His book maps of meaning addresses hitler and other totalitarian regimes in good depth. He follows up on very original psyche profiles about Hitler that actually shed a lot of light as to how he could be so horrible. It mainly focuses on how more than anything Hitler was driven by disgust, not hatred. Whether you agree with it or not, its interesting stuff. Read the thread, he's picking apart statements about German war armament that are too broad in order to make a point about Hitler's psychology. Profs do this sometimes and they get carried away, that doesn't make what hes saying historically inaccurate to the level of calling him clumsy and stupid. Hitler was occupied with a ton of things he shouldn't have been towards the end of the war, the jews being a major one of them. His judgement was proven to be very poor, and Peterson is trying to explain why he thinks Hitler's personal psychology contributed to that. I love how you write that off as not profound in the slightest, apparently Harvard thought it was interesting enough to bring him on. His ideas about authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in the 20th century were one of the things they discussed with him during his conversations leading up to them offering him a position. The point of the thread from that guy is he wants to discredit him in an absolute way and also insinuate that Peterson has a soft spot for the nazis and a hard on for the communists. Which is beyond ridiculous, Peterson makes his thoughts about the nazis abundantly clear. You just have guys like lyrtch and redav who are desperate for him to be an alt right boogeyman so they'll ignore the multitudes of content where he decries the radical right and the nazis. He basically says the worst place we can be in as a society is where the radical right exerts totalitarian rule.
Academic credentials do not make an argument more profound, especially when he was "brought on" to teach something not really related to the subject matter of the video clip.
Here's one of his most intriguing points to me, is that the average person would be right along for the fucked up ride if they were a German in nazi Germany. Its some dark stuff that argues humans are really fucked up, and if you're being honest with yourself you can see where he's coming from.
As for the alt-right stuff, I do not think that he's personally a member of the movement. But, certain of his talking points fall right within it. For that reason, his content is used as the intellectual underpinning for a lot of unsavory positions. I also think he's pandered to that some.
He discussed these themes ad nauseam at Harvard. They were part of his curriculum before he got there so i have no clue what you're talking about.
People are largely products of their environments. There now nobody needs to watch a 32 minute video.
The only thing he does is describe the radical left for what it is. Do you believe anyone who disagrees with the radical left fall within the alt-right?
First off, I challenge your first statement. So, of course I don't agree with the second one that relies on it as an assumption.
It’s a guy cherry picking 1 minute of speech out of an hour long lecture. It’s easy to say someone is ignoring “context” when you post 1/40th of what they said on a subject. Guys, Peterson knows the Nazis pressed Jewish people into work camps and then later on into the extermination camps. He’s clearly talking about that progression in the clip. What “General Moa from Twitter” refuses to acknowledge, and is well-supported in the historical record, is that the rate of liquidation in the camps skyrocketed towards the end of the war, that the Nazi’s would often build the camps too far from population and industrial centers to maximize their war output, that they would often have prisoners perform work unnecessary to the war effort, etc... To top it off he criticizes Peterson for not referencing antisemetism when he’s clearly talking about how Hitler was so antisemetic and filled with bloodlust that he couldn’t make rational decisions that may have won his country the war. Finally, it’s a psychology class. Of course he’s not going to spend his time focusing on every last nuance in the historical record.
Then challenge it by posting his content that shows he's in league with the alt-right.. You sound like you know very little about him but you just don't like the excerpts of his stuff you've seen.
wes tegg here he is going full autism over a guy calling him alt-right on twitter. I guess he's just trying to throw you guys off the scent.
He rails against political correctness, identity politics, and feminism and embraces the "masculinity" of top-down hierarchies to the point of authoritarianism. Those are squarely within the alt-right/MRA wheelhouse.
There are dozens of great explainers of why he is problematic and unique in that he combined a benign self help side and the more problematic mra/alt right friendly rhetoric.
I don't think this blows anyone's mind. Is this a notion that is new to you? Germany was a cultural center and where many elites went to study at the turn of the century. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. Why did you need to watch a 32 minute video to understand that?
I mean this is just false. This is a huge leap when he clearly addresses authoritarianism as a state where things have gotten way out of control.
The guy is telling these young men moving far right is something they don't want to be involved in and that its dangerous. A lot of them are willing to listen because he has specific ideas about the far left's identity politics that resonate with whats making them so angry. Take the incels we've been talking about. Peterson has worked with both guys and girls to bring them back from the brink of hatred for the world bc basically they're so ugly they're universally rejected by the opposite sex. These people are easy targets for the radical ends of the spectrum, and I think Peterson's stuff is a really positive message of responsibility to them. He basically tells them they need to deal with their demons and that inviting indoctrination is a path towards hatred and in the case of these young men, violence. He goes way in depth about the things disaffected young men do to society, and his message isn't to blame the rest of the world (although he's very willing to describe how he believes identity politics prey on the vulnerable) it's for the young men to take responsibility for the things making them so angry. And these young men are responding really well to that message. That seems like a good thing to me.
Why are you being dense? The point of me posting that is to show the type of thing he teaches his students. You know, kids who go to school to get this kind of perspective.
There are critics of third-wave feminism and identity politics on the far right, far left, moderate right, moderate left, and center. While the theories enjoy general support on the left, and general opposition on the right, they are not the province of any one political party or sub-party. Do you not think the creepy white nationalist vibe among the alt-right is another form of identity politics?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life One of the more benign explainers that does a good putting everything in context and showing he is largely arguing in bad faith.
