Are you excited for the new Jordan Peterson shit

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby broodstar » Thu May 31, 2018 1:18 pm

murderhorn wrote:Image

holy shit
User avatar
broodstar
 
Posts: 5315
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:37 am

Postby object » Thu May 31, 2018 1:32 pm

i hope he just becomes a politician because he'll be terrible at it
User avatar
object
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:17 pm
Location: flying waterbed

Postby Self Destructive Zone » Thu May 31, 2018 1:37 pm

I am sympathetic to the idea that people feel empty and purposeless because they are no longer grounded in the beliefs that insulated their ancestors from grasping the brutality and horror of their mortal existence. That said, organized religions, and cultural inheritance in general, are broad enough that some selection is required to determine their value. We aren't simply two legged apes begging the rain to water our crops and the river to refrain from flooding them. Personally, I find the Gospels compelling. Part of the anger I feel at injustice, whether it be race, gender, class, orientation, etc; is because my understanding that it is wrong, not only culturally, but absolutely. Many people read the same books and come away vindicated in their bigotry and selfishness. Those views coexist within the same religious tradition, space, and time. If I had to talk to a ancient Babylonian tomorrow, our ideas would seem absurd to each other.

There is use obviously in discussing the similarities between how disparate groups of sapiens have recognized the numinous. Our brains aren't particularly creative, and certain myths pop up again and again, whether it be dragons, or big foot, or virgins cloaked with the sun. The dangers of someone like Peterson are that they draw simple truths from a complex inheritance and use them to tell people what they want to hear. You aren't bothered by that transperson because they are different than what you are used to, a problem that is your's and which can be easily overcome with exposure; they are offensive because the order of the universe is strictly gendered from time immemorial, and they are an unnatural aberration. It doesn't matter if women have a point that men are monstrous, men should be in charge because men have been in charge since the dawn of agriculture. If our tribes are currently defined by race, a concept which didn't exist 500 years ago, its impossible want or work for a world where they are not. He flatters his followers with the lie that what they already believe is true.

Remember the only reason anyone even knows his name is that he refused to call his transgender students by their preferred pronouns. For that reason alone his championing of individualism is either cynical and hollow, or shallow and obtuse.
giant screens with skies exploding/thumping bass and power chords/we got a preacher if you're listening/he'll play his guitar if you're bored
User avatar
Self Destructive Zone
 
Posts: 8239
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:42 pm

Postby alaska » Thu May 31, 2018 2:06 pm

Fwiw i thought about it more and I don't think i mean that what appeals to any one JP fan is, like, a totalizing fascist ideology. i just mean that his is a set of beliefs which a) seems broadly popular because power structures are in flux and b) uncomfortably overlaps with strains of ideology which bolster a groupthinky pro-hierarchical fascist or fascist-adjacent politics. And in the big picture, the capacity for these ideologies to be partially taken up and partially disavowed is actually really important for their functioning
mactheo wrote:
Emily Dickinson wrote:Our lives are ... so cool
User avatar
alaska
ride.
 
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:36 pm
Location: Manhattans Upper East Side

Postby antoine » Thu May 31, 2018 2:10 pm

murderhorn wrote:Image


Image
User avatar
antoine
 
Posts: 53018
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:32 pm

Postby kit fox » Thu May 31, 2018 2:21 pm

alaska wrote:Fwiw i thought about it more and I don't think i mean that what appeals to any one JP fan is, like, a totalizing fascist ideology. i just mean that his is a set of beliefs which a) seems broadly popular because power structures are in flux and b) uncomfortably overlaps with strains of ideology which bolster a groupthinky pro-hierarchical fascist or fascist-adjacent politics. And in the big picture, the capacity for these ideologies to be partially taken up and partially disavowed is actually really important for their functioning



yeah this dude i know who is always posting hot libertarian takes on facebook went on a big rant about how he reconciles his new found beliefs in what jordan peterson says, specifically that heirarchies are good, with his older more familiar libertarian beliefs. it's adaptability and piecemeal nature, since he never really gets TOO far in to specifics really makes it easy for people to project their own things on. i can't really think about it too much without feeling crazy so i'll just stop here.
User avatar
kit fox
Mike Vance
 
Posts: 16688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Real Gone

Postby alaska » Thu May 31, 2018 3:23 pm

he doesn't really go into the cherry-picking aspect of all this as much as i thought he did, but umberto eco's "ur-fascism" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/) is pretty interesting reading alongside all this peterson stuff

he does make this point:

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

[...]

No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.


which i think is slightly different, but related. eco is talking about the internal incoherence of fascism, but i think he's demarcating what it is that makes it so adaptable: if an ideology is a big syncretistic clump of contradictory ideas which fundamentally can't be accessed through reason, you basically have to take what you want and leave other bits out
mactheo wrote:
Emily Dickinson wrote:Our lives are ... so cool
User avatar
alaska
ride.
 
