Comments by "LS O\x27Brien" (@lsobrien) on "Jordan Peterson And YouTube's Search For Meaning" video.
-
As Peterson goes around the world saying all he does, I’m told, and told again, that he “is being heralded as one of the world’s foremost public intellectuals”. (Just why do these journalists rely on the exact same turns of phrase? And why are they not honest enough to admit that they are the ones heralding?)
Many of those who in fact know something of postmodernist theory or neo-Marxist philosophy — because, hold onto your fins, they are not the same — can’t take the man seriously. In his joining of those distinct categories to create his big, terrifying Other or Them, he’s, in Wolfgang Pauli’s phrase, not even wrong.
That’s certainly not to say leftists more generally shouldn’t engage with him. Peterson may not be a serious thinker, but the committed following he commands is very real. As a result, when a good portion of them seem to believe the BS that a minority x is a threat to everything they hold dear, matters necessitate a response.
“The anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.”
He’s reinforcing the falsehood that the effigy that some untrustworthy theorists before him have erected, and branded cultural Marxism, is far more dangerous than the populist old-school rightism currently swamping the corridors of power, and not at all under the dreaded guise of cultural theory. It’s the responsibility of others to point out the obvious, however tiresome: this bogeyman is so clearly made of straw.
And go further, by stating the case that that other movement, typified by Trump, Putin, Modi, Erdoğan, Duterte, Berlusconi, Orbán, Morawiecki, and all those other revolting nationalists, is a rather more pressing concern. One to be opposed, and not strategically aligned with because they do battle with the forces of secularisation, relativism, equality and all the other heresies born from, or supported by, liberal thought. I repeat, Jordan Peterson a “classic British liberal,” a traditionalist, communitarian and pragmatist, self-proclaimed scourge of postmodernism, a Nietzschean, opportunistic crusader for Enlightenment values who encourages men to “offer your sons up as a sacrifice to God,” is not a serious thinker.
Should anyone else insist on using the same archaic language as the man of the hour: it’s not the barbarians at the gate or in the trendy coffee shops we need to be worried about. It’s the barbarism inherent to our institutions. Because it is that which leads us — collectively — to make the same mistakes again, and again, and again; with ever more tragifarcial consequences, in this the nuclear-tipped Anthropocene.
Personal tragedies inevitably follow; false prophets not far behind. Offering easy answers (for a fee), and a embrace that, ever so subtly, turns to constriction. How pathetic, how troubled, how sad an age that propels frauds like Peterson to stardom. How frightening.
https://medium.com/@lukeob/seriously-the-conclusion-to-questioning-jordan-petersons-politics-b7abb3857cee
10
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
DonPapi mo You could always read the article, where everything I've said is substantiated. In short re: Marxism:
- He incorrectly (and stupidly) conflated it with postmodernism, a tendency that was in response and a rejection of metanarratives like Marxism. (Bonus: showing his utter dishonesty, after realising this he simply updated his theory to suggest leading postmodernists were devious hidden Marxists.)
- He repeatedly lies about what Marx and Marxism represents - in his bastardisation of Pareto this is most apparent. I explain this in detail in the article.
- He claims Marxism can be attacked for resulting in 100 million deaths ("or more", another flight of fancy of his). He has never applied the same standards to Capitalism, or "classical" liberalism - another tradition he's ignorant of.
- He claims Marxists won't debate him despite Douglas Lain and Zizek offering one, and there being an entire conference in October called "Responding to Peterson", to which he was invited. His staff eventually rejected the first (Peterson was busy they said, and then Lain simply "wasn't famous enough"), and then asked for $50,000 in response to the latter. So much for our "free speech warrior".
The last point speaks to Peterson's opportunism and charlatanism. Things which now define his career - could you afford a ticket to one of his fanboy gatherings?
I suggest you do research into this fraud, before he empties your wallet or gets you - like all cult leaders attempt - to do something compromising.
2
-
DonPapi mo There's just so much wrong with how you've interpreted what I wrote, that I have to conclude it's mostly intentional. If however it's not, and you really are a terrible reader and/or so "ideologically possessed" that you can't see the wood for the trees, I'll attempt to respond to some of your argument.
Re: your hideous ahistoricism: from that article you haven't read despite criticising:
To consider what [Victor Serge] meant, Mike Davis’s Late Victorian Holocausts is a good start. In the preface, Davis discusses the perhaps 60 million famine deaths of that era, a period considered the last hurrah of enlightened European colonialism.
"Millions died, not outside the “modern world system,” but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism; indeed, many were murdered, as we shall see, by the theological application of the sacred principles of Smith, Bentham and Mill."
He continues to emphasise the terrible lack of attention assessments of Liberal Capitalism paid to such tragedies,
"It is like writing the history of the late twentieth century without mentioning the Great Leap Forward famine or Cambodia’s killing fields."
Elsewhere, we learn British authorities made a deliberate effort to prevent the sort of emergency relief efforts take in the past - all to maintain the integrity of the free market (interestingly, some Tory MPs were the loudest critics of this). We also discover that the feudal systems of China and Russia were more humanitarian than the so-called progressive, capitalistic Brits.
But it's okay to deny those tens of millions, I guess. After all, they didn't feature in that Gulag Archipelago all of Peterson's cultists claim to read despite struggling with YouTube comments.
2
-
@bradspitt3896 If you agree with Peterson that SJWs/postmodern Neo-Marxist college students are a greater threat than deranged nationalists currently in power (and I would add Pinochet-lite, wrecker of the Amazon Bolsonaro, to that list), you're deluded.
I'm sorry if that's uncivil, but fuck me, how skewed must your worldview be? Red hysteria, though oftentimes ridiculous, was somewhat justified during the Cold War. Now, however, it's silly. Silly and dangerous.
As for the stuff about chaos: 1 it's not relevant, and 2, the universe is chaotic by default, despite what our brains - perhaps religious by default - find solace in believing. That might just become clear to you as the sea levels rise, the global template explodes, species die out en mass, and you realise you've been busy railing against Peterson's boogeymen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tobymcinnis7031 Person A: the sky is blue.
Person B: I can't believe you're arguing that grass is purple.
Person A: you're not the reading type, huh?
Person C: TONE POLICE INCOMING! YOU ARE HAUGHTY PERSON A, AND HERE, I'LL REFERENCE TWO EXCEEDINGLY WELL KNOWN LITERARY CHARACTERS TO PROVE IT.
What would we do without you, Person C?
Now you're conflating SJWism with Stalinism. What can I say to this? Where would one start?
Perhaps mockingly: oh yes, we all remember the infamous late-Bolshevik platform of "More Female CEOs!" and, of course, "We Should Allow Gays Into The Capitalist War Machine".
Another way is realise what a malevolent ideologically possessed tyrant in waiting you are, and completely ignore you (a la Peterson).
Another is with sympathy, and ensuring this never happens again: beware kids, this is your brain on Jordan Peterson.
1