Is Jordan B Peterson's new website idea an atrocious one or reasonable one?

I don't think Jordan Peterson is saying that the Frankfurt school of thought is single-handedly responsible for modern western culture. I think he's saying that the Frankfurt school influenced radical ideas in academia which are gaining tract today, and might be responsible for shaping the culture of the future, if the ideas go unchecked.

I would say that it is an over-simplification of his arguments to say that he believes the neo-Marxists to be responsible for everything under the sun.

It seems that I did not illustrate my point clearly enough. I'm saying that Lind's whole platform about "cultural subversion" and how it functions, and the terminology used in his attempts to describe the phenomenon, seems to derive from the descriptions of men like Besmenov, Kalugin and other KGB agents. His thoughts in that regard are hardly original. The conspiracy that Marxists were subverting the United States culturally and through the media, had existed for a long time.

That he links the origins of "subversion" to the Frankfurt school, rather than the Soviets, may have been an idea that originated from him. Although I suspect that this idea was thrown about in many conservative circles for lot longer, considering that prominent critical theorists made no attempt to hide what they believed in that regard:

Herbert Marcuse corresponded with Dutschke in 1971 to agree with this strategy, "Let me tell you this: that I regard your notion of the 'long march through the institutions' as the only effective way..."[4] In his 1972 book, Counterrevolution and Revolt, Marcuse wrote

To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions: working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et cetera), and at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterrevolution_and_Revolt




I don't think he's necessarily drawing a line from gender studies to Pol Pot. He sees gender studies as having little academic worth, while he draws a line from the people who parade around Soviet-era Communist symbols, hammer and sickles, to the killing fields of Pol Pot and Stalin. No differently than a man would draw a line from a person waving the Nazi flag, to the gas chambers of Holocaust.

Yes, I said that Lind condensed the John Birch society's vague ramblings into a coherent theory when he popularised the term in a post-communist context. That's why Yuri was first presented by G Edward Griffin. His vague doom mongering, strident anti-communism and conservative ideology was the perfect match for their conspiratorial mindset. Never mind that his timeline and claims about Soviet subversion utterly failed to materialise.
Lind also openly catered to the anti-semitic element.

Peterson doesn't say much about the term at all, but I'm sure he's aware of the baggage it brings, and how it was popularised in the '90s as part of the conservative persecution complex in the US Culture Wars. He caters to his audience.

Peterson has point blank claimed that mass killings are the end game of the Marxist doctrine present in Women's Studies and the like.

"People say that real Marxism has never been tried – not in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Korea, that wasn’t real Marxism. I find that argument specious, appalling, ignorant, and maybe also malevolent all at the same time. Specious because Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people would die in the 20th century because of it.

You’ve painted a pretty bleak picture for the future.

There are bleak things going on. To start with, Bill C-16 writes social constructionism into the fabric of the law. Social constructionism is the doctrine that all human roles are socially constructed. They’re detached from the underlying biology and from the underlying objective world. So Bill C-16 contains an assault on biology and an implicit assault on the idea of objective reality. It’s also blatant in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policies and the Ontario Human Rights Act. It says identity is nothing but subjective. So a person can be male one day and female the next, or male one hour and female the next."


Sure seems like he's trying to draw that line to me.
Reminds me of the Glen Beck special on Socialism, Nazism and healthcare.

You're free to inform him about the excess baggage associated with those terms. I don't think he is intentionally trying to rile up anti-Semitic sentiment.

It's just that cultural Marxism happens to be a fairly accurate description of self-described Marxists that subscribe to the critical theory and believe in the establishment of a cultural hegemony, as the way to further the cause of socialism.

Spencer's politics are basically a "pale" imitation of the identity politics on the left. It's not a stretch to say that his version of the alt-right shares similarities with the radically progressive movement of the left.

I was wrong about Gottfried's teacher being Hockheimer, it was Marcuse. Hockheimer had returned to Germany at that point. I'll give Peterson the benefit of the doubt in terms of using such loaded terminology unless I see something blatantly antisemitic from him.
Spencer's politics are identity politics (as are Gottfrieds), but no-one that's actually read any Frankfurt School material would say they are a product of the "Frankfurt School" or "Marxism".
 
Beliefs need to be based within someone's perception of reality. If one does not think an action happened, one cannot simply believe it did. Beliefs make claims about the state of the world. One cannot simply skirt past this, and drone on in the pretense of this fact being undecided. Philosophical dodges dont impress me, nor do they do any work when people attempt to actual address questions.

With respect, you don't seem at all familiar with the topic of religion. And certainly not Christianity. Assuming you are being sincere, that is.

Christians absolutely do not need to believe the Bible as being historically or scientifically accurate. You are going to need a time machine to take up that issue, because it's been a settled matter in Christianity for centuries and no serious religious scholar would waste their time on such nonsense.

It sounds rough, but yours is a very child-like view of religion. Coming at Peterson with a criticism like yours is like challenging Kasparov to a game of tic-tac-toe.
 