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:36 pm
Location: Manhattans Upper East Side

Postby cooly » Thu May 31, 2018 7:54 pm

Sobieski wrote:Yeah I’d definitely contrast that tradition of german philology and nationalism and an identity rooted in a specific language and culture
Against like a more cosmopolitan Spinoza humanistic civics and ethics based society

yeah this is the contrast i was meaning to get at, and it's a miracle that you and destro understood what i meant now that i re-read my post.

i just meant to say that i don't think there's a misunderstanding about the way the enlightenment conception of religion and the enlightenment conception of society fit together here, but that the terms are referring to different things in this discussion (or they ought to), where religion is more related to social practices / tradition / language than explicit moral codes and society is more related to culture / the identity of a people than it is to a state per se.

i don't know enough about peterson so know how self-conscious he is about his connection to the proto-romantics / counter-enlightenment (i actually always thought all these guys were sam harris type atheist "scientists") and i don't mean to defend him, even though i am saying there is a good idea in the vicinity of this counter-enlightenment thought. peterson seems like a real piece of shit tho and i hope my posts aren't too annoying to people who want to focus on that.
can wrote:old lady [whispering]
User avatar
cooly
 
Posts: 7771
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:52 am

Postby Feech La Manna » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:46 pm



is papabones Cathy Young
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76739
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby mortimer » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:50 pm

papabones, RIP.

(he was perm'd)
User avatar
mortimer
 
Posts: 7421
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:45 pm
Location: *~<:^)

Postby mcwop23 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:17 pm

Calling women “the weaker sex” would be considered shockingly retrograde, yet ambivalent sexual encounters are easily recast as violations of women, with men presumed entirely responsible for ensuring consent.


hit the showers cathy
Image
wendy wrote:
colin meloy doesn't need to die
User avatar
mcwop23
bitchez ain't shit but pups and licks
 
Posts: 70211
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:56 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Postby Self Destructive Zone » Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:42 pm

lol at the idea of Peterson offering a better solution than feminism to anyone who isn't motivated by ethics in game journalism
giant screens with skies exploding/thumping bass and power chords/we got a preacher if you're listening/he'll play his guitar if you're bored
User avatar
Self Destructive Zone
 
Posts: 8239
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:42 pm

Postby rich uncle skeleton » Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:46 pm

This thing Jeet wrote is fine:
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148662/ ... gy-anymore

Doesn’t really add much new info other than cementing the fact that this dude is now occupationally a self-help entertainer
User avatar
rich uncle skeleton
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:56 am
Location: Brooklyn

Postby papabones » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:41 am

Feech La Manna wrote:

is papabones Cathy Young


This is a pretty good article that makes a lot of the points that I vaguely had in mind when posting in this thread. And it's written by a woman no less, can you believe it? She must really hate her own gender.

I've watched a couple Peterson videos where he discusses feminism after posting in this thread. If you all want Peterson criticism, I will say this: the dude is flat out irresponsible for severely exaggerating the role the feminist movement has played in the malaise of modernity. He uses women as a scapegoat for what is mostly a wider economic problem, and employs the rhetorical strategy of fascism in playing on the base emotions of young men for popular support. It's way easier for them to blame a group they encounter in everyday life for their problems than it is for them to think about the bigger, less perceivable causes that explain why they're in a bad situation. If Peterson actually intended to help them with that rather than giving them an easy outlet for their aggression, he'd still be stuck in the university and not making big money on tour giving lectures. He is a toxic figure.
User avatar
papabones
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:38 am

Postby Viola Swamp » Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:07 am

Self Destructive Zone wrote: If I had to talk to a ancient Babylonian tomorrow


Oh shit thanks for reminding me
User avatar
Viola Swamp
 
Posts: 8725
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:50 pm
Location: I'm the queen of ice

Postby rich uncle skeleton » Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:32 am

papabones wrote:
Feech La Manna wrote:

is papabones Cathy Young


This is a pretty good article that makes a lot of the points that I vaguely had in mind when posting in this thread. And it's written by a woman no less, can you believe it? She must really hate her own gender.

I've watched a couple Peterson videos where he discusses feminism after posting in this thread. If you all want Peterson criticism, I will say this: the dude is flat out irresponsible for severely exaggerating the role the feminist movement has played in the malaise of modernity. He uses women as a scapegoat for what is mostly a wider economic problem, and employs the rhetorical strategy of fascism in playing on the base emotions of young men for popular support. It's way easier for them to blame a group they encounter in everyday life for their problems than it is for them to think about the bigger, less perceivable causes that explain why they're in a bad situation. If Peterson actually intended to help them with that rather than giving them an easy outlet for their aggression, he'd still be stuck in the university and not making big money on tour giving lectures. He is a toxic figure.


