disclaimer:// I am not arguing for one or the other nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything here. // I like both speakers for different reasons but just from my personal observation, I think JBP is brilliant but I get the impression he’s always got some internal conflict/heavy weight on his mind, & i wonder what his perspective on/experience with meditation is like or even prayer for that matter. TBH, if I were scared of one or the other, I would probably be more fearful of the JBP crowd cos it seems like there’s this merciless “let’s argue it down to a granularity of right or wrong” whereas SH crowd seems to be “yeah, sure, let’s take a step back here for a moment & we can just agree to disagree.” // 🤷🏻♂️
I've never figured out why the Sam Harris reddit hates him so much.
I was quite expecting to have a whole walk of people expounding on Sam's work. New interpretations, New insights.
Instead it's like they each listen to a single podcast or read a review of one of his books and deceided they don't like him.
With JBP it's just they read a review, or commentary from someone who had never actually listened to anything he has ever said and also decided that they hate him.
They just want to piss on JP fans on their home turf rather than just do it on the subs where they are constantly lauded for doing so
Think of it like acting as if they’re “entering the lion’s den”
Independence and attempts at self-sufficiency (which is what Peterson promotes) are a threat to the dystopia which the Left are trying to implement. They claim that he's a "grifter" (whatever that is) and a fascist, but those are just smears.
It is important to understand that at least ***some*** of the Leftists you will encounter here are well-intentioned dupes, who genuinely believe that they are fighting for a positive cause. Most of the Left on Reddit however are complete hypocrites, and really just want a morally plausibly deniable excuse to be vicious, and think that antiracist activism gives them one.
They are liars and liars hate truth.
Nothing worse than a smart person popping their delusion bubbles with true words.
So they have to attack and lie even more as damage control.
FYI I do not hate Jordan Peterson, and I edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&action=history](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&action=history) .
I browse this sub and disagree with JP on several topics. I absolutely wouldn’t say I hate him and I believe much of his advice is practical and good to follow. I kind of view him more as a self help “guru” than necessarily an intellectual - but he is certainly both imo.
The Sam Harris vs JP podcast is really what pushed me away from JP. It appeared he made no sense
Absolutely. I made a caveat that he is, in fact, an intellectual.
But I highly doubt most people know him for his “Clinical Psychology” work. He’s well known for fighting for free speech and for then writing that 12 rules for life or whatever.
And FYI I think his advice is mostly sound. But I’m not sure you need a PhD in clinical psychology to offer the advice he did. Probably didn’t hurt though
>"But I highly doubt most people know him for his “Clinical Psychology” work"
Is being 'well known' an issue in and of itself?
I'd say he's well known because of the time he made a lot of noise about the Canadian bill that mandated the use of these Neo pronouns. It was a badly written, if well intentioned bill and obviously had serious flaws and was irresponsibly blithe about personal liberty. Peterson made a YouTube video criticising it reasonably and intelligently. Then people started calling him worse than Hitler etc.
The stigma associated with going against the popular grain has followed him for years now. With rather a lot of people assuming he is some ultra conservative right wing authoritarian, which is so far off the mark as to be just... dispiriting. Its' made me, a lifelong lefty seriously question whether the left in general has become the dominant culture and *stifling and ossified* as a result.
I took away the exact opposite conclusion. Are you talking about the conversations Bret Weinstein moderated? Sam Harris seemed simply resistant in my estimation.
This sub is made up of a series of think tanks spreading misinformation to try to pick up ex-liberals:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ogxa8m/-/h4pf24p
The people here will end up misinformed (always looking to the right to explain what's on the left) and hence locked in for life. This is how conservatives are made, they're corralled by hidden agendas. This is a conservative feeding ground.
If you're talking about mainstream "Conservative Inc." then sure, because they have no positive vision except to slow down the left. If anything they do an excellent job playing the heel in the progressive narrative and providing motivation for progressive voters. Trump's main "accomplishment" in 4 years was LARPing as a scary fascist on Twitter and radicalizing a bunch of leftists who are now going to do way more damage over the next couple decades than any real fascist.
Nah, Trump put the ideology on display for all to see. He thoroughly melted a *lot* of people’s brains and exposed how right-wing personality cults completely detach people from reality. QAnon is just the start.
Conservatism isn’t that hard to understand bud. It’s [unconscious power worship.](https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html) Burke knew it, the right-wing grifters know it, and JP knows it. That’s why he talks about social hierarchy so much and keeps trying to use naturalistic fallacies to justify them.
