Page 53 of 118 FirstFirst ... 32843444546474849505152535455565758596061626378103 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,060 of 2355

Thread: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

  1. #1041

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Jordan Peterson is the main preacher of your typical, Sunday church (mainly Protestant) platitudes. He asks his readers to love their family and fight for their interests and then spends half of his overpriced books arguing why such nursery school pieces of advise are not only radical, but are also threatened by the Jewish Communist-dominated public discourse. He's the more eloquent, but equally boring, academic version of Coelho's Alchemist. I don't think he sincerely believes in what he advocates for, he's just a salesman aiming at the weaknesses of his potential customers, so the initiative of the employees looks a bit counter-productive, as it offers him free publicity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Peterson is a credentialed scholar who pushes back against mythologies like critical theory, Marxism and postmodernism. Among academics that makes him a rarity and therefore a threat (hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth).
    No doubt about cultural Marxism being a myth, but Peterson has actually been promoting it, not pushing it back. Peterson has not invented the concept, but by endorsing it and profiting from the ignorance of the average journalist, he has succeeded in streamlining it and making it acceptable among mainstream conservatives. Cultural Marxism has been actually inspired from Cultural Bolshevism, the Nazi narrative of rejecting Jewish/Communist decadence in art, but was repopularised in the United States, by the publishing network of convicted fraudster Lyndon LaRouche. From there, it was embellished by a paleo-conservative think-tank and then adopted by more visible activists, like Jordan Peterson. For a brief summary, read here. Now, I'm sure that Peterson is only interested in that shady stuff, because they help him sell books and increase his Internet fame, which is perfectly fine in the free world we live, but the issue here is that the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism is also responsible for quite a few, deadly terrorist attacks, from California to Norway, so ethical concerns are raised, in my opinion.

  2. #1042
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,405

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Isn't that the whole concept of the theory of culture Marxism to justify at least mass layoffs of "Marxists/Socialist" from public offices, because Socialists aka Marxists aka Femnazis aka everyone, who doesn't fit in their small minded, conservative, nationalistic worldview, are destroying the good old society, where white male upperclass Richie Richs with Silverspoons in their hands could enjoy their privileges at fullest?
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  3. #1043

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Is Peterson really considered a 'controversial' figure? I've always found him incredibly tame. I can't imagine him saying something blatantly racist.

    Last edited by Prodromos; November 27, 2020 at 05:31 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  4. #1044

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Came across this yesterday:
    "Cultural Marxism In Academia
    This is a work in progress. The intention is to gather a bibliography of academic work using or interacting with “Cultural Marxism” to show that scholars do indeed use this term for the Frankfurt School and derivatives. Credit for much of this list goes to Timon Cline."
    https://socialjusticearchive.wordpre...m-in-academia/
    Last edited by Infidel144; November 27, 2020 at 05:51 AM.

  5. #1045

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Jordan Peterson is the main preacher of your typical, Sunday church (mainly Protestant) platitudes. He asks his readers to love their family and fight for their interests and then spends half of his overpriced books arguing why such nursery school pieces of advise are not only radical, but are also threatened by the Jewish Communist-dominated public discourse.
    I'm sure you have proof that JP engages in anti-semitic dogwhistling, as insinuated by your post.


    I don't think he sincerely believes in what he advocates for, he's just a salesman aiming at the weaknesses of his potential customers, so the initiative of the employees looks a bit counter-productive, as it offers him free publicity.
    What makes you think that?
    I'm sure you have some sources other than some blogs, one of which calls itself the "daily c-word" (probably unintentional, but seems fitting). How about presenting some argument for these assertions, instead of rehashing the same adjectives and "istaphobe"-words again and again?


    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Is Peterson really considered a 'controversial' figure? I've always found him incredibly tame. I can't imagine him saying something blatantly racist.
    Indeed. I get the complaint that his books are overpriced or don't say anything new, maybe that's valid (I'd have to read them to judge), but on the other hand, that's easy to say if you've had the privilege of a decent upbringing. Lots of people apparently need the advice he gives, and I'd rather they listen to him than to the incredibly toxic stuff coming from other corners of the internet, including anything that calls itself "left-wing".

  6. #1046

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Opinions don't require citations. My assertion might be wrong, but I base it on the assumption that Peterson seems to be clever enough to realise that the platitudes he sells to his audience are neither original nor consistent and on the fact that the populist right has a long history of fraud. Its prophets tend to pander to their potential customers biases, in order to generate profit for themselves. This can be observed from the United States and Lyndon LaRouche, the aforementioned pioneer of Peterson's ideas to Germany and the comical adventures of the Indentitarian cruise in the Mediterranean Sea.