See if you would just post stuff like the second paragraph and not the misogynist bullshit like the first paragraph no one would have to dunk on you
User avatar
rich uncle skeleton
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:56 am
Location: Brooklyn

Postby truncated » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:17 am

papabones wrote:
Feech La Manna wrote:

is papabones Cathy Young


This is a pretty good article that makes a lot of the points that I vaguely had in mind when posting in this thread. And it's written by a woman no less, can you believe it? She must really hate her own gender.


Get this dumb fuck gone again, please. He didn't learn a thing.
User avatar
truncated
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:40 pm

Postby jewels » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:57 am

why is the LA times writing such terrible headlines (and I assume articles)

they're the ones who wrote "Texas school shooter killed girl who turned down his advances and embarrassed him in class, her mother says"
gold and glass wrote:When you get to heaven, do you get to see a list of which gimmicks belonged to who?
User avatar
jewels
 
Posts: 21576
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:33 pm

Postby Big Oil » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:25 pm

Tronc's model is to harvest those sweet, sweet clicks.
User avatar
Big Oil
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:59 pm

Postby rich uncle skeleton » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:34 pm

They published a really in-depth piece about the student walkouts in 68 for the 50th anniversary, but yeah I've been seeing a lot of hot garbage from them. Isn't Tronc selling soon?
User avatar
rich uncle skeleton
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:56 am
Location: Brooklyn

Postby black mamba » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:47 pm

yeah to the man that is going to "win cancer"
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 13200
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby Big Oil » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:03 pm

alaska wrote:he doesn't really go into the cherry-picking aspect of all this as much as i thought he did, but umberto eco's "ur-fascism" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/) is pretty interesting reading alongside all this peterson stuff

he does make this point:

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

[...]

No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.


which i think is slightly different, but related. eco is talking about the internal incoherence of fascism, but i think he's demarcating what it is that makes it so adaptable: if an ideology is a big syncretistic clump of contradictory ideas which fundamentally can't be accessed through reason, you basically have to take what you want and leave other bits out

the most recent Relentless Picnic ep is structured by Eco's "ur-fascism" characteristics. it's a good listen, and a lot of it is at least tangentially relevant to this discussion.

User avatar
Big Oil
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:59 pm

Postby Big Oil » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:13 pm

cooly wrote:re: big oil

it's difficult to be precise about such a big topic, but don't you think in these kinds of discussions 'society' is being basically used to mean something like 'culture' and religion is being used to mean a particular kind of tradition involving ritual, community, some kind of ethical system, and usually a kind of theoretical apparatus?

i actually see the roots for this kind of idea in the counter-enlightenment more than in the enlightenment; proto-romantics like hamann and herder had a very different kind of understanding of the role of cultural traditions in grounding society than e.g. kant, diderot, etc. that typically involved an emphasis on the role of social practices and rituals as foundational to a culture, and i think that's what the more legitimate side of the concern for the void religion has left comes from. it's arguably also something the later heidegger is concerned with in question concerning technology etc. in a way.

re: the bolded, yes, and that's why I quoted the essay I did. I think in these conversations there is an assumption that something needs to "replace" religion as an anchor in society. And it's always the left/non-religious who are assumed to have that burden. It's a bit of a rhetorical sleight of hand: society has not always been with us, has not always been the "ontological frame for human existence," and by assuming that away you make religion sort of irreplaceable the way the problem is framed. The point of the essay/my post was that historically (and social scientifically), society was the replacement, and that is usually lost when Peterson's fanboys/conservatives lament the loss of religious tradition, etc.
User avatar
Big Oil
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:59 pm

Postby Big Oil » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:25 pm

Sobieski wrote:
cooly wrote:re: big oil

it's difficult to be precise about such a big topic, but don't you think in these kinds of discussions 'society' is being basically used to mean something like 'culture' and religion is being used to mean a particular kind of tradition involving ritual, community, some kind of ethical system, and usually a kind of theoretical apparatus?

i actually see the roots for this kind of idea in the counter-enlightenment more than in the enlightenment; proto-romantics like hamann and herder had a very different kind of understanding of the role of cultural traditions in grounding society than e.g. kant, diderot, etc. that typically involved an emphasis on the role of social practices and rituals as foundational to a culture, and i think that's what the more legitimate side of the concern for the void religion has left comes from. it's arguably also something the later heidegger is concerned with in question concerning technology etc. in a way.