You're once again misconstruing my argument. I didn't say he's in league with the alt-right. The vast majority of his stuff is benign, but I think that the alt-right uses a number of his positions and rhetoric ( like "the marxist lie of white privilege," blaming "western leftist intellectuals going underground," etc.) as intellectual justification for for its positions. Of course it has to reach for intellectual justification, because there really isn't any. But, they're able to plug in (((globalists))) in place of marxists/postmodernists and western leftists to fit their agenda. I watched his really long, most popular video but have otherwise not read anything of his. He is a really talented speaker and a gifted debater. I can see how he has a tremendous superficial appeal. My problem with him is, like the clip posted about the Hitler, is that he often relies on assumptions that are historically incomplete and/or incorrect in political theory. He combines Marxism/Postmodernism into this monolithic conspiratorial force that isn't really accurate. You'd be hard pressed to find any political scientists who would come anywhere close to his intermingling of the two, and most would argue that they're in conflict. There's no denying that the dude has found a perfect niche in contemporary politics.
Redav came out of the womb reading a WWII encyclopedia while sipping the cuntiest triple foam latte you've ever seen.
Beauty and the Beast: perfect Little Mermaid: perfect Sleeping Beauty: perfect Lion King: problematic Frozen: pure propaganda
Maps of meaning and 12 rules are his only two books. Maps of meaning is really far down in the weeds, and is super heavy on Carl Jung who he’s clearly heavily influenced by. 12 rules is basically his self help book that largely deals with individual perception, attitude, and responsibility. It’s very good, although there are plenty of parts where he takes an idea a little far or just completely nerds out. My biggest criticism of him so far is he knows he has built this massive following, and people are reading his work as gospel. That’s basically the opposite of what he’s telling people to do, but he’s not in a big hurry to point that out bc he’s trying to cash in on his 15 minutes of fame. I can’t say I really blame him for that, but there’s a lot of lost people that would probably walk off a cliff at this point if he told them to, and he’s supposed to be leading people the opposite direction of that place.
I would agree that he exaggerates the overlap between marxism and postmodernism generally, as postmodernism is a very broad label used to describe many independent disciplines. With regard to critical theory specifically, while there are authors in that tradition who conflict with Marxists (think of Searle's take on binary opposition), there are also a lot of Neo-Marxists. Hell, Marx himself is often assigned as work as his political theories are constantly referenced by the later thinkers. I would agree with Peterson in part insomuch as it seems a lot of crit theory was adopted wholesale from the discipline of semiotics (where it performs very well) into the broader humanities umbrella without, as far as I can tell, any empirical evidence of its usefulness or efficacy.
I thoroughly enjoy the irony in the types of people that adore Jordan Peterson resorting to worshiping a self important, douchebag professor.
how do the hit songs from these movies factor into his views? that and the quality of the comedic side characters is what i primarily use.
The only criteria by which you may evaluate Disney films, or early any artistic endeavor, is in how well they adhere to Jungian archetypes
True, he has quite literally profited off of the hysteria. At the same time, he probably releases 20 hours of jungian bible study for every 20 minutes of anti-identity politics, so it’s not as if he can tone it down much without going completely catatonic. I’ve tried to listen to some of the biblical series and made it through one episode, but they’re very dense and too self-helpy for me. The one part of his message that I agree with wholeheartedly is his views on free speech, which I have always viewed as a bedrock right and worth people’s time and attention.
The point is that identifying yourself as being a part of a group that is opposed the actions/policies of another group is just politics. The entire term “identity politics” is a bullshit idea created by people that want to characterize those commutes to working on behalf of marginalized groups as disingenuous. Jordan Peterson and the alt right share this idea that is somehow bad that people working for the advancement of black people in this country don’t want to reach out to people that want to keep them marginalized (at best). That is just an absurd level of privilege that they would again deny exists.
Demographic groups don't a priori act as a unit or share the same political opinions. Without getting lost in the weeds of a debate about the merits of postmodernism, there is a difference between two sides arguing for a different political result, versus attributing characteristics/experiences/opinions to an individual just because they happen to fit into a given demographic category. With regards to Peterson, first off he's Canadian, and has said very little about black Americans or American politics in general. The bulk of his crusade has been against a Canadian gender discrimination bill. Secondly, he has said on numerous occasions that the far, or "alt" right is just as guilty of playing identity politics as the far left, and that the two groups feed off of one another.
Nobody sensible contends this point, but that is exactly what users of the phrase “identity politics” do. They lump people working to correct injustice into a group and diminish their complaint by saying they focus only on labels. These are the people working to improve the lives of people that suffer because of the label affixed to their identity by the group in power and they are being called the ones unduly obsessed with labels. It’s absurdist. His Canadian-ness has not in any way limited his attempts to comment on American politics in order to increase his profile and make himself money. He cane to prominence over an issue with trans people and their treatment in Canada, but the American alt-right saw in that a champion against liberalism. That’s what propelled him to his current level of popularity. He is smart enough to be aware of that and play on it to maintain his status. That doesn’t change anything about the phrase “identity politics” and its use in America today.
You seem to be confusing social welfare programs and identity politics. I agree that some critics do the same, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are discreet things. Many social welfare policies are completely identity-independent. I.e., minimum wage, universal healthcare, universal basic income, etc... Conversely, many identity politics have absolutely nothing to do with social welfare programs. I.e., cultural appropriation incidents, google’s ratio of male to female engineers, deplatforming a college lecturer, etc... Sure, there is plenty of overlap, both in the theory and the debate surrounding the issues, but they are not interchangeable. It’s not just an American phenomenon, he’s commenting on broader trends in western culture. That he happens to be popular in America doesn’t in itself mean anything other than he’s popular in America. He also, again, explicitly denounces the far right and accuses them of playing the same identity politic games as the far left.