    I didn't claim that Peterson is engaging in Antisemitic dog-whistling, but, as I previously explained, the narrative he promotes traces its roots in Nazism and the unfounded connection between Jews, Bolshevism and cultural degeneracy. Peterson has modified the terminology of his crusade against left-wing political correctness, in order to render it more digestible for his more naïve viewers, but the hysteria about Communists infiltrating the academia, the media, Hollywood etc. is also endorsed by various Antisemites, like Breivik and fellow professor of psychology of the Californian State University, Kevin McDonald.
    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I'm sure you have some sources other than some blogs, one of which calls itself the "daily c-word" (probably unintentional, but seems fitting).
    The content of the article was sufficiently referenced, so your ad hominem attack looks like an unsubstantiated fallacy. If you believe that its historical reconstruction is inaccurate, feel free to explain why, instead of focusing on being posted in a blog. By the way, I chose that site, because it was more easily accessible. As the note just below the title clarifies, it was originally published in a quarterly periodical. You can read it in JSTOR, if you find its format more rigid and reliable.

  7. #1047

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Jordan Peterson is the main preacher of your typical, Sunday church (mainly Protestant) platitudes. He asks his readers to love their family and fight for their interests and then spends half of his overpriced books arguing why such nursery school pieces of advise are not only radical, but are also threatened by the Jewish Communist-dominated public discourse. He's the more eloquent, but equally boring, academic version of Coelho's Alchemist. I don't think he sincerely believes in what he advocates for, he's just a salesman aiming at the weaknesses of his potential customers, so the initiative of the employees looks a bit counter-productive, as it offers him free publicity.

    No doubt about cultural Marxism being a myth, but Peterson has actually been promoting it, not pushing it back. Peterson has not invented the concept, but by endorsing it and profiting from the ignorance of the average journalist, he has succeeded in streamlining it and making it acceptable among mainstream conservatives. Cultural Marxism has been actually inspired from Cultural Bolshevism, the Nazi narrative of rejecting Jewish/Communist decadence in art, but was repopularised in the United States, by the publishing network of convicted fraudster Lyndon LaRouche. From there, it was embellished by a paleo-conservative think-tank and then adopted by more visible activists, like Jordan Peterson. For a brief summary, read here. Now, I'm sure that Peterson is only interested in that shady stuff, because they help him sell books and increase his Internet fame, which is perfectly fine in the free world we live, but the issue here is that the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism is also responsible for quite a few, deadly terrorist attacks, from California to Norway, so ethical concerns are raised, in my opinion.
    There is a difference between the Frankfurt School conspiracy and the observable application of Marxian theory in cultural spaces (i.e. the Maoist Cultural Revolution or Stalinist attacks against religious institutions). The classless society (i.e. communism) cannot be achieved without the cultural relics of the hierarchical society being excised.

    Left-wing radicals in the US have successfully introduced the oppressor/oppressed dynamic (rebranded as privilege) into the American mainstream, but in a twist of glorious, albeit predictable, irony, have seen their efforts monetized by the dominant liberal class.

    As for Peterson, that his milquetoast “Sunday church platitudes” provoke such a visceral reaction rather illustrates the extent to which the West has been transformed.



  8. #1048

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Opinions don't require citations. My assertion might be wrong, but I base it on the assumption that Peterson seems to be clever enough to realise that the platitudes he sells to his audience are neither original nor consistent and on the fact that the populist right has a long history of fraud.
    What does the "populist right" have to do with Peterson?


    Its prophets tend to pander to their potential customers biases, in order to generate profit for themselves. This can be observed from the United States and Lyndon LaRouche, the aforementioned pioneer of Peterson's ideas to Germany and the comical adventures of the Indentitarian cruise in the Mediterranean Sea.
    I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean, but I can confidently state the following:
    1) Nobody in Germany knows who or what a Lyndon LaRouche is, and
    2) The Identitarian Movement has nothing to do with Jordan Peterson, and to my best of knowledge neither of them has claimed otherwise.


    I didn't claim that Peterson is engaging in Antisemitic dog-whistling, but, as I previously explained, the narrative he promotes traces its roots in Nazism and the unfounded connection between Jews, Bolshevism and cultural degeneracy.
    I don't think that the narrative he promotes has anything to do with NS, especially as you can easily find evidence on youtube of his professional opinion on said ideology. It just seems like a desperate attempt at guilt by association. Kind of like "he said smoking is bad, the Nazis were against smoking, ergo he's a Nazi".


