King's College London employs 'safe space marshals' to stop students having 'feelings hurt'
37 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wewt!;52836305]I consider myaelf pretty anti-sjw, but this hate boner for postmodernism is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's borderline hilarious how dogmatic the hatred of it has become.
It's pretty telling that Jordan Peterson's attack on postmodernism is so poorly understood that everyone else just connects it to the most unrelated things, like you in this example. The quoted text has nothing to do with your rant, ironically your entire post is based on such a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern, good job I guess.[/QUOTE]
I'm growing increasingly tired of Jordan Peterson's boogeymen. It seems railing on 'postmodernism' is the new pseudo intellectual moderate trend ("psst I'm a classical liberal guys I promise"). I've yet to see anyone make a relevant critique that isn't an essentially meaningless word salad filled with intelligent looking prose to deter responses. It's quite clear half these people have their understanding almost exclusively taken from Peterson because if you've read even an ounce of the source material yourself, each of these cookie cutter pomo responses just sound absolutely hilarious, and it's always nice to see what new sect of Western Society™ is being dismantled by this evil all encompassing cloud of [I]Alt-Leftism.[/I]
Pomo wasn't some leftist epistemological conspiracy. First and foremost it was an observation. Secondly, it isn't some concise set of beliefs created or hijacked with the intention of dissolving truth and western values, it can refer to any number of things, the contemporary historical period, a loose set of post-structuralist beliefs, or some antirealist thought. Peterson just conflates all of it and throws in some terrible misunderstanding and misreading to create the evil antiwestern monster everyone knows today. Peterson has made it abundantly clear he doesn't understand postmodernism, and ironically Peterson himself would be a postmodernist. Flick open a page of [I]Maps of Meaning[/I] and you'll see Peterson preaching subjectivity over all. His understanding is based on the the dodgy [I]Understanding Postmodernism[/I] by Steven Hicks, an objectivist(lol). The base of Petersons understanding seems to follow as such (thanks to a couple others for the concise summary):
- Postmodernism began with Kant & Rousseau
- They were irrationalists
- Postmodernism becomes popular with Socialists
- Therefore Socialism is unable to be reasonable and therefore Socialists are unreasonable
This is an astonishing (and absurd) bunch of claims, and they don't follow any sort of scholarly opinion. A chunk of the arguments in the book are based on Rand's own work. Great stuff.
The entire Bill-C16 debacle and Peterson's misleading of almost everyone on the matter should have told you enough about the man. There isn't some secret cabal of postmodernists working to undermine the west, it's just very easy and convenient to diagnose the current social + political problems as postmodernism as he has defined it rather than see the true dynamics and causes. The current racially volatile situation has so many more causes and history, much more relevant to your everyday Americans than what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago.
Sega Saturn's post above shows you just how absurd the connection is in this case.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52836424]longboy post.[/QUOTE]
God damn, I didn't know alt-right Bill Nye's foundation against post-modernism was *this* shoddy
[QUOTE=wewt!;52836305]I consider myself very anti-sjw, but this hate boner for postmodernism is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's borderline hilarious how dogmatic the hatred of it has become.
It's pretty telling that Jordan Peterson's attack on postmodernism is so poorly understood that everyone else just connects it to the most unrelated things, like you in this example. The quoted text has nothing to do with your rant, ironically your entire post is based on such a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern, good job I guess.[/QUOTE]
I've read derridas 'main' stuff, he says all that shit basically verbatim. That's what he meant by "criticizing" the west as "phallogocentric". The logos is the deification of logic, reason and truth itself. And the fundimental postmodernist claim is that truth does not exist, and there are only claims to truth perpetuated by groups or individuals using them in Machiavelli style power games. And yes, though that was not part of the initial claim, it was a product of the initial claim, as there is no alternative argument for the concept of truth if truth and objectivity is a fallacy, as is claimed. And to be fair to derrida, was more a product of Foucault than Derrida. But they were nothing if not hand in hand.
I don't see how understanding that and linking it to social justice and other degenerating disciplines is wrong. Nor how you can accuse me of writing from a postmodernist perspective, when i'm simply drawing links between the claims made by postmodernists and say, papers claiming [URL="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2017.1380068"]"White" behavior like meritocracy and hierarchy is oppressive and must be struck down[/URL]. The 'critical discourse' mentioned being critical theory, which is a neo/post marxist examination of social power dynamics. I'm trying to make the best rational argument for the link between the two, i fail to see what's postmodern in nature about that. Unless you want to stretch the nature of Derrida's idea of deconstruction to fit what i'm doing, but i don't think that's reasonable.