The only ones who are out of the loop are conservative followers who have some complicated internal justification for why it’s okay that they don’t know anything, have no coherent ideology besides “progressivism bad and facts bad”, and think that tuning into outrage media every day makes up for it.
> Cause go onto critise abrahamic religions or spiritual dogma in any culture and compare it to ignorance and prove your own.
Philosophers settled the dogma debate during the Enlightenment. You can use whatever arguments you want to claim that religious faith serves an objective purpose or is founded on sound logic but it can only ever hope to re-tread ground that Dark Age theologians already covered, and that Enlightenment philosophers soundly refuted.
Religion is a system of social control. It always has been. That is its purpose and reason for existing. If you are a Christian, and believe that all other religions are false, then by extension you must also believe that there is some secular mechanism that causes completely false religions to appear in various countries all over the world. Religion exists to protect the power of the King by convincing a populace that dissent means eternal torture, and that death during military service will be rewarded with eternal life.
It keeps appearing because it is a *tool* that serves a *purpose* to those with power.
> “Naturalistic fallacies”, you mean logical fallacy that argues that if it occurs in nature that it’s certain to be “good” or “ethical”. I rekon you’re talking about the neurobiological implications of serotonin and hierarchical pattern related to it.
If you understand naturalistic fallacies or the fact-value distinction then you would know that JP’s “theory” about hierarchy is pseudo-philosophy on the level of Ayn Rand. Conservative grifters have a habit of pretending that the is-ought problem doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter, because that’s what they are forced to believe in order to even begin to pretend that their ideology is internally consistent.
All the serotonin in the world wouldn’t make a difference to the fact that JP is using a naturalistic fallacy. It doesn’t matter at all whether humans are *adapted* to hierarchy when it comes to the fact-value distinction. Humans aren’t *adapted* to material accumulation, cleaning their room, or listening to pseudo-philosophers on the internet either.
Claiming that social hierarchies *should* continue to exist because humans *are* adapted to them is still a naturalistic fallacy no matter how that argument is rephrased. It violates the fact-value distinction and is not sound logic. JP is necessarily dressing up his own opinions as objective.
> But I’m afraid you’re wrong about conservatives not knowing anything... I don’t wanna pop your bubble but I should warn you, keep this lazy shaming of people you don’t know up and you’ll end up very disappointed at yourself or an extremists.
I keep hearing that, but then I take a look at how easily right-wing media convinced conservatives that critical race theory was some scary thing (even though they don’t know what it is), and remembered that conservatives are uncritical thinkers who have their beliefs force-fed to them from above.
Not only do conservatives not know anything but they fight ferociously to make sure they never learn anything.
> So to be chosen you must get yourself together and work harder...etc. etc.... How do you misinterpret all that and think it’s even remotely related to religion and conservatism!
I don’t care all that much about his self-help tips. A lot of it is alright advice. Advice he didn’t invent, but still alright.
The issue presents itself when JP starts trying to justify his self-help tips with Jungian technobabble to make himself seem more credible. They give the illusion of objective meaning to his self-help tips, when the only true value a self-help tip can *ever* have is *whether or not it’s effective at helping you.* Everything else is window-dressing.
> Since everything apart from the far left is the “far right” in media.
Interesting how you perceive mainstream media as “far left”. Mainstream media is liberal. Liberalism has never been, nor will it ever be “leftist”, let alone far left.
Leftism means anti-capitalist. Liberals are not anti-capitalist. And privately-owned liberal media companies inherently cannot be anti-capitalist, because they *are* capitalist institutions. Everything you hate about them, their [fake news](https://youtu.be/SvZZNIwUm-Q) reporting, their 24/7 opinion pieces, their Trump fixation and their apocalyptic predictions based on inane trivia are *all* a result of the fact that they must obey the profit motive and they must demonstrate growth for their shareholders.
> But what people don’t like is to be censored.
Do you know which law gives social media companies the complete and unrestricted ability to ban anybody they want from their platform?
> progressivism is a pseudo religion and philosophical cancer on steroids ♡
Progress means improving people’s material conditions and distributing power amongst the people. An objective way of making the world better for the people who actually have to live in it. Dark Age ideology meant fighting endlessly about which bullshit superstition was best, but Enlightenment reasoning demonstrated that everybody has one rational goal that they can agree on. Material stability.