    Peterson has modified the terminology of his crusade against left-wing political correctness, in order to render it more digestible for his more naïve viewers,
    So you are saying he's dog-whistling after all.


    but the hysteria about Communists infiltrating the academia, the media, Hollywood etc.
    Is it hysteria? Last time I checked it was en vogue among media and academic elites to profess Marxist, if not outright Communist, sympathies. Whereas being a moderately conservative Christian in Hollywood (or a liberal leftist Jew at the New York Times) can put your career in jeopardy. Do I have to give you the names?


    The content of the article was sufficiently referenced, so your ad hominem attack looks like an unsubstantiated fallacy.
    Is it ad hominem if I deride the name of a journal?


    If you believe that its historical reconstruction is inaccurate, feel free to explain why, instead of focusing on being posted in a blog. By the way, I chose that site, because it was more easily accessible. As the note just below the title clarifies, it was originally published in a quarterly periodical. You can read it in JSTOR, if you find its format more rigid and reliable.
    Given the evidence available, I think the claim that JP is a fraud and/or has sinister motives is so outlandish that it has to be proven.

  9. #1049
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,958
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Peterson is a credentialed scholar who pushes back against mythologies like critical theory, Marxism and postmodernism. Among academics that makes him a rarity and therefore a threat (hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth).

    These latest deplatforming attempts serve only to prove him right. If it wasn't already painfully obvious, the radicals and their liberal enablers really do want to limit the breadth of acceptable speech. Hitherto, and somewhat fortuitously, they’ve succeeded only in publicising his work.
    I'm sure he's a fine psychologist. I don't care either way, because he is primarily a political figure, and I think his politics are flimsy.

    For example, he doesn't rail against "Marxism and postmodernism", he rails against "postmodern neo-Marxism". Marxism is a broad school of thought, but postmodernism and Marxism are actually contradictory concepts: Marxism is modernist and postmodernism is anti-modernist. The whole point behind postmodernism is that we shouldn't put our faith in these grand, universal explanations and a theory like Marxism cannot truly capture the entire course of civilization without having inaccuracies. It doesn't really make sense to combine the two.

    For that reason, it seems like Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxism" is just a dysphemism for "left-of-center", but acting like everything left-of-center is remotely monolithic is a little ridiculous. For example, just how Marxist can an American publishing company that's part of an international multi-billion-dollar conglomerate even be? Not very! Even a private university or a corporate HR department isn't free from being considered a part of the postmodern neo-Marxist movement to Lobster Dad. The only way everything left-of-center would seem so unified is if someone is so right-wing that any attempt to alleviate the effects of discrimination or past injustices all looks the same to them. I doubt he's actually that far to the right, but he kind of caters to that audience.

    He also does this thing where he conflates subjectivity with nihilism. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but more important to me is that he isn't consistent in decrying relativism. His own books incorporate subjectivity. For example, the Order and Chaos dichotomy in his books and talks themselves are ultimately cast as subjective. So he makes money going on talks denouncing contemporary relativism when progressives do it, but relativism is itself an important part of his worldview, so.... yeah.

    I mean, you've pretty much said it yourself: wealthy liberals monetizing leftist activism while being one of things those leftists rail against perfectly shows that The Left isn't the unified force that Lobster Dad often describes it being. How can they be out to destroy America as we know it if they're also constantly destroying each other? I think you give them too much credit and make them seem stronger than they really are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Came across this yesterday:
    "Cultural Marxism In Academia
    This is a work in progress. The intention is to gather a bibliography of academic work using or interacting with “Cultural Marxism” to show that scholars do indeed use this term for the Frankfurt School and derivatives. Credit for much of this list goes to Timon Cline."
    https://socialjusticearchive.wordpre...m-in-academia/
    No one is saying that the Frankfurt School doesn't exist. We're saying that America isn't at risk of a collapse because of a couple of boring nerds like Horkheimer and Adorno. Equating Cultural Marxism (the Frankfurt School) with cultural Marxism (the right-wing boogeyman) is basically a conspiracy theory.

    Regardless, the term cultural Marxism has a very unsavory origin story, so I'm not sure why anyone would be willing attached to the phrase.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    What does the "populist right" have to do with Peterson?
    Beats me, but they sure seem to leap to his aid whenever his reputation is besmirched.
    Read the latest TWC Content and check out the Wiki!
    ---
    Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

  10. #1050

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    I'm sure he's a fine psychologist. I don't care either way, because he is primarily a political figure, and I think his politics are flimsy.

    For example, he doesn't rail against "Marxism and postmodernism", he rails against "postmodern neo-Marxism". Marxism is a broad school of thought, but postmodernism and Marxism are actually contradictory concepts: Marxism is modernist and postmodernism is anti-modernist. The whole point behind postmodernism is that we shouldn't put our faith in these grand, universal explanations and a theory like Marxism cannot truly capture the entire course of civilization without having inaccuracies. It doesn't really make sense to combine the two.