Also you've failed to actually give any counter argument. Simply made claims, called it "a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern" and scampered off giggling. So, sick argument bro. You got me.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52836424]The current racially volatile situation has so many more causes and history, much more relevant to your everyday Americans than what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago.
Sega Saturn's post above shows you just how absurd the connection is in this case.[/QUOTE]
Look that might be credible if not for the fact that the person who first came up with the idea of intersectionality, which is exactly the school of thought that all this bullshit is a direct consequence of; is a woman named Patricia Collins, whom is a self proclaimed marxist and postmodernist. Though the term itself was coined by a woman named Kimberly Crenshaw, who also came up with critical race theory, which is evidence enough to at least describe her as a marxist as well. Regardless, the relevant fundamental claim of intersectionalism is in reference to Derrida's idea of the exclusionary nature of categorization, and the supposed "marginialzing" effects that has on people, which is where the use of the buzzword originates.
So to say that
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52836424]The current racially volatile situation has so many more causes and history, much more relevant to your everyday Americans than what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Is demonstrably wrong. As the people who created the body of reason which caused all this self identify as, and proudly point to postmodernism and marxism as the philosophical root of their claims. Meaning that, in fact, "what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago." is indeed the direct cause of all this.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52834692]After reading the articles, it's obvious that this is being blown out of proportion. The "protect people's feelings" narrative is being pushed by conservative commentators, but here's what's really happening:
1. The school's students voted on and approved a "safe space" policy which prohibits hate speech. The measure is meant to protect both students and speakers from harassment. The whole thing basically boils down to "keep it clean."
2. The school hired the marshals to put up posters and explain to students the difference between academic debate and hate speech/harassment. The students are informed that if they violate the policy, their actions can/will be noticed and that actions can be taken if need be.
3. No speaker has been prohibited from appearing at the school as a result of the policy.[/QUOTE]
Just wanted to say, thanks for breaking through the obvious sensationalism. I hope people scroll down and read your post rather than just reading the OP and using it to confirm their weird ass hate boner for the SJW boogeyman.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52837140]I've read derridas 'main' stuff, he says all that shit basically verbatim. That's what he meant by "criticizing" the west as "phallogocentric". The logos is the deification of logic, reason and truth itself. And the fundimental postmodernist claim is that truth does not exist, and there are only claims to truth perpetuated by groups or individuals using them in Machiavelli style power games. And yes, though that was not part of the initial claim, it was a product of the initial claim, as there is no alternative argument for the concept of truth if truth and objectivity is a fallacy, as is claimed. And to be fair to derrida, was more a product of Foucault than Derrida. But they were nothing if not hand in hand.
I don't see how understanding that and linking it to social justice and other degenerating disciplines is wrong. Nor how you can accuse me of writing from a postmodernist perspective, when i'm simply drawing links between the claims made by postmodernists and say, papers claiming [URL="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2017.1380068"]"White" behavior like meritocracy and hierarchy is oppressive and must be struck down[/URL]. The 'critical discourse' mentioned being critical theory, which is a neo/post marxist examination of social power dynamics. I'm trying to make the best rational argument for the link between the two, i fail to see what's postmodern in nature about that. Unless you want to stretch the nature of Derrida's idea of deconstruction to fit what i'm doing, but i don't think that's reasonable.
Also you've failed to actually give any counter argument. Simply made claims, called it "a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern" and scampered off giggling. So, sick argument bro. You got me.
Look that might be credible if not for the fact that the person who first came up with the idea of intersectionality, which is exactly the school of thought that all this bullshit is a direct consequence of; is a woman named Patricia Collins, whom is a self proclaimed marxist and postmodernist. Though the term itself was coined by a woman named Kimberly Crenshaw, who also came up with critical race theory, which is evidence enough to at least describe her as a marxist as well. Regardless, the relevant fundamental claim of intersectionalism is in reference to Derrida's idea of the exclusionary nature of categorization, and the supposed "marginialzing" effects that has on people, which is where the use of the buzzword originates.
So to say that
Is demonstrably wrong. As the people who created the body of reason which caused all this self identify as, and proudly point to postmodernism and marxism as the philosophical root of their claims. Meaning that, in fact, "what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago." is indeed the direct cause of all this.[/QUOTE]
Adding on to this, 3 day weekends, unions, and the gays are of course also evil because they're marxism. :eng101:
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52837140] it "a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern" and scampered off giggling. So, sick argument bro. You got me. [/QUOTE]
The amount of times I've had or seen this argument is definitely not your fault, so yeah I guess I should've given an argument.