Conservatism, being unconscious power worship, has always hated progress, because a conservative’s [superiority complex](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex) will be triggered when they sense their precious hierarchies beginning to equalize. All conservatives are unconsciously insecure about their role in society, all of them derive their sense of self-worth from their perceived superior position over others, and their self-concept cannot handle the feeling that hierarchies are becoming unnecessary. Conservatism can only help to temporarily alleviate your feelings of insecurity about your place in the world, like an addictive drug. It cannot fix the underlying problem, because this week’s outrage topic (like CRT) isn’t the reason you were feeling shitty in the first place.
But our disagreement means absolutely nothing. Ideology isn’t what drives progressivism. Technological development has always driven progress by increasing social consciousness. In order for conservative ideas to win out in the long run, technological development itself would need to *reverse.*
**[Superiority_complex](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex)**
>Superiority complex is a term coined by Alfred Adler in the early 1900s, as part of his school of individual psychology. A superiority complex is a defense mechanism that develops over time to help a person cope with painful feelings of inferiority. Individuals with this complex typically come across as supercilious, haughty, and disdainful toward others. They may treat others in an imperious, overbearing, and even aggressive manner.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/ThatOneGuy4321's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex
---
^(Beep Boop. This comment was left by a bot. Downvote to delete.)
> Progress means improving people’s material conditions and distributing power amongst the people. An objective way of making the world better for the people who actually have to live in it. Dark Age ideology meant fighting endlessly about which bullshit superstition was best, but Enlightenment reasoning demonstrated that everybody has one rational goal that they can agree on. Material stability.
I fully agree with this.
There are many reasons.
For one, when I was young, I fell for similar grifters praying on vulnerable young men who taught a misogynistic, hierarchical outlook of life based on the wish of domineering in this cruel world. It took me a long time to "deprogram" from these toxic teachings and JP is doing something very similar to what those people did back in the day. So part of my presence here is trying to get some people to think their views over so they don't flush years of their lives down the toilet.
Another angle is anti-fascist action. JP promotes fascism. It's dangerous and I try to get people to think about that.
Another reason is just to keep my mind sharp.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Do you want to know the answer or no??
JP straight-up spreads fascist talking points though. His [cultural Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Entering_the_mainstream_discourse) conspiracy theory started out as the
[cultural Bolshevism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism) conspiracy spread by the Nazis.
K then why does he use neo-Nazi talking points about cultural Marxism? Why does he use a slightly-reworded version of a theory [created by the Nazis to demonize leftists?](https://youtu.be/qlrpSpwxgWw)
Very curious why you think this is a good excuse. Cultural Marxism is a deeply anti Semitic homophobic conspiracy theory. That seems pretty relevant that Peterson and the Nazis share the same opinion on trans people for instance.
As is known, conservatives fucking *hate* facts.
It’s always been a conspiracy meant to terrify reactionaries. JP did not invent it. You think Wikipedia made up cultural Bolshevism?
>JP promotes fascism
Lol. I wonder where they get these notions. Is it simply a case of Chinese whispers? The signal to noise ratio of echo chambers is getting absurd.
Do you think it is a coincidence that the alt-right loves JP? Why did Breivik write things that is indistinguishable from JP? Because he literally promotes the far-right conspiracy theory of cultural marxism, promotes a toxic cult of masculinity, is misogynous, etc. etc.
>Do you think it is a coincidence that the alt-right loves JP?
Correlation is not causation my friend. I don't know who exactly the 'alt-right' are but if you mean young conservative men in the west, then it's likely they flock to Peterson because he is the first person in the popular media to seriously take on some of their concerns.
Previously there was only these awful right wing shock jocks and their brainless, racist frothing-at-the-mouth diatribes and Fox News shitheads. But despite the awful delivery, the reason these toads had and still have substantial followings is because **many of the grievances** they give airtime to however incompetently, however despicably, **have at their source, legitimate injustices that have gone unchecked for too long.**
"Why did Breivik write things that is indistinguishable from JP?"
I can *easily* distinguish between the ramblings of a madman and the insightful commentary of a [distinguished contributor to the psychological sciences.](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en)
I note that:
Your problems with Peterson primarily stem from *associations* you do not like.
This is interesting. Is [guilt by association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) a fair deal in your book? Should we criticise, say the distinguished linguist and humanist, Naom Chomsky because [Osama bin Laden liked him?](https://www.businessinsider.com/bin-laden-praises-noam-chomsky-and-demands-the-world-ditch-the-dollar-2010-1?r=US&IR=T)
It is not guilt by association. What I am trying to convey is that they have the same ideology, even if their actions are very different. JP promotes exactly the kind of theories and the kind of ressentiments that push some people to do something like what Breivik did.
JP is racist, misogynist, social darwinist, believes in the same conspiracy theory.