With respect, you don't seem at all familiar with the topic of religion. And certainly not Christianity. Assuming you are being sincere, that is.

Christians absolutely do not need to believe the Bible as being historically or scientifically accurate. You are going to need a time machine to take up that issue, because it's been a settled matter in Christianity for centuries and no serious religious scholar would waste their time on such nonsense.

It sounds rough, but yours is a very child-like view of religion. Coming at Peterson with a criticism like yours is like challenging Kasparov to a game of tic-tac-toe.

Either Adam and Eve are our common ancestor, or they are not. If Jesus was there to vindicate the Adam and Eve story, and it was not real, his entire life was wasted, alongside countless millions. The original claim, if believed, must be thought by the believer to be an accurate representation of what happened in history. A metaphorical or metaphysical dodge does nothing to address anything.

Whenever the faithful cant answer questions, they insist it is because of disrespect, lack of knowledge, or their reasoning is stuck in the 19th century literal interpretation (conveniently glossing over the fact that christians believed the literal truth of the bible until science had made this an imposture).
 
>JP is considered right-wing because he is pro free speech
>mfw

He is associated with being on the right because of his obsession with SJWs, his views on women, his views on transpeople, his references to kek & pepe, his constant critique of "the left" but almost never of the right, the fact that he is a christian (neochristian amirite), and his $70k+ monthly patreon account that is paid for in full by deluded right-wingers who call themselves classical liberalists
Why is he obsessed with sjws? Could it be because they're the group that put him in the limelight by attacking him when he took a stance against mandated speech?

What are his views on women?

What are his views on trans people?

Can you provide any specifics of what we should disagree with, or do you only have vague allusions to some kind of boogeyman type of activities of which you have no proof? I keep reading references to JP getting donations from people who appreciate his videos. Is that your "gotcha" against this man? I don't het the negativity.
 
I stand by the statement. People were implying JP was not intelligent. Sure, I said it facetiously, but there is something more going on here, it doesn't make sense for you to be so upset about this.

You can "come back at me", i.e. be a dick to me all you want, that's your prerogative.
I’m not upset lol. Virtually impossible to do on Sherdog.
 
Seeing random Sherbros pretending to be more intelligent and educated than Ph.D professors who taught at Harvard because of a 5 minute clip on philosophy is something else. Never change, Sherdog.
Does that also apply to the right wingers who thumb their noses at left wing PhDs or just Peterson's leftist critics?
 
Does that also apply to the right wingers who thumb their noses at left wing PhDs or just Peterson's leftist critics?
If they are criticizing a PhD in lesbian arts degrees than no it does not apply to them.
 
Either Adam and Eve are our common ancestor, or they are not. If Jesus was there to vindicate the Adam and Eve story, and it was not real, his entire life was wasted, alongside countless millions. The original claim, if believed, must be thought by the believer to be an accurate representation of what happened in history. A metaphorical or metaphysical dodge does nothing to address anything.

It's better not to engage in subjects like this if you are totally ignorant of the topic. The first shifts away from literalism predates modern science by centuries. You are going to need your trusty Delorean to travel back in time to take up this issue.

Then again, I'm starting to think you might be a bliblical literalist and that's why Peterson's nuanced approach makes you so angry. Either way, nobody needs to conform to your views of religion.

And you already got your answer. Most Christians, including Peterson, do not view the Bible as a historical or scientific text. Is that your "gotcha" moment? I answered that question 7 pages ago.
 
It's better not to engage in subjects like this if you are totally ignorant of the topic. The first shifts away from literalism predates modern science by centuries. You are going to need your trusty Delorean to travel back in time to take up this issue.

Then again, I'm starting to think you might be a bliblical literalist and that's why Peterson's nuanced approach makes you so angry. Either way, nobody needs to conform to your views of religion.

When speaking of a specific event, which makes a specific claim, one can deem this statement true or false. Either Jesus is messiah, or he is not.

If you went back and asked any Jew "Were two people named Adam and Eve literally the two first human beings ever?" He would have told you yes or no. Going "I don't feel I am qualified to comment on the purported literal or metaphysical state of being in pertinence to the physical reality of what one might call Adam or Eve, if they or if they could even be considered a unique entity to each other, subjectively or objectively. I feel I have answered the question as accurately as I can." One thing you would not do in the future is ask that person for input on the actual solving of anything.
 
It is rather interesting how large this thread turned out to be. I think it is because on some level Dr Peterson is bringing in some genuinely unnerving concepts into public discourse and it's making a fundamental impact.

For the record, I would never claim him to be a prophet of any kind and I presume those who support his work, sans for the type who feel the need to be 4chan type trolls, wouldn't either. An infallible human figure does not exist. He's not an intellectual shepherd and it seems rather clear he didn't set out to be one. That said, in the field of psychology and self help much of the material Dr Peterson is sharing is stuff I wish like hell I'd been exposed to much earlier in life. At at this point he certainly seems farther ahead than secularist intellectuals in science or anywhere else in terms of bringing genuinely new ideas to the public. When is the last time Maher, Dawkins, Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, The Daily Show or similar secularist and/or liberal public commentators brought in genuinely contentious concepts to this extent? Since this topic has gone on a lot longer than I thought I figured I would clarify this.
 
