b2c1-d2d1e20a8bfc/image.png The only people who don't see Peterson's blatant incel appeal are the willfully ignorant.

Why hasn't he been stripped of his uni credentials? I think I've read about professors who got stripped for less serious issues.

https://youtu.be/4jef2C4T1_A

Not according to the article. They sell Mein Kumpf People have been calling out Whitcoulls for hypocrisy as the company continues to sell books like Mein Kumpf and Islamophobic books. Peterson has not yet issued a comment in regards to his book being pulled in New Zealand, though he fired back at Cambridge, saying he didn’t need the gig as “I have more opportunities at the moment than I can keep track of.” Which sounds like a porn parody to me

That's probably the best explanation tbqh. He's too stupid to be alt-right cause he wouldn't be able to tell otherwise.

God could you imagine the absolute shitshow as his incel army rise up because he got fired for being a shithead. Universities generally only let well known professors go when they become a potential embarrassment to the institute. Peterson is clever in how he words things in that he always leaves a shitload of ambiguity as an escape clause. It's part of his flowery speech and writing patterns.

Surely Unis could see through his tactics? Even then, with all the controversial stuff he's been turning up in the news for, wouldn't unis err on the side of caution and just dismiss him? Last thing you want as a Uni is be in the news for allowing such a person to be employed? (perhaps University of Toronto couldn't give a shit)

As for those who think opinions of this man cannot be swayed, I can say that this thread has most definitely shifted my views on this man. While I do still find it very odd that they pulled his book in some sort of reaction to the shooting, he definitely carries a whole bunch of (in my opinion), backwards views.

I'm gonna' come in from a perspective of utter indifference about the outcome- And say holy fuck if this topic isn't a gigantic shitbundle of emotions. Everyone draws big stupid political battlelines like its going to accomplish something.

He hasn’t said anything about white people like that, if he has, source? The guy is genuinely contemptible but I don’t think fabricating charges against him or anyone is warranted

The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’ | News | The Guardian Dig down through here for the receipts, or dig up the episode where he chats with Stefan Molyneux.

The problem with this is? Are we still pretending that our differences are literally only skin deep and we are all entirely equal other than superficial appearances? It's a massive debate, and not really in Petersons neck of the woods, but still.

I mean that doesn't really show me he's a white supremacist...? The last large study of data on IQ among different races ended up with the scientist who did it, being removed from the field because the data didn't show the ideal reality we wish we lived in. I don't know if I would trust simple backlash to racial issue as an indicator of genuine racial superiority beliefs.

If I recall correctly, he's suing multiple people/institutions because they keep calling him a Nazi, which is slander.

Problem is that most of the data suggests it is a socio-economic issue rather than a racial one, as I understand it. So by adopting the "it is along racial lines" narrative, he's misrepresenting the data. Which really isn't surprising, there is a reason he's not well liked in academia and has practically stopped publishing actual science (because review councils would rip him a new one. TED Talks, youtube and self-help books don't have a peer review gauntlet to run)

good to see our local 9/11 truther has come to perfectly exemplify the dunning kreuger affect again

Are you here to flame or make a point?

You gonna act like you're being a victim for people pointing out your asinine 9/11 truther beliefs again?

I'm just trying to keep the thread on topic man. I'll just leave the thread alone, I prefer my insults to be somewhat backed up by points relating to the discussion.

your 'point' didn't warrant any discussion. if you want to have a discussion, try a topic that science hasn't settled for a century.

No it didn't. Cultural Marxism wasn't a conspiracy theory until decades after the war. So be a good lad and explain to us the nazis working from beyond the grave. Where you're apparently confused is that the Frankfurt School, which is key in the conspiracy theory, existing in pre-nazi Germany, saw the writing on the wall and got the fuck out when it was becoming Nazi Germany. Hey dont take my word for it, lets consult wikipedia. Oh would you look at that: " the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of an ongoing academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture.[49] According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness.[50][51][52] " "Weyrich first laid out the conspiracy theory in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating it in his widely syndicated "culture war letter". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory Cultural Marxism is a distinctly american conspiracy. It has nothing to do with Nazis, who hardly were in need of such agitprop. The Nazis were much more concerned with just plain old Marxism, as in, Communism which was rapidly becoming popular in Europe. Particularly the really fucking big communist country to their east. Furthermore, lets look at the etymology of the word cultural Marxism - wikiquote attributes the term first being used in The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory by one Trent Schoyer, which was published in...... 1973. Lets see, Trent Schroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Schroyer oh would you look at that. An American academic. Hmm maybe hes a SECRET nazi

did you see this little bit in the very wikipedia page you're quoting? Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that "[n]ext to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy".[79] Professor and Oxford fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism, locating it as part of the degeneration theory that aided in Hitler's rise to power.[80] William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, writing that "[Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I".[64]

I'll throw you a bone in that what the Nazis called "jewish bolshevism" sounds superficially similar on the face of it... but no, its not really the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not, because literally anything anyone does in response to this shooting gets responses saying "this is exactly what the shooter wanted". It feels like a meme at this point.

calling it a meme at this point is exactly what the shooter would have wanted

Saying that you are demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect isn't flaming. Get over yourself

imagine thinking that freedom of expression, and opposing mandated/compelled speech by the fucking state is incompatable with the concept of libel/slander laws. What a good opinion.

It's funny Jordan Peterson is cool with the concept of libel laws but not with the concept of hatespeech laws.