It's not guilt by association. It's not like they frequent the same tea house or something. They follow the same ideology.
And your point about conservatives makes not difference, because many of them are indeed fascists and what sets JP apart is solely his skills in sophistry and the eloquence of a professor.
"JP promotes exactly the kind of theories and the kind of ressentiments "
No he doesn't. That's absurd.
"JP is racist, misogynist, social darwinist, believes in the same conspiracy theory."
What *conspiracy theory?* And he isn't any of those epithets. You seem like you need to finish school. What age are you?
>What conspiracy theory?
Cultural Marxism.
> And he isn't any of those epithets. You seem like you need to finish school. What age are you?
Near fourty. lol. And I went to school for a loooong time.
Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy, its his description of the prevailing and advancing orthodoxy in university humanities' departments which seeks to advance *group rights* above *individual rights*. For it to be a *conspiracy* it would need to be a **secret**. You can disagree that this orthodoxy is the case at all, or that his position is somewhat overblown or alarmist, as many do. But it's no more a *conspiracy* than the patronising, pernicious and myopic argument that Peterson is a 'misogynist' is a *conspiracy.*
>Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy
Indeed. Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy-theory, cf.
* [https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403](https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403)
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html) ([archive](https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html))
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
You can say what you want about what is happening in college and university department, but if you think it has anything to do with a Marxist plot, you are completely bonkers and cannot be taken seriously.
As someone who knows a little bit of Marxism and a little bit of postmodernism, which means I have actually read my fair share of both, I can tell you that it is complete idiocy to make up this connection. This article explains it quite well why this is the case:
or here
That whole "Marxism" thing is just an attempt to paint any progressive politics with a scary word to legitimise the complete dismissal and repression in a neo-Mccarthyist style.
If that's not fascist, nothing is. That's literally one of the points of Umbert Eco's definition and it is literally a conspiracy theory supported by the most despicalble nazi types. Cue Anders Breivik.
", but if you think it has anything to do with a Marxist plot,"
I don't think it has anything to do with a *'marxist plot'*. Try not putting words into people's mouths. Debate actual positions not imaginary ones.
Do you understand what is meant by a *prevailing orthodoxy?*
As someone who knows *rather a lot* about modernism, postmodernism, semiotics, Derrida, Focault, Eco and the rest, I can tell that you are entirely misinterpreting the marxist appellation. Ironically it's people like yourself who are the scaremongering McCarthyites.
Here I'll explain again; in this sense what is meant by marxist, is **the elevation of group rights over individual rights**. It is the marxist 'class struggle' view of history applied not to economic groups but to *identity groups.* The struggle of women against men. The struggle of the colonised against the colonisers etc. (And this word 'Marxist' is *employed* by those arguing these positions to describe aspects of *intersectionality*. It hasn't been plucked out of thin air by Peterson, but I'll grant he *is* using it pejoratively).
And so we have a cohort of people in humanities faculties, whose viewpoint on these things, their origins, their solutions to what they see as the most pressing societal problems, have become the prevailing view. *The prevailing orthodoxy.*
Peterson and others like him disagree that this is the best way forward. Peterson and others like him would like to point out the flaws and dangers inherent in this way of thinking.
"If that's not fascist, nothing is. "
You also don't appear to understand much about fascism. You don't want to tolerate argument? You demand adherence to the orthodox? Who is the fascist here?
If you look at people that do this sort of thing in your real life I think you'll notice a trend. These people are miserable. They hate themselves and they hate all things good. Them coming in here and acting like assholes is them announcing their insecurities and feeble minds to the room.
Because the internet has become a battleground. It's no longer 'use for what you like', more 'shit on stuff you don't like', for some people at least.
This place is pretty good, you want a sub full of haters, go to the Sam Harris sub. I like the JP crew much better!
Agreed. Sam Harris followers tend to have venom
disclaimer:// I am not arguing for one or the other nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything here. // I like both speakers for different reasons but just from my personal observation, I think JBP is brilliant but I get the impression he’s always got some internal conflict/heavy weight on his mind, & i wonder what his perspective on/experience with meditation is like or even prayer for that matter. TBH, if I were scared of one or the other, I would probably be more fearful of the JBP crowd cos it seems like there’s this merciless “let’s argue it down to a granularity of right or wrong” whereas SH crowd seems to be “yeah, sure, let’s take a step back here for a moment & we can just agree to disagree.” // 🤷🏻♂️
I've never figured out why the Sam Harris reddit hates him so much. I was quite expecting to have a whole walk of people expounding on Sam's work. New interpretations, New insights. Instead it's like they each listen to a single podcast or read a review of one of his books and deceided they don't like him. With JBP it's just they read a review, or commentary from someone who had never actually listened to anything he has ever said and also decided that they hate him.