    For that reason, it seems like Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxism" is just a dysphemism for "left-of-center", but acting like everything left-of-center is remotely monolithic is a little ridiculous. For example, just how Marxist can an American publishing company that's part of an international multi-billion-dollar conglomerate even be? Not very! Even a private university or a corporate HR department isn't free from being considered a part of the postmodern neo-Marxist movement to Lobster Dad. The only way everything left-of-center would seem so unified is if someone is so right-wing that any attempt to alleviate the effects of discrimination or past injustices all looks the same to them. I doubt he's actually that far to the right, but he kind of caters to that audience.

    He also does this thing where he conflates subjectivity with nihilism. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but more important to me is that he isn't consistent in decrying relativism. His own books incorporate subjectivity. For example, the Order and Chaos dichotomy in his books and talks themselves are ultimately cast as subjective. So he makes money going on talks denouncing contemporary relativism when progressives do it, but relativism is itself an important part of his worldview, so.... yeah.
    Peterson has criticized post-modernism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, the latter being a post-modernist “correction” of Marxism. His commentary is not tantamount to a denunciation of the centre-left, except to the extent which it condemns critical theory.

    The purpose of the lobster analysis was to illustrate that hierarchies are innate rather than solely the product of social conditioning (which is the view of both Marxism and post-modernism).

    I mean, you've pretty much said it yourself: wealthy liberals monetizing leftist activism while being one of things those leftists rail against perfectly shows that The Left isn't the unified force that Lobster Dad often describes it being. How can they be out to destroy America as we know it if they're also constantly destroying each other? I think you give them too much credit and make them seem stronger than they really are.
    The radical left and the liberal establishment promote identity activism for different, albeit equally cynical, reasons. The radicals hope it can be weaponized to revolutionize society, the liberals that it can be used to further the interests of the ruling class. Bizarrely, both of these outcomes are occurring simultaneously.



  11. #1051
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,958
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Peterson has criticized post-modernism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, the latter being a post-modernist “correction” of Marxism. His commentary is not tantamount to a denunciation of the centre-left, except to the extent which it condemns critical theory.
    No need to put words in his mouth. He says "postmodern neo-Marxism" often enough, it's a matter of public record. Unfortunately for him, the two are opposing views. He applies the nonsense term to a very wide variety of very non-Marxist people and institutions like university administration, corporate HR departments, liberal politicians, feminists, and sometime even the occasional actual Marxist. It's so silly because identity politics activists and Marxists - neither of which are postmodern - are constantly fighting each other along with postmodernists.

    There is just so little unity in the Left that something who thinks they can use one term to analyze so many different things is either not serious, not informed, so right-wing that any change to the status quo looks the same, or they are being really vague for some reason. I don't know which one it is for Lobster Dad, if any, but such a basic misrepresentation isn't really a good look. I wish I did know what he was trying to say, but beyond comparing activists to 20th-century mass murderers, he doesn't really pin himself down on any specifics of what he is actually advocating for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The purpose of the lobster analysis was to illustrate that hierarchies are innate rather than solely the product of social conditioning (which is the view of both Marxism and post-modernism).
    Not really.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Peterson: ... Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called “Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and it’s an injunction to be combative, not least to further your career, let’s say. But also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world and to reflect that in your posture. And the reason that I write about lobsters is because there’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. Common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous system do. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn’t.

    taken from https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2018/0...an-transcript/

    You'll have to hold my hand and explain it to me slowly who out there has ever claimed all social hierarchies were created by "the Western patriarchy" that justified writing a chapter about lobsters to debunk it. It's a strawman so extreme it's a non-sequitur.

    Although after reading through parts of that interview again, I started to appreciate once again how much of a prevaricating fellow he is. No wonder you like him.
    Last edited by pacifism; November 30, 2020 at 01:44 AM.
    Read the latest TWC Content and check out the Wiki!
    ---
    Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

  12. #1052

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    No need to put words in his mouth. He says "postmodern neo-Marxism" often enough, it's a matter of public record. Unfortunately for him, the two are opposing views. He applies the nonsense term to a very wide variety of very non-Marxist people and institutions like university administration, corporate HR departments, liberal politicians, feminists, and sometime even the occasional actual Marxist. It's so silly because identity politics activists and Marxists - neither of which are postmodern - are constantly fighting each other along with postmodernists.

