So that's not what happened. Maybe you should read the bill for yourself.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
So that's not what happened. Maybe you should read the bill for yourself.
They didn't, this just more bull being shoveled by people who have demonstrably never read C-16.
Shh... I want him to answer lol
Apparently, me saying that increases the polarization of politics somehow.
Didn't see the edit. Probably because you just made it a few minutes ago instead of a new post. Oh well.
Anyway, the contention people have with Peterson in regards to the pronoun stuff is that he believed that the government was forcing people to use certain pronouns when it wasn't the case. Because of his willful misinterpretation of the law, possibly due to it not being overly verbose, Peterson became very popular with those who whine about SJWs.
Lost: lack of structure and control
Stale: lack of new impulses
Inner world: the psyche
(World of) objects: the material world.
It didn't corrected...
I think it has more to do with JPs theory on Cultural Marxism / Post Modernism.
I already corrected the part above. While the bill doesn't mention them specifically they were a part of the debate. I agree with the notion that governments shouldn't be enforcing social changes to language. I myself would probably use they, them, their if someone asked me to be gender neutral for them.
He was a big proponent of it, but he didn't create the concept. So far as I know.
Anyone that uses Cultural Marxism seriously is delusional. It's simply a dog whistle. Hell if you just google the phrase you get its origins to the fucking conspiracy related to the Frankfurt School. I don't understand how any rational person could take someone seriously that would espouse such notions.
Because it's mostly people that don't know any better, it's anti-intellectualism which is popular, and Marxism is a scary word.
What's funnier to me is that Marxism and Post-modernism are basically diametrically opposed, but people that buy into this use them interchangeably.
You know who's scary? Anders Breivik:
Anyone that uses the term consistently, even when encountering its origins and how people are using it today, is a fucking bigot scared that downtrodden people are speaking up and demanding they be treated equally.
I didn't say everyone who uses it is harmless.
As someone who's been called a cultural Marxist plenty of times, including fairly frequently from students, I think you're misrepresenting the majority of people that use it.
For most people that use the word it's just a buzzword pejorative for smart leftism.
I agree.
Incidentally I just found out famous idiot columnist Jonathan Chait is a subscriber to the theory. How does he have a job ffs
Ehh usually I've seen it in conjunction with "sjws are taking over American culture" type shit like gamergate
I've never heard "Cultural Marxism" used by those on the Left the way it is by those on the Right (generally the far right). Interesting enough, Mr. Peterson likes throwing it out there occasionally, and that in itself is pretty damning evidence that he isn't the enlightened non-partisan intellectual he claims to be.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. Sorry that I'm heated. This shit just drives me up the wall.
I'm not misrepresenting anything in my estimation. There are many uses like this:
I've no doubt it's there too. I think most people that use the word are morons, I directly stated so earlier in the thread.
It'd be pretty weird if anyone on the left used a word that's essentially only a pejorative for them.
I haven't read up or spent enough time on Jordan to accurately answer that. But my take on his opinion would be cultural attacks on conventional beliefs to promote hostility and ultimately change.
edit: I do not buy into this btw.
Is that a bad thing? Because from what I've seen, he says Marxism as if it is inherently bad. And if that is the definition he uses, then the Civil Rights Era was cultural Marxism. Women gaining the vote was cultural Marxism. Basically any push for social justice is cultural Marxism. And, again, the way he says it, it's bad.
As far as I see it used, Cultural Marxism is basically synonymous to Cultural Relativism. All cultures are equal etc. Peterson argues that modern Western culture (because it values the individual) got it more "right" than other cultures based on collectivism.
Postmodernism is basically the idea that there is an infinitite number of ways to interpret the world. This is also the part Peterson agrees on. He argues, however, that there is a limited number of VALID ways to interpret the world. Some ways have more merit then others.
Postmodernism is basically the idea that there is an infinitite number of ways to interpret the world. This is also the part Peterson agrees on. He argues, however, that there is a limited number of VALID ways to interpret the world. Some ways have more merit then others.
This is where I get confused. I see one interpretation that says Cultural Marxism is about cultural attacks on conventional beliefs to promote hostility and change and now I'm getting that it means cultural relativism and cultures are all equal. This doesn't jive.
What did Western culture get "right?" And I don't know why he considers pronouns to be Marxist words and why that is a bad thing.
And I know you didn't say this, but I'm still wondering how extreme identity politics means Marxism.
He has explained it this way. Marxism was about class struggle and the inherent conflict between the Capitalist bourgeoisie oppressor of the labor class proletariat. Modern "cultural marxism" is the appropriation of this basic philosophy and applying it to identity politics and intersectionality of various "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups. i.e. The SJW tenets of Whites being privileged compared to the oppressed non-whites. Males being privileged compared to the oppression of women. Straight being privileged compared to the oppressed LGBT etc.
Try again
We know where the roots of it are
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
His views on Marxism/Communism are based mostly on the communist countries. He argues that so far, any attempt to establish communism has ended with an unstable system which resulted in reduce living standards, deaths, loss of productivity and generally unhappy society. He uses Gulag Archipelago as well as history to illustrate how the Soviet Union, as well as other communist countries failed.
There isn't a single country in the world which succeeded under communism, but he says that the amount of poverty and hunger has been dramatically reduced under the current system.
And when he puts it that way, even without using any of his psychology justifications and theories how people need some structure and responsibilities to suffer less, it makes a lot of sense to reject communist ideas based on the sheer amount of historical evidence.