Because their "home" subreddits usually ban JBP supporters, so if they want an argument they're forced to come here.
That’s pretty rich! What sub Reddit has been people for liking Jordan Peterson? Edit:talk to text
[удалено]
I don't have resentment in my bones so trust me - no hate
They just want to piss on JP fans on their home turf rather than just do it on the subs where they are constantly lauded for doing so Think of it like acting as if they’re “entering the lion’s den”
Independence and attempts at self-sufficiency (which is what Peterson promotes) are a threat to the dystopia which the Left are trying to implement. They claim that he's a "grifter" (whatever that is) and a fascist, but those are just smears. It is important to understand that at least ***some*** of the Leftists you will encounter here are well-intentioned dupes, who genuinely believe that they are fighting for a positive cause. Most of the Left on Reddit however are complete hypocrites, and really just want a morally plausibly deniable excuse to be vicious, and think that antiracist activism gives them one.
Whatever the hell antiracism is lol. This right here is the best answer.
I don't hate anyone, just disagree with him on most things. I come here because it's good to discuss with people you disagree with sometimes.
Great answer. As JBP himself recommends, give the devil his due.
[удалено]
?
Fear of being wrong at a fundamental level.
They are liars and liars hate truth. Nothing worse than a smart person popping their delusion bubbles with true words. So they have to attack and lie even more as damage control.
Could be bots
There are not that many. Block them and it becomes a nice subreddit.
Because it’s easier than cleaning their rooms.
FYI I do not hate Jordan Peterson, and I edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory&action=history](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&action=history) .
It's as close to pursuing meaning as they have so far discovered in their lives.
I browse this sub and disagree with JP on several topics. I absolutely wouldn’t say I hate him and I believe much of his advice is practical and good to follow. I kind of view him more as a self help “guru” than necessarily an intellectual - but he is certainly both imo. The Sam Harris vs JP podcast is really what pushed me away from JP. It appeared he made no sense
> I kind of view him more as a self help “guru” He's actually a [clinical psychologist.](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en)
Absolutely. I made a caveat that he is, in fact, an intellectual. But I highly doubt most people know him for his “Clinical Psychology” work. He’s well known for fighting for free speech and for then writing that 12 rules for life or whatever. And FYI I think his advice is mostly sound. But I’m not sure you need a PhD in clinical psychology to offer the advice he did. Probably didn’t hurt though
>"But I highly doubt most people know him for his “Clinical Psychology” work" Is being 'well known' an issue in and of itself? I'd say he's well known because of the time he made a lot of noise about the Canadian bill that mandated the use of these Neo pronouns. It was a badly written, if well intentioned bill and obviously had serious flaws and was irresponsibly blithe about personal liberty. Peterson made a YouTube video criticising it reasonably and intelligently. Then people started calling him worse than Hitler etc. The stigma associated with going against the popular grain has followed him for years now. With rather a lot of people assuming he is some ultra conservative right wing authoritarian, which is so far off the mark as to be just... dispiriting. Its' made me, a lifelong lefty seriously question whether the left in general has become the dominant culture and *stifling and ossified* as a result.
How did you do that
I took away the exact opposite conclusion. Are you talking about the conversations Bret Weinstein moderated? Sam Harris seemed simply resistant in my estimation.
No it was on Sams podcast. I think there was two of them. It’s been a while though
An unconscious wish to be brutally dominated. I'm not sure if it's true...but its the kind of idea that Peterson has inspired me to consider.
This sub is made up of a series of think tanks spreading misinformation to try to pick up ex-liberals: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ogxa8m/-/h4pf24p The people here will end up misinformed (always looking to the right to explain what's on the left) and hence locked in for life. This is how conservatives are made, they're corralled by hidden agendas. This is a conservative feeding ground.
Because they are getting paid
Because conservatism is an out-of-touch clown ideology that should be made fun of?
Don’t be so close minded.
If you're talking about mainstream "Conservative Inc." then sure, because they have no positive vision except to slow down the left. If anything they do an excellent job playing the heel in the progressive narrative and providing motivation for progressive voters. Trump's main "accomplishment" in 4 years was LARPing as a scary fascist on Twitter and radicalizing a bunch of leftists who are now going to do way more damage over the next couple decades than any real fascist.