    There is just so little unity in the Left that something who thinks they can use one term to analyze so many different things is either not serious, not informed, so right-wing that any change to the status quo looks the same, or they are being really vague for some reason. I don't know which one it is for Lobster Dad, if any, but such a basic misrepresentation isn't really a good look. I wish I did know what he was trying to say, but beyond comparing activists to 20th-century mass murderers, he doesn't really pin himself down on any specifics of what he is actually advocating for.
    Criticism of neo-Marxism does not preclude opposition to Marxism. That Peterson differentiates between the two illustrates that he recognizes them as distinct. His critiques of Marxism are typically embedded in his discourse on Soviet Russia.

    Post-modernism and Critical Theory were/are, to varying degrees, influenced by Marxist reasoning. All three ideologies intersect at various points, and all three ideologies influence contemporary leftist thinking - particularly with regard to shared interests. The commitment to critical race theory is one such example. It is no coincidence that Black Lives Matter, which is allegedly not Marxist, was founded by “trained Marxists” and is widely supported by Marxists.

    Pointing to differences between various leftist factions is an attempt to obfuscate; uniformity is not required to observe commonalities or intersections.

    Not really.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Peterson: ... Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called “Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and it’s an injunction to be combative, not least to further your career, let’s say. But also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world and to reflect that in your posture. And the reason that I write about lobsters is because there’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. Common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous system do. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn’t.

    taken from https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2018/0...an-transcript/

    You'll have to hold my hand and explain it to me slowly who out there has ever claimed all social hierarchies were created by "the Western patriarchy" that justified writing a chapter about lobsters to debunk it. It's a strawman so extreme it's a non-sequitur.

    Although after reading through parts of that interview again, I started to appreciate once again how much of a prevaricating fellow he is. No wonder you like him.
    This seems to be an agreement with Peterson that hierarchies are product of billions of years of evolutionary biology. Peterson was arguing against the theory propagated by some feminists that gendered hierarchies were solely a product of social conditioning rather than innate factors.

    Gerda Lerner's 1986 history classic, The Creation of Patriarchy, traces the development of the patriarchy to the second millennium B.C.E. in the middle east, putting gender relations at the center of the story of civilization's history. She argues that before this development, male dominance was not a feature of human society in general. Women were key to the maintenance of human society and community, but with a few exceptions, social and legal power was wielded by men. Women could gain some status and privilege in patriarchy by limiting her child-bearing capacity to just one man so that he could depend on her children being his children.

    By rooting patriarchy — a social organization where men rule over women — in historical developments, rather than in nature, human nature or biology, she also opens the door for change. If patriarchy was created by culture, it can be overturned by a new culture.

    Patriarchal Society According to Feminism, ThoughtCo, Linda Napikoski, Jan 24th.



  13. #1053

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    No one is saying that the Frankfurt School doesn't exist. We're saying that America isn't at risk of a collapse because of a couple of boring nerds like Horkheimer and Adorno. Equating Cultural Marxism (the Frankfurt School) with cultural Marxism (the right-wing boogeyman) is basically a conspiracy theory.
    If that is so, what is causing academics and public figures to be "cancelled"? What is causing the riots in the western world in general and the US in particular? Where does the race fetishism on the so-called "left" come from? Or are you saying these things aren't happening?


    Regardless, the term cultural Marxism has a very unsavory origin story, so I'm not sure why anyone would be willing attached to the phrase.
    I think that's a silly argument. If a term is fitting, it should be used, regardless of the person who invented it or may have used it once.


    Beats me, but they sure seem to leap to his aid whenever his reputation is besmirched.
    Who on the "populist right" is leaping to Peterson's defence? Or do you just have a special definition of the term? I thought it referred to the likes of Trump fans.

  14. #1054
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Regardless, the term cultural Marxism has a very unsavory origin story, so I'm not sure why anyone would be willing attached to the phrase.
    I heard my precious Volkswagen has an unsavoury origin story. Big if true.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  15. #1055
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,756

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    OK, I asked a question of what that guy was and got a bunch of replies. In a few months I may recall the term "Lobster Dad" but I doubt I will remember his name. So if I ask again in a year, remember that I do not recall names easily.

    From what I have heard from both sides, Lobster Dad is the man we want to join this thread, to rant about progressives. I kinda-agree with what people said he says about political correctness killing free speech and how laws are being crafted to push back against my right to call a man as "he" because he decided that today he's a girl. He also sounds like a SJW-inverse: I.e. a snowflake conservative that would chew your ear about how the world will end because one guy in one office decided that he's a girl today. Nope, the world won't end. That guy is someone I wouldn't like to spend time with and I don't want to give up my rights to call him a man - or risk losing my job because the PC thugs disagree with me. But I also don't want that guy to lose his job because of the conservative snowflakes.
    I have as much right to call him a man as he has the right to call himself a girl. He should not infringe on my right to call him a man and that he's delusional if he thinks he's a girl today... and I should not infringe on his right to call himself a girl and his right to tell me that I am a butthole for oppressing him her by calling him her a man.