He just deems basically everything he doesn't like marxism.
Although I dislike using Wikipedia as a clutch, Cultural Marxism is essentially the new reactionary/nazi conspiracy theory in the same vein as Cultural Bolshevism. Both were concern about the destruction of Western culture by foreign or new thought.
Why say cultural Marxism, which has a quite unfortunate history, when social justice would work better and make a lot more sense? By this definition, the Civil Rights Era was cultural Marxism as was women getting the vote and other movements. From what I've seen, he keeps painting cultural Marxism as bad. He literally said that he doesn't want to use Marxist words when asked about pronouns. What is so inherently bad about social justice?
Yes, but it get's used that way. But you are correct that me repeating that as the definition was factually incorrect.
My mistake, either way.
Why use Marxism in a way synonymous with something it is diametrically opposed to? Marxism is a Meta-narrative that leaves no room for relativism.
Maybe because its intention is solely pejorative....
And of course this isn't how historical evidence works. You can't take random pieces of information, strip them of their context, and compare them to other random pieces of information stripped of context. History is the context. It's literally just trying to dehistoricise historical evidence which is blatantly foolish.
Anyway, none of this explains his mindless grouping together of post-modernism and Marxism. Well other than they are grouped together as things he dislikes
And a new definition has appeared. We got three different takes on Peterson's Cultural Marxism.
So when Peterson says he doesn't want to use Marxist pronouns, these are pronouns stemming from Communist countries?
Marxism and Communism are not the same thing.
Also how does Peterson explain a country like China? That succeeds despite limiting free speech and human rights based on Communist paradigms? I'm not advocating for China, but Cultural Marxism is not about Marxism or Communism at all.
How does he explain the plight of minorities in the United States and in his native Canada? Where Native Americans were murdered by the thousands by a combination of disease and subjugation and First Nations are treated like absolute dogshit?
I listened to some of his lectures and he lost me when he said that white privilege doesnt exists because if you're in China, there would be a Chinese privilege but no one acknlowledges such thing therefore white privilege doesnt exists.
This is condescending. This is your big defense of Jordan Peterson that critics are being "reductionist" or out-of-context, that we're not discussing every single page of a book in its entirety even though these same beliefs he will bring up multiple times during multiple books he's written. You bring up this assumption that critics haven't read his books in their entirety even though this is turning out to be false. It's frankly a distraction tactic so you don't have to actually defend the belief and idea. So you don't have to answer the actual query. So you don't have to defend your assertion that he's "not remotely extreme".
My take on that is that he saw the pronouns as a step towards "compelled speech" which he asociates with state control done via a "it's all for the good of the opressed" narrative.
I don't speak communist, comrade.
So to recap, Cultural Marxism is:
1. Social Justice
2. Communism
3. Cultural relativism, but Western cultures are more "right" somehow in some way
You can see why people call Peterson vague, right?
But that compelled speech wasn't happening. It wasn't the law. He just couldn't read.
He has only said he doesn't want to use language that stems from legislation (particularly from authoritarians trying to control language), because evolution of language should develop organically in society. Whether or not bill C16 does that or not is another story.
Also, I have retracted my CM "definition" because it was wrong.
Oversoul
You've been answering and commenting a lot so I don't want to put you out, but I am curious on what drove you to Peterson as a thinker/philosopher/psychologyst/"self help guru". Like, from where and how did you hear about him? What is it that drew you to him and not others in the same fields? Only reason I ask is the types of people I see praise and follow him are those people you mentioned earlier that make really bad reactionary and "red pill" videos that clog up youtube, and you seemingly don't agree with them.
You've been answering and commenting a lot so I don't want to put you out, but I am curious on what drove you to Peterson as a thinker/philosopher/psychologyst/"self help guru". Like, from where and how did you hear about him? What is it that drew you to him and not others in the same fields? Only reason I ask is the types of people I see praise and follow him are those people you mentioned earlier that make really bad reactionary and "red pill" videos that clog up youtube, and you seemingly don't agree with them.
I've heard a lot of his lectures. He is more precise in his language than this. He certainly does not confuse any of those terms or use them interchangably. He has only ever used Cultural Marxism in terms of Social Justice. As an appropriation of Marxist philosophy, but not the same as Communism.
There is a world of difference between: "reading a few quotes online" and "reading an entire book". I'm not telling you to do the latter as a must before forming an informed opinion. I'm telling you the former is defintely not enough to form an informed opinion.
Somewhere between these two extremes a way to actually inform yourself well enough and then decide wether you think he's worthless, has some value or become a fan.
I would say that bill C16 does not compel speech and it is not another story because this guy rose to fame because he is Charlie from It's Always Sunny (he's illiterate)
In the quote a few pages back, he equates social justice (the pronouns) to Marxism, which he states killed over 100 million people. That stat is usually attributed to Communism, but also to Marxism sometimes. I think he's using them interchangeably.
Again, the way he talks about Cultural Marxism makes it seem bad. If Cultural Marxism is social justice, does that mean social justice is bad?
Again though, anyone who has any amount of understanding of Marxism would never say Social Justice actually comes from Marxism. They both want to make things better for people I guess, but so does pretty much every theoretical approach to anything.
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to argue that him using the phrase cultural marxism is benign
For someone who supposedly speaks precisely, it's curious that he's getting Marxism and Communism confused.
You're not answering the questions. You're still thinking we don't have informed opinions. It's still condescension and a distraction tactic.
- Status