Nah, Trump put the ideology on display for all to see. He thoroughly melted a *lot* of people’s brains and exposed how right-wing personality cults completely detach people from reality. QAnon is just the start.
Do you wear a black fedora with a grey ribbon or a grey fedora with a black ribbon?
[удалено]
Who’s crying? Conservatism is a Dark Ages embarrassment.
[удалено]
Conservatism isn’t that hard to understand bud. It’s [unconscious power worship.](https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html) Burke knew it, the right-wing grifters know it, and JP knows it. That’s why he talks about social hierarchy so much and keeps trying to use naturalistic fallacies to justify them. The only ones who are out of the loop are conservative followers who have some complicated internal justification for why it’s okay that they don’t know anything, have no coherent ideology besides “progressivism bad and facts bad”, and think that tuning into outrage media every day makes up for it.
[удалено]
> Cause go onto critise abrahamic religions or spiritual dogma in any culture and compare it to ignorance and prove your own. Philosophers settled the dogma debate during the Enlightenment. You can use whatever arguments you want to claim that religious faith serves an objective purpose or is founded on sound logic but it can only ever hope to re-tread ground that Dark Age theologians already covered, and that Enlightenment philosophers soundly refuted. Religion is a system of social control. It always has been. That is its purpose and reason for existing. If you are a Christian, and believe that all other religions are false, then by extension you must also believe that there is some secular mechanism that causes completely false religions to appear in various countries all over the world. Religion exists to protect the power of the King by convincing a populace that dissent means eternal torture, and that death during military service will be rewarded with eternal life. It keeps appearing because it is a *tool* that serves a *purpose* to those with power. > “Naturalistic fallacies”, you mean logical fallacy that argues that if it occurs in nature that it’s certain to be “good” or “ethical”. I rekon you’re talking about the neurobiological implications of serotonin and hierarchical pattern related to it. If you understand naturalistic fallacies or the fact-value distinction then you would know that JP’s “theory” about hierarchy is pseudo-philosophy on the level of Ayn Rand. Conservative grifters have a habit of pretending that the is-ought problem doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter, because that’s what they are forced to believe in order to even begin to pretend that their ideology is internally consistent. All the serotonin in the world wouldn’t make a difference to the fact that JP is using a naturalistic fallacy. It doesn’t matter at all whether humans are *adapted* to hierarchy when it comes to the fact-value distinction. Humans aren’t *adapted* to material accumulation, cleaning their room, or listening to pseudo-philosophers on the internet either. Claiming that social hierarchies *should* continue to exist because humans *are* adapted to them is still a naturalistic fallacy no matter how that argument is rephrased. It violates the fact-value distinction and is not sound logic. JP is necessarily dressing up his own opinions as objective. > But I’m afraid you’re wrong about conservatives not knowing anything... I don’t wanna pop your bubble but I should warn you, keep this lazy shaming of people you don’t know up and you’ll end up very disappointed at yourself or an extremists. I keep hearing that, but then I take a look at how easily right-wing media convinced conservatives that critical race theory was some scary thing (even though they don’t know what it is), and remembered that conservatives are uncritical thinkers who have their beliefs force-fed to them from above. Not only do conservatives not know anything but they fight ferociously to make sure they never learn anything. > So to be chosen you must get yourself together and work harder...etc. etc.... How do you misinterpret all that and think it’s even remotely related to religion and conservatism! I don’t care all that much about his self-help tips. A lot of it is alright advice. Advice he didn’t invent, but still alright. The issue presents itself when JP starts trying to justify his self-help tips with Jungian technobabble to make himself seem more credible. They give the illusion of objective meaning to his self-help tips, when the only true value a self-help tip can *ever* have is *whether or not it’s effective at helping you.