The fundamental claim of postmodernism by the way is not that truth does not exist, but that truth in the form of meta narratives or grand narratives does not exist as it is overpowered by subjective reality. This makes postmodernism very hard to connect to feminism and marxism, seeing as they're grand narratives
I can still see pomo having an effect on todays culture in the manner which you describe (specifically pomo philosophy), but not in this massive manner where it is the one big abstract baddie that we need to fight against. That's just Jordan Peterson creating one big target in order to get people to follow [I]his[/I] philosophy. The way things are today is caused by a multitude of reasons which is why this bizzare laser focused hatred on an outdated movement is so hilarious to me.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52837140]I've read derridas 'main' stuff, he says all that shit basically verbatim. That's what he meant by "criticizing" the west as "phallogocentric". The logos is the deification of logic, reason and truth itself. And the fundimental postmodernist claim is that truth does not exist, and there are only claims to truth perpetuated by groups or individuals using them in Machiavelli style power games. And yes, though that was not part of the initial claim, it was a product of the initial claim, as there is no alternative argument for the concept of truth if truth and objectivity is a fallacy, as is claimed. And to be fair to derrida, was more a product of Foucault than Derrida. But they were nothing if not hand in hand.
I don't see how understanding that and linking it to social justice and other degenerating disciplines is wrong. Nor how you can accuse me of writing from a postmodernist perspective, when i'm simply drawing links between the claims made by postmodernists and say, papers claiming [URL="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2017.1380068"]"White" behavior like meritocracy and hierarchy is oppressive and must be struck down[/URL]. The 'critical discourse' mentioned being critical theory, which is a neo/post marxist examination of social power dynamics. I'm trying to make the best rational argument for the link between the two, i fail to see what's postmodern in nature about that. Unless you want to stretch the nature of Derrida's idea of deconstruction to fit what i'm doing, but i don't think that's reasonable.
Also you've failed to actually give any counter argument. Simply made claims, called it "a subjective and abstract concept that it itself is postmodern" and scampered off giggling. So, sick argument bro. You got me.
Look that might be credible if not for the fact that the person who first came up with the idea of intersectionality, which is exactly the school of thought that all this bullshit is a direct consequence of; is a woman named Patricia Collins, whom is a self proclaimed marxist and postmodernist. Though the term itself was coined by a woman named Kimberly Crenshaw, who also came up with critical race theory, which is evidence enough to at least describe her as a marxist as well. Regardless, the relevant fundamental claim of intersectionalism is in reference to Derrida's idea of the exclusionary nature of categorization, and the supposed "marginialzing" effects that has on people, which is where the use of the buzzword originates.
So to say that
Is demonstrably wrong. As the people who created the body of reason which caused all this self identify as, and proudly point to postmodernism and marxism as the philosophical root of their claims. Meaning that, in fact, "what some French philosophers wrote almost 50 years ago." is indeed the direct cause of all this.[/QUOTE]
[quote]And the fundimental postmodernist claim is that truth does not exist, and there are only claims to truth perpetuated by groups or individuals using them in Machiavelli style power games.[/quote]
This is patently false and leads me to believe either you haven't done the reading you claim you have or you've horribly misunderstood it. Where did you learn that? Honest question. If you want to try pin it down to some sort of single point, which you can't really, it's more 'incredulity towards meta narratives'. Derrida, Foucault and the rest never outright rejected 'objective truth' or 'objective morality', instead were skeptical of a number of ideas claimed to be objectively true or moral. This wasn't a trend exclusive to postmodernism either, it was a trend of 20th century philosophy in general. This included the pragmatists, which of course Peterson considers himself to be.
Even better, some of the more substantial critiques of postmodernism come from the Frankfurt school, so the grand unifying generalisation you're doing here doesn't really work out.
[quote]Look that might be credible if not for the fact that the person who first came up with the idea of intersectionality, which is exactly the school of thought that all this bullshit is a direct consequence of;[/quote]
And this just just an absurd claim. Emancipatory movements have existed in the US long before the writings of the continentals. Sure there may have been crossover with some Marxist influenced activism but these tensions existed before, and continue to exist despite these fringe theories. Is intersectionality and critical theory a cornerstone of impoverished & uneducated black households? The racial tensions exist for the same fundamental reasons they existed before the 50s. Your stance is pretty revisionist and talks in generalities. You draw a lot of conclusions that frankly look like guesswork.
Marxists being involved in some emancipatory movements of the past is true. This does not justify the point that Marxists were the driving force between these new movements, and this equivocation just serves to blame Marxism for the achievements of Feminism, Civil Rights etc, thus painting these movements as 'anti western' or undermining the fundamental values of our civilisation.