    You know a very important right-that-is-not-a-right is the right to not be afraid to lose your job because you got in an argument with someone about things you disagree.
    If in my free time and in my facebook I want to say that the earth is flat or that Trump is awesome or that communism is the best system or that a man can become a woman by changing a few papers etc, I should be able to do so without fear that a PC-brigade or a bible-thumping Brigade would demand that I lose my job.
    "Wait, does that mean the PC/bible-thumping brigade SHOULD NOT have the right to tell your boss to fire you?"
    Nope. It means that my boss should have the balls to tell to the PC/bible-thumping brigade to go #### themselves and that the intolerant people on both sides are buttholes.
    Last edited by alhoon; November 30, 2020 at 07:58 AM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  16. #1056
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Opinions don't require citations. My assertion might be wrong, but I base it on the assumption that Peterson seems to be clever enough to realise that the platitudes he sells to his audience are neither original nor consistent and on the fact that the populist right has a long history of fraud. Its prophets tend to pander to their potential customers biases, in order to generate profit for themselves.
    Platitudes or no, I personally know people whose lives were literally saved by his 12 rules book and he is thanked by scores of people whenever he goes someplace on tour.


    as I previously explained, the narrative he promotes traces its roots in Nazism and the unfounded connection between Jews, Bolshevism and cultural degeneracy.
    That's of the highest order.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  17. #1057
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,958
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Yeah, I don't know about that one, chief. In my experience, a lot of people parrot phrases like "cultural Marxism" without knowing its original use and the history behind it. I certainly wouldn't default to assuming that someone is a sympathizer if that was the only evidence I had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Criticism of neo-Marxism does not preclude opposition to Marxism. That Peterson differentiates between the two illustrates that he recognizes them as distinct. His critiques of Marxism are typically embedded in his discourse on Soviet Russia.

    Post-modernism and Critical Theory were/are, to varying degrees, influenced by Marxist reasoning. All three ideologies intersect at various points, and all three ideologies influence contemporary leftist thinking - particularly with regard to shared interests. The commitment to critical race theory is one such example. It is no coincidence that Black Lives Matter, which is allegedly not Marxist, was founded by “trained Marxists” and is widely supported by Marxists.

    Pointing to differences between various leftist factions is an attempt to obfuscate; uniformity is not required to observe commonalities or intersections.
    Out of curiosity, was the civil rights movement in the ‘50s and ‘60s also Marxist? There were socialists among the organizers and leaders in that movement too.

    Anyway, postmodernism can mean a lot of things to a lot of people in a lot of fields, but in philosophy it’s broadly defined as a rejection of Modernism. It’s not really influenced by Marx in particular. Postmodernists are also skeptical the Enlightenment rationality and ideology or meta-narratives in general. Marxism is only one example of a modernist philosophy. Postmodernists that are Marxist can exist, but their willingness to criticize concepts of Marxism is really upsetting to people in more classical Marxist schools of thought. Critical theory on the other hand is partly inspired by Marxism, yes, as well as Kant. It’s basically just literary criticism, but on society instead of literature. If you think that’s the end of the world and a dangerously Marxist idea, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    My main criticisms of Prof. Jordan “Lobster Dad” Peterson are that he denounces relativism as being nihilistic but incorporates subjective concepts into his own beliefs. I’m not talking about his politics beliefs, I’m talking about his beliefs and advice in his self-help books, so I think there is a tension between some of his political and non-political statements. It seems like you aren’t really concerned with that one, so I’ll elaborate on why I think Lobster Dad’s descriptions of the Left is inaccurate.

    Peterson, like many right-wing pundits, tends to clump everyone left of the center into some kind of homogenous, unified whole. Why anyone could trust someone on the right to describe the left over someone on the left themselves is beyond me. To be clear, I find the left/right binary to be one-dimensional, but in the spirit of meeting people where they are at, I hope it’s obvious that pointing out the competing factions of an extremely broad political philosophy called “leftism” is not obfuscating. If anything, the real obfuscation is acting like the left or the right are remotely monolithic. Jordan Peterson often talks about Marxism, identity politics activists, and postmodernists, so let’s start with that.