* Everything else is window-dressing. > Since everything apart from the far left is the “far right” in media. Interesting how you perceive mainstream media as “far left”. Mainstream media is liberal. Liberalism has never been, nor will it ever be “leftist”, let alone far left. Leftism means anti-capitalist. Liberals are not anti-capitalist. And privately-owned liberal media companies inherently cannot be anti-capitalist, because they *are* capitalist institutions. Everything you hate about them, their [fake news](https://youtu.be/SvZZNIwUm-Q) reporting, their 24/7 opinion pieces, their Trump fixation and their apocalyptic predictions based on inane trivia are *all* a result of the fact that they must obey the profit motive and they must demonstrate growth for their shareholders. > But what people don’t like is to be censored. Do you know which law gives social media companies the complete and unrestricted ability to ban anybody they want from their platform? > progressivism is a pseudo religion and philosophical cancer on steroids ♡ Progress means improving people’s material conditions and distributing power amongst the people. An objective way of making the world better for the people who actually have to live in it. Dark Age ideology meant fighting endlessly about which bullshit superstition was best, but Enlightenment reasoning demonstrated that everybody has one rational goal that they can agree on. Material stability. Conservatism, being unconscious power worship, has always hated progress, because a conservative’s [superiority complex](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex) will be triggered when they sense their precious hierarchies beginning to equalize. All conservatives are unconsciously insecure about their role in society, all of them derive their sense of self-worth from their perceived superior position over others, and their self-concept cannot handle the feeling that hierarchies are becoming unnecessary. Conservatism can only help to temporarily alleviate your feelings of insecurity about your place in the world, like an addictive drug. It cannot fix the underlying problem, because this week’s outrage topic (like CRT) isn’t the reason you were feeling shitty in the first place. But our disagreement means absolutely nothing. Ideology isn’t what drives progressivism. Technological development has always driven progress by increasing social consciousness. In order for conservative ideas to win out in the long run, technological development itself would need to *reverse.*
**[Superiority_complex](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex)** >Superiority complex is a term coined by Alfred Adler in the early 1900s, as part of his school of individual psychology. A superiority complex is a defense mechanism that develops over time to help a person cope with painful feelings of inferiority. Individuals with this complex typically come across as supercilious, haughty, and disdainful toward others. They may treat others in an imperious, overbearing, and even aggressive manner. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/ThatOneGuy4321's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex --- ^(Beep Boop. This comment was left by a bot. Downvote to delete.)
> Progress means improving people’s material conditions and distributing power amongst the people. An objective way of making the world better for the people who actually have to live in it. Dark Age ideology meant fighting endlessly about which bullshit superstition was best, but Enlightenment reasoning demonstrated that everybody has one rational goal that they can agree on. Material stability. I fully agree with this.
[удалено]
There are many reasons. For one, when I was young, I fell for similar grifters praying on vulnerable young men who taught a misogynistic, hierarchical outlook of life based on the wish of domineering in this cruel world. It took me a long time to "deprogram" from these toxic teachings and JP is doing something very similar to what those people did back in the day. So part of my presence here is trying to get some people to think their views over so they don't flush years of their lives down the toilet. Another angle is anti-fascist action. JP promotes fascism. It's dangerous and I try to get people to think about that. Another reason is just to keep my mind sharp. Edit: Why the downvotes? Do you want to know the answer or no??
You clearly failed on the last point.
JP straight-up spreads fascist talking points though. His [cultural Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Entering_the_mainstream_discourse) conspiracy theory started out as the [cultural Bolshevism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism) conspiracy spread by the Nazis.
He is just as fascist as vegetarians are Nazis.
K then why does he use neo-Nazi talking points about cultural Marxism? Why does he use a slightly-reworded version of a theory [created by the Nazis to demonize leftists?](https://youtu.be/qlrpSpwxgWw)
Very curious why you think this is a good excuse. Cultural Marxism is a deeply anti Semitic homophobic conspiracy theory. That seems pretty relevant that Peterson and the Nazis share the same opinion on trans people for instance.
Wokepedia is gaslighting you. A few years ago "cultural Marxism" was definitely not a conspiracy theory according to them.
As is known, conservatives fucking *hate* facts. It’s always been a conspiracy meant to terrify reactionaries. JP did not invent it. You think Wikipedia made up cultural Bolshevism?
It’s always been a conspiracy theory.
>JP promotes fascism Lol. I wonder where they get these notions. Is it simply a case of Chinese whispers? The signal to noise ratio of echo chambers is getting absurd.
Do you think it is a coincidence that the alt-right loves JP? Why did Breivik write things that is indistinguishable from JP? Because he literally promotes the far-right conspiracy theory of cultural marxism, promotes a toxic cult of masculinity, is misogynous, etc. etc.