When speaking of a specific event, which makes a specific claim, one can deem this statement true or false. Either Jesus is messiah, or he is not.

If you went back and asked any Jew "Were two people named Adam and Eve literally the two first human beings ever?" He would have told you yes or no. Going "I don't feel I am qualified to comment on the purported literal or metaphysical state of being in pertinence to the physical reality of what one might call Adam or Eve, if they or if they could even be considered a unique entity to each other, subjectively or objectively. I feel I have answered the question as accurately as I can." One thing you would not do in the future is ask that person for input on the actual solving of anything.

You keep writing the same thing and it's wrong every time you write it. The point you are trying to make hasn't been relevant for hundreds of years.

If you are a fundamentalist who takes every word in the bible literally as historical and scientific fact, then that is your choice. Many, including Peterson, do not share your beliefs and there's nothing you can do to change that.
 
You keep writing the same thing and it's wrong every time you write it. The point you are trying to make hasn't been relevant for hundreds of years.

If you are a fundamentalist who takes every word in the bible literally as historical and scientific fact, then that is your choice. Many, including Peterson, do not share your beliefs and there's nothing you can do to change that.

He is out of his element. he likely has not studied the relevant fields other than the odd wikipedia research. But that is 90% of sherdog.
 
Why is he obsessed with sjws? Could it be because they're the group that put him in the limelight by attacking him when he took a stance against mandated speech?

What are his views on women?

What are his views on trans people?

Can you provide any specifics of what we should disagree with, or do you only have vague allusions to some kind of boogeyman type of activities of which you have no proof? I keep reading references to JP getting donations from people who appreciate his videos. Is that your "gotcha" against this man? I don't het the negativity.
I have no interest in explaining on any deeper level than I already have why this christian nut and his sect of incel followers should be disregarded.

If you truly care, I've pointed to where you can look and hes also already been BTFO'd a few times in this thread.
 
"Without Christianity, and its emphasis on truth at all costs, science would never have come about." - JP

laughing-hysterically-gif-1.gif
Bonus meme:

 
Last edited:
I have no interest in explaining on any deeper level than I already have why this christian nut and his sect of incel followers should be disregarded.

If you truly care, I've pointed to where you can look and hes also already been BTFO'd a few times in this thread.
You haven't explained anything at all. Literally.
 
It really depends on the individual. I have had close friends who would fit those descriptions. But I have also had close friends who would almost fit the opposite of those descriptions.

There are two answers to two basic questions I would like to hear from JP:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. (If yes) How do you define the term "Christian"?

If he has already answered these questions and you can link me to those responses, I will give them a look/listen.
He hedges like a motherfucker and then tries to undermine objective reality. Surprised?
 
He hedges like a motherfucker and then tries to undermine objective reality. Surprised?

This is the oldest known statement of faith and confession used by believers in Christ. Usually referred to as the "Apostles' Creed". (Not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed.)

Notice the Apostle's Creed does not refer to either the divinity of Jesus (Jesus as God incarnate) nor to the Trinity. As these were evolved, not original, doctrines of the Jesus movement.

But it does hit certain classic "high notes" and certainly establishes the baseline for anyone claiming the title "Christian".

And, again, the creed is a statement of convicted belief - not a statement of "still investigating answers to those questions", ala Peterson.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy universal church,
the community of believers,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
 
This is the oldest known statement of faith and confession used by believers in Christ. Usually referred to as the "Apostles' Creed". (Not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed.)

Notice the Apostle's Creed does not refer to either the divinity of Jesus (Jesus as God incarnate) nor to the Trinity. As these were evolved, not original, doctrines of the Jesus movement.

But it does hit certain classic "high notes" and certainly establishes the baseline for anyone claiming the title "Christian".

And, again, the creed is a statement of convicted belief - not a statement of "still investigating answers to those questions", ala Peterson.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy universal church,
the community of believers,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Yeah Peterson doesn't go that route at all. He'll waffle and say "what is belief?" or "what is true?" and then excuse the Christian stupidity by saying that there are underlying forces and psychological states that led to people believing in gods. And it's like, yeah, no fucking shit, jackass- there is indeed religion in the world. Nice tautology.
 
Bonus meme:


See, I don't think Peterson actually believes that. But, Peterson is right that you would be crucified for asking the question. And if you can be crucified for trying to pursue a line of inquiry, that is problematic.
 
Yeah Peterson doesn't go that route at all. He'll waffle and say "what is belief?" or "what is true?" and then excuse the Christian stupidity by saying that there are underlying forces and psychological states that led to people believing in gods. And it's like, yeah, no fucking shit, jackass- there is indeed religion in the world. Nice tautology.

But he, himself, identifies as a Christian. That, to me, is the central problem.
 
Back
Top