    Postmodernists, identity political activists, and Marxists usually have different interests and goals. There is no unifying dogma behind these left-wing ideologies, except that the current society has problems. People often treat identity politics as some kind of left-wing dogma, but that’s actually not an accurate description of large segments of the center-left and the far-left. So when Lobster Dad makes them into one monolithic movement all over our society, it overlooks that there isn’t just debate between leftists, but there is also a lot of fighting between the three:
    • Marxists think that identity political activists care more about representation and are acquiescing to the unjust capitalist order, and an hour spent discussing women’s rights or something is an hour that should have been spent advancing the class struggle. ¡Viva la revolución!
    • On the other hand, identity politics activists (SJWs, basically) think that too many Marxists are white brocialists that are basically unconcerned with minority issues and are about as anti-intersectional as your average conservative.
    • Then you throw postmodernists into the mix, and they keep trying to be skeptical about binaries in general and keep deconstructing and subverting our concepts of Marxist/non-Marxist, bourgeoisie/proletariat, male/female, and so on. Identity politics assumes that group identity exist and are useful for organization in politics. Postmodernists would say that these group identities of different races, genders, etc. are socially constructed and possibly even oppressive ways of thinking.
    • Around this time. More classically minded Marxists and identity politics activists will turn on the postmodernists, because they think that they need these concepts to understand, organize, and advancement their causes, and postmodernists are actually doing much in the way of policy proposals.

    With those three perspectives put together, it’s easy to see how infighting can quickly become a problem for the Left as a whole, and why they lose often. This even came up in a smaller scale during the last two Democratic parties, where there were people so caught up in their little movement within a movement that they were legitimately going for Bernie or bust.

    A similar phenomenon exists in right-wing factions too. Libertarians, neoconservatives, social conservatives, and anti-democracy authoritarians are all at odds with each other too. It's just not as obvious because most conservatives basically like the status quo, so they have more common ground, but there is still the occasional that loses in the primaries for being insufficiently conservative in some way. That’s why I find it pointless to lump such disparate groups into one instead of merely evaluating whatever issue is at hand. People who say that the Left does this or the Right that might work on an audience that already agrees with them, but it’s not particularly convincing to anyone else. That kind of technique is usually more of an appeal to biases more than an actual argument for or against anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This seems to be an agreement with Peterson that hierarchies are product of billions of years of evolutionary biology. Peterson was arguing against the theory propagated by some feminists that gendered hierarchies were solely a product of social conditioning rather than innate factors.
    Of course I agree that natural hierarchies exist. Who disagrees with that? That’s a very uncontroversial truth, but he uses it to imply ... what, exactly? The problem with that tactic is that if someone doesn’t make the implication clear, we just have to guess what he’s trying to advocate and get accused of putting words in his mouth all along the way. Classic motte-and-bailey.

    But no one has ever claimed that all hierarchies are the product of the Western patriarchy, not even that person you googled (I think that the Middle East in the second millennium BC predates most definitions of the West anyway.). No one wants to abolish all hierarchies because that makes no sense. Even anarchists only want to abolish coercive hierarchies. People on the Left – broadly speaking – are most often concerned with the current social hierarchies of class, race, or gender, in which change is obviously possible. Lobsters have nothing to do with any of that. If it’s supposed to be useful information, then at that point, why not use the natural hierarchy of lobsters to defend the every human hierarchy that’s ever existed?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    If that is so, what is causing academics and public figures to be "cancelled"? What is causing the riots in the western world in general and the US in particular? Where does the race fetishism on the so-called "left" come from? Or are you saying these things aren't happening?
    How are any of those things subverting “the western world” and what in Sam Hill do they have to do with Horkheimer and Adorno?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I think that's a silly argument. If a term is fitting, it should be used, regardless of the person who invented it or may have used it once.
    It’s one thing to say a phrase but it’s another to actually believe it, especially when it’s a phrase that’s been used as a justification to physically attack people. So if you think it’s fitting to use a term coined by Anders Breivik and inspired by the actual Nazis’ designation of cultural Bolshevism to criticize progressive movements, then I’m just going to cut you off there.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Who on the "populist right" is leaping to Peterson's defence? Or do you just have a special definition of the term? I thought it referred to the likes of Trump fans.
    Uh, you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    I heard my precious Volkswagen has an unsavoury origin story. Big if true.
    No, cultural Bolshevism was invented by the Nazis, cultural Marxism was coined by Anders Breivik. Aside from that, the term cultural Marxism/Bolshevism is being used today just like how it was in the past: to denounce progressives and accuse them of subverting civilized society. Is it really that comparable to Fanta and Volkswagen then and now?

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    OK, I asked a question of what that guy was and got a bunch of replies. In a few months I may recall the term "Lobster Dad" but I doubt I will remember his name. So if I ask again in a year, remember that I do not recall names easily.
    Mission. Accomplished.