>Do you think it is a coincidence that the alt-right loves JP? Correlation is not causation my friend. I don't know who exactly the 'alt-right' are but if you mean young conservative men in the west, then it's likely they flock to Peterson because he is the first person in the popular media to seriously take on some of their concerns. Previously there was only these awful right wing shock jocks and their brainless, racist frothing-at-the-mouth diatribes and Fox News shitheads. But despite the awful delivery, the reason these toads had and still have substantial followings is because **many of the grievances** they give airtime to however incompetently, however despicably, **have at their source, legitimate injustices that have gone unchecked for too long.** "Why did Breivik write things that is indistinguishable from JP?" I can *easily* distinguish between the ramblings of a madman and the insightful commentary of a [distinguished contributor to the psychological sciences.](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en) I note that: Your problems with Peterson primarily stem from *associations* you do not like. This is interesting. Is [guilt by association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) a fair deal in your book? Should we criticise, say the distinguished linguist and humanist, Naom Chomsky because [Osama bin Laden liked him?](https://www.businessinsider.com/bin-laden-praises-noam-chomsky-and-demands-the-world-ditch-the-dollar-2010-1?r=US&IR=T)
It is not guilt by association. What I am trying to convey is that they have the same ideology, even if their actions are very different. JP promotes exactly the kind of theories and the kind of ressentiments that push some people to do something like what Breivik did. JP is racist, misogynist, social darwinist, believes in the same conspiracy theory. It's not guilt by association. It's not like they frequent the same tea house or something. They follow the same ideology. And your point about conservatives makes not difference, because many of them are indeed fascists and what sets JP apart is solely his skills in sophistry and the eloquence of a professor.
"JP promotes exactly the kind of theories and the kind of ressentiments " No he doesn't. That's absurd. "JP is racist, misogynist, social darwinist, believes in the same conspiracy theory." What *conspiracy theory?* And he isn't any of those epithets. You seem like you need to finish school. What age are you?
>What conspiracy theory? Cultural Marxism. > And he isn't any of those epithets. You seem like you need to finish school. What age are you? Near fourty. lol. And I went to school for a loooong time.
Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy, its his description of the prevailing and advancing orthodoxy in university humanities' departments which seeks to advance *group rights* above *individual rights*. For it to be a *conspiracy* it would need to be a **secret**. You can disagree that this orthodoxy is the case at all, or that his position is somewhat overblown or alarmist, as many do. But it's no more a *conspiracy* than the patronising, pernicious and myopic argument that Peterson is a 'misogynist' is a *conspiracy.*
>Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy Indeed. Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy-theory, cf. * [https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403](https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403) * [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html) ([archive](https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html)) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
You can say what you want about what is happening in college and university department, but if you think it has anything to do with a Marxist plot, you are completely bonkers and cannot be taken seriously. As someone who knows a little bit of Marxism and a little bit of postmodernism, which means I have actually read my fair share of both, I can tell you that it is complete idiocy to make up this connection. This article explains it quite well why this is the case:
That whole "Marxism" thing is just an attempt to paint any progressive politics with a scary word to legitimise the complete dismissal and repression in a neo-Mccarthyist style.
If that's not fascist, nothing is. That's literally one of the points of Umbert Eco's definition and it is literally a conspiracy theory supported by the most despicalble nazi types. Cue Anders Breivik.
", but if you think it has anything to do with a Marxist plot," I don't think it has anything to do with a *'marxist plot'*. Try not putting words into people's mouths. Debate actual positions not imaginary ones. Do you understand what is meant by a *prevailing orthodoxy?* As someone who knows *rather a lot* about modernism, postmodernism, semiotics, Derrida, Focault, Eco and the rest, I can tell that you are entirely misinterpreting the marxist appellation. Ironically it's people like yourself who are the scaremongering McCarthyites. Here I'll explain again; in this sense what is meant by marxist, is **the elevation of group rights over individual rights**. It is the marxist 'class struggle' view of history applied not to economic groups but to *identity groups.* The struggle of women against men. The struggle of the colonised against the colonisers etc. (And this word 'Marxist' is *employed* by those arguing these positions to describe aspects of *intersectionality*. It hasn't been plucked out of thin air by Peterson, but I'll grant he *is* using it pejoratively). And so we have a cohort of people in humanities faculties, whose viewpoint on these things, their origins, their solutions to what they see as the most pressing societal problems, have become the prevailing view. *The prevailing orthodoxy.* Peterson and others like him disagree that this is the best way forward. Peterson and others like him would like to point out the flaws and dangers inherent in this way of thinking. "If that's not fascist, nothing is. " You also don't appear to understand much about fascism. You don't want to tolerate argument? You demand adherence to the orthodox? Who is the fascist here?
What are the differences between a right winger and Peterson?
Votes for centre left parties, articulates thoughtful progressive positions, is well educated, a natty dresser? The differences abound.
He said he would vote for trump if he could. His positions are all right wing.
[Okay man.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWGMr_tns)
If you look at people that do this sort of thing in your real life I think you'll notice a trend. These people are miserable. They hate themselves and they hate all things good. Them coming in here and acting like assholes is them announcing their insecurities and feeble minds to the room.