Yeah I’d definitely contrast that tradition of german philology and nationalism and an identity rooted in a specific language and culture
Against like a more cosmopolitan Spinoza humanistic civics and ethics based society

I think this is implicit in my response above but just to make it more clear: I'm not really interested in a perennialist intellectual history re: religion and culture and wasn't trying to get at that by quoting the essay I did.

My point is that there is a very particular intellectual and discursive history around the origins of "society" and "the social" and the social sciences more broadly, and the way the modern "religion and society" debate is framed obscures that history in a way that is very convenient for the Petersons and Douthats of the world.
User avatar
Big Oil
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:59 pm

Postby hideout » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:13 pm

papabones... clean your room, young man
postin' makes me feel good
User avatar
hideout
ok
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:42 pm

Postby Prof. Horatio Hufnagel » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:57 pm

tbf i do secretly like that i can now spin my chronically messy room as anti-peterson praxis
Gnome Sane
User avatar
Prof. Horatio Hufnagel
 
Posts: 6542
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:39 am

Postby cooly » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:30 pm

Big Oil wrote:re: the bolded, yes, and that's why I quoted the essay I did. I think in these conversations there is an assumption that something needs to "replace" religion as an anchor in society. And it's always the left/non-religious who are assumed to have that burden. It's a bit of a rhetorical sleight of hand: society has not always been with us, has not always been the "ontological frame for human existence," and by assuming that away you make religion sort of irreplaceable the way the problem is framed. The point of the essay/my post was that historically (and social scientifically), society was the replacement, and that is usually lost when Peterson's fanboys/conservatives lament the loss of religious tradition, etc.

i'm not sure if this text is meant to agree with me or disagree, but the point i was trying to make is that there is a broader meaning of 'society' according to which it always has been with us (which of course has its own understanding of what "us" means, where being a human means being discursive which means being a language user and therefore a member of a certain kind of community), and has always been the frame of existence (although it was not explicitly so until modernity.)

the reason i brought in the alternative intellectual history is that the tradition you're working with has its terms defined so that the points the other side is making seem almost incoherent, like the disagreement is a product of conceptual confusion, but i don't think that's the case.
can wrote:old lady [whispering]
User avatar
cooly
 
Posts: 7771
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:52 am

Postby cooly » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:56 pm

i'm thinking through this more and i feel like i should be more explicit. i'm thinking that your point is that in medieval christianity religion gives me an identity in virtue of being e.g. a born sinner, and a code of behavior which goes along with that identity, and that gives me meaning, but in modernity society gives me my identity of being e.g. a shopkeeper and some codes of behavior that go along with being a shopkeeper, but more importantly (for some thinkers in this tradition) the behaviors that go along with being a citizen, or a rational being, or maybe there's a void here (as the existentialists think.)

my sense is that there is substantive disagreement about how true that framing of the jump to modernity is between different traditions, and in particular that more anthropologically-minded traditions like the herder / hamann / humboldt one express significant doubt about that, partly on the basis of observation of other cultures and readings of history that don't show religion as defining identity single-handedly in the way religion would have to have in early christianity for that to be true.

but even if you accept that framework there's a legitimate question of if the modern roles of shopkeep or citizen are as meaningful or capable of creating meaning to people in the way that the pre-modern framework claims religion was. heidegger i think accepts something like your story and feels a unique sense of dread about the contemporary worldview for that reason -- once we become self-conscious of our power to create meanings all meanings become interchangeable and lose meaning.

idk if i'm being unfair to you. i might have misread you. and i don't think the point of view i've ascribed to you is a bad one anyways; i just think you've framed it in a way that legitimate disagreement isn't possible, which i don't think is right.
can wrote:old lady [whispering]
User avatar
cooly
 
Posts: 7771
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:52 am

Postby alaska » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:18 pm

Big Oil wrote:the most recent Relentless Picnic ep is structured by Eco's "ur-fascism" characteristics. it's a good listen, and a lot of it is at least tangentially relevant to this discussion.



i love this podcast! this episode is definitely what got me thinking about that eco essay again
mactheo wrote:
Emily Dickinson wrote:Our lives are ... so cool
User avatar
alaska
ride.
 
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:36 pm
Location: Manhattans Upper East Side

Postby Feech La Manna » Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:58 pm

jesus christ

badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 76739
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

PreviousNext

Return to Mamma Mia... Here We Go Again....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bluemovers, brent, Celiac Cruz, chimp, Destroid, doublethink0, Ezekiel Cletus, Franco, gambra, gandhi, Geoff, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Grey Poupon, hbb, hit record, Ides of Smarch, Infinite Jost, iwillneverpost, jewels, Kaputt, Lucky, mcwop23, Mr. Towel, mynameisdan, NegativeCapability, No Good Advice, normal finkenstein, number none, OKterrific, R C, shacky, shirts optional, tea preacher, trampoline