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    I have as much right to call him a man as he has the right to call himself a girl. He should not infringe on my right to call him a man and that he's delusional if he thinks he's a girl today... and I should not infringe on his right to call himself a girl and his right to tell me that I am a butthole for oppressing him her by calling him her a man.
    I actually disagree with that sentiment, not that I’m interested in where this political spam fest would go if made my case in this thread. If someone wants to message me, I might be willing to talk about it in the Fight Club.
    Read the latest TWC Content and check out the Wiki!
    ---
    Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

  18. #1058

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Why anyone could trust someone on the right to describe the left over someone on the left themselves is beyond me.
    But it's OK when someone on the "left" describes "the right"? Because they do that all the time. There's an entire cottage industry of "right-wing extremism experts" out there, and almost all of them are some kind of Marxist or other "left-wing".


    To be clear, I find the left/right binary to be one-dimensional,
    Well finally we can agree on something.


    But no one has ever claimed that all hierarchies are the product of the Western patriarchy, not even that person you googled
    Nice example of "being a little bit more kind on the internet".


    How are any of those things subverting “the western world”
    I don't know, by explicitly attacking it verbally and physically?


    and what in Sam Hill do they have to do with Horkheimer and Adorno?
    I don't know what a Sam Hill is. I was hoping since you're claiming that Peterson is wrong, you'd come up with a better explanation for these phenomena.


    It’s one thing to say a phrase but it’s another to actually believe it, especially when it’s a phrase that’s been used as a justification to physically attack people.
    And? Would you ban the phrase "Allahu akbar" (or similar common Muslim expressions) because it's been used as a justification to attack even more people? Or the term "Nazi" since that one, too, has been used as a justification for violence against a person or a group of people (accusing them of being such), especially those who never were Nazis to begin with?


    Uh, you?
    What, me as an individual or as part of a conspiracy? How am I part of the "populist right"?


    No, cultural Bolshevism was invented by the Nazis, cultural Marxism was coined by Anders Breivik.
    Let's pretend for a moment that you have a source for that. Even if that's the case, I couldn't care less. I'd use a term coined by Stalin himself if it was accurate.


    Aside from that, the term cultural Marxism/Bolshevism is being used today just like how it was in the past: to denounce progressives and accuse them of subverting civilized society.
    So, it's used in the exact same way as "Nazism" (sic) or "racism"?


    I actually disagree with that sentiment, not that I’m interested in where this political spam fest would go if made my case in this thread. If someone wants to message me, I might be willing to talk about it in the Fight Club.
    Why is it OK to believe that a man can become a woman but not that homeopathy or ground rhino horn are good medicine? Or that a witch doctor can shoot lightning out of his arse? I find all of these equally plausible.

  19. #1059

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    And so it begins:

    The state of Oregon, hoping to strike a blow against both the pandemic and “systemic racism,” has established a Covid relief fund exclusively for blacks and black-owned businesses. The Oregon Cares Fund website accurately describes the program as “unprecedented.” It is also surely unconstitutional.

    In July the Oregon Legislature Emergency Board allotted $200 million to assist small businesses suffering losses because of the pandemic and government-ordered shutdowns. Of the total, $62 million was set aside for the Oregon Cares Fund, whose website describes it as “a Fund for Black people, Black-owned businesses, and Black community based organizations.” Black families are eligible for up to $3,000 and black-owned businesses for up to $100,000.

    Maria Garcia, owner of the Revolucion Coffee House in Portland, applied for support. She was denied because her business “does not meet the criteria because 0% of its owners identify as Black.” She has sued in federal court, alleging that the denial violates her rights under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Last month a federal court declined a petition in another lawsuit, by the timber company Great Northern Resources, to enjoin further distributions from the Cares Fund. Both cases await a ruling on the constitutional merits.

    The state couldn’t have been surprised at the challenges. Oregon’s Legislative Counsel advised the Emergency Board that, absent evidentiary findings of past discrimination by the state in the relevant industries, “the program would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.” But in a brief submitted to the Legislature, the Portland law firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt gave the board cover with this now familiar refrain: “Centuries of systemic and institutional discrimination—perpetuated and exacerbated by current systems—have caused economic disparities.”

    Ms. Garcia is Mexican-American. The Portland-based Latino Network asserted that “the actions of Maria Garcia are anti-Black.” But there’s no reason to doubt her business has been harmed as badly by the pandemic as have black businesses that qualify for Cares Fund relief. Her only shortcoming is that she isn’t black. In the language of equal protection law, but for her race she is similarly situated to a black-owned restaurant down the street. If her exclusion doesn’t constitute a violation of equal protection, I’m not sure what does.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/oregons...al-11607107890
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  20. #1060

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    And so it begins:
    What begins?
    The Armenian Issue

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •