Jordan Peterson: Parody or Facsimile of Red Skull?

[Elegiac]

Interested in psychology? Read Carl Jung.

Or don't, because Jung's work is mostly fantasy fiction with a pseudoscientific veneer.

- - - Updated - - -

Simply wrong.
The problem is instead you that de-value the Nazis by throwing them around so lightly.

The only people "de-valuing the Nazis" are the people trying to paint fascism as some exceptional outlier and not capitalism's immune response to reform, because in doing so y'all make it incredibly easy for fascists to legitimise themselves with the excuse "Well we aren't speaking German and using swastikas anymore so how could we *possibly* be fascists?"

So, thanks for that.

[Forogil]

The only people "de-valuing the Nazis" are the people trying to paint fascism as some exceptional outlier and not capitalism's immune response to reform, because in doing so y'all make it incredibly easy for fascists to legitimise themselves with the excuse "well we aren't speaking German and using swastikas anymore so how could we be fascists?"

You are just confused.

[Elegiac]

You are just confused.

No, just not moronic enough to assume the only people pushing fascism are those wearing jackboots and speaking German which is the argument y'all insist on repeating every time it's pointed out people like Peterson are making fascist arguments.

[Endus]

Simply wrong.
The problem is instead you that de-value the Nazis by throwing them around so lightly.

The Nazis weren't particularly special or unique. The horror they represent is not outside what history shows is always well within human capacities. They weren't really significantly worse than the American slave economy, or Stalin's own horrors, and you can find new examples nearly every century for a thousand years or more.

Acting like the Nazi Reich was a one-off and could not happen again, that is selling the Nazi legacy off far too lightly. I'd rather not wait until the death camps are back before pointing out someone's urging us back on the road that leads there.

[postman1782]

Anyone who tries to pretend Jordan Peterson isn't at least conveying some intelligent points or crucial wisdom should routinely have their opinions disregarded. Those people aren't arguing in good faith.

He is a psychologist. Nothing more, nothing less. He needs to stay out of politics, because his stances and takes are 100% bullshit, even borderline pushing Nazi propaganda.

[Felya]

You are just confused.

Nope... no mater how much QAnon rails about save the children, it hasn’t devalued the actual cause. I don’t understand why Nazis are different... enlighten...

- - - Updated - - -

No, just not moronic enough to assume the only people pushing fascism are those wearing jackboots and speaking German which is the argument y'all insist on repeating every time it's pointed out people like Peterson are making fascist arguments.

4 years of claiming Democrats are part of a satanic child trafficking cult, hasn’t devalued the horrors of child trafficking. But, nazis... better not call them out or they will not seem as bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t laws them selfs focus too much on crime, in effect devaluing it? Hahaha!!!!

[downnola]

Or don't, because Jung's work is mostly fantasy fiction with a pseudoscientific veneer.

Fair enough. I don't know much about his work other than Peterson badly interprets it in his rambling about neo-marxists.

[Slant]

Simply wrong.
The problem is instead you that de-value the Nazis by throwing them around so lightly.

First off, Nazis have no value. The term nazi has no value, either. It's not interesting, it shouldn't be fascinating, there should be no positive attributed to it at all. Next, if something talks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi and acts like a Nazi, he's a Nazi. And that an increasing number of people seem to fall under the illusion that their their internet bubbles empower them enough to come out and openly represent an ideology that by all accounts aligns with the ideals of the Nazi party doesn't mean that people are using the term in an inflationary manner. Just means there are more idiots who think being a Nazi is okay.

Except, and this is where you seem to come in, they don't like being called a Nazi. I mean, officially. Deep down, they are very fascinated by WW2 and the Nazis, they think it's exciting or some other bullshit, and why not buy into the propaganda for the fun of it. But then you call them out and they realise they may have gone too far, because everyone knows Nazis are bad. Not that they understand WHY beyond "Duh, Holocaust". And then they are upset that you throw around the term Nazi a lot and use the tried and true defense "Don't use that term so often, you'll wear it out!"

Turns out, the solution is simple... don't want to be called a Nazi? Don't be one. It's really that simple. And if you think the term is thrown around too much these days, sit down, pause for a second and REALLY think about why that is.

Now, I haven't watched Peterson enough to know if he fits the bill. But if people like Endus seem to think he is (and Endus seems uncharacteristically emphatic about that), I'll take his word for it until I see otherwise. The main thing that I have noticed is that Peterson seems to put a great deal on... careful phrasing. Hinting. And if you call him out, he'll always leave himself an open door.

"Women being discriminated is not the reason why they earn less." - *other side randomly exploding in disbelief* - "It's not the ONLY reason..." and suddenly you're not discussing inequality, you're discussing just by how much it's a reason, and he'll throw some random statistics at you and you lose yourself in details... typical American bullshit professional debater stuff. I'm not even sure if he's behind any ideology or just argues to make a quick buck, because for some reason the media seems to think they have to stage every discussion like a gladiatorial fight and there are always exactly two sides and they have to fight to the death, no matter how reprehensible and bullshit one side is.

Today's discussion: Is the sky blue? In the blue corner we have a dad, who says yes, it's basically blue... in the other corner, a Flat Earther who says the sky doesn't exist, it's just a wallpaper glued over the glas dome that was put on our disc. FIGHT!

[Endus]

Now, I haven't watched Peterson enough to know if he fits the bill. But if people like Endus seem to think he is (and Endus seems uncharacteristically emphatic about that), I'll take his word for it until I see otherwise.

To be clear;

He repurposes Nazi propaganda as his own talking points, particularly the "cultural Marxism" bullshit, but there's elements in some of his other stuff.

I don't believe this is accidental, as he's usually so very careful in his phrasing that he can't get caught out blurting something he doesn't really mean.

Do I think he's got a little shrine with swastikas on the walls and a picture of Der Fuhrer in pride of place? Nah. Do I think he finds some Nazi ideas enticing and convincing? Absolutely. He's as much as said so, by invoking "cultural marxism" as something to be concerned with.

I'm really a lot less interested in why he's dredging up that garbage than that he's dredging it up. Maybe it's all just to sell to the asshats out there. Sure seems like Peterson doesn't practice what he preaches, what with his painkiller problems while simultaneously claiming his daughter's all-meat diet theory had fixed his medical issues.

There's a reason I tend to point to arguments and reasoning and say "that's Nazi shit", rather than pointing at a person and saying "you're Nazi shit".

[Forogil]

The Nazis weren't particularly special or unique. The horror they represent is not outside what history shows is always well within human capacities. They weren't really significantly worse than the American slave economy, or Stalin's own horrors, and you can find new examples nearly every century for a thousand years or more.

But they weren't the norm either (in the present day; going back in time it might have been more common, but usually in smaller scale).

Does Petersen call for forced labor or extermination camps for political opponents and/or undesirable races? Is it likely that he would do that in power (a power which I cannot see that he seeks)?

- - - Updated - - -

No, just not moronic enough to assume the only people pushing fascism are those wearing jackboots and speaking German which is the argument y'all insist on repeating every time it's pointed out people like Peterson are making fascist arguments.

No, my point was about the other half of your argument.

Fascism isn't the immune response of capitalist to reform. It's more likely that authoritarian regimes and extremist like nazis and communism occur when states are failing - not as a response to legit reforms. Germany before WWII responded to a crisis by choosing the Nazism while e.g., China chose differently.

Look at Turkey and Russia. Is that caused by capitalism resisting reform?

- - - Updated - - -

First off, Nazis have no value. The term nazi has no value, either. It's not interesting, it shouldn't be fascinating, there should be no positive attributed to it at all.

I didn't mean that it had a positive value, but a negative value.

The main thing that I have noticed is that Peterson seems to put a great deal on... careful phrasing. Hinting. And if you call him out, he'll always leave himself an open door.

"Women being discriminated is not the reason why they earn less." - *other side randomly exploding in disbelief* - "It's not the ONLY reason..." and suddenly you're not discussing inequality, you're discussing just by how much it's a reason, and he'll throw some random statistics at you and you lose yourself in details... typical American bullshit professional debater stuff.

He's a professor; and hedging statements are common in academia.
Obviously there are exceptions - there are some ideologues in academia that don't use them - it's just that tend to be even more wrong, and instead of hedging like that you can on the other hand present evidence to the contrary to counter the original point.

I'm not even sure if he's behind any ideology or just argues to make a quick buck, because for some reason the media seems to think they have to stage every discussion like a gladiatorial fight and there are always exactly two sides and they have to fight to the death, no matter how reprehensible and bullshit one side is.

It's cheap entertainment, like reality TV. You just get a bunch of wackos together, and the TV producers don't need to understand anything of the subject matter.

[Yas-Queen Rochana]

To expand on your point:

Interested in psychology? Read Carl Jung.
Interested in story telling and mythology? Read Joseph Campbell.
In a bad spot in life, feel lost, and in need of help? See a therapist/psychiatrist.

Peterson does have some useful things to say about all of the above but it's nothing you couldn't get by just going to the source (while not being distorted to boot). The problem with Peterson is that you're exposed to all of the mildly and no so mildly fascist shit he has to say about feminism, liberalism, and Marxism while you're listening to his other stuff.

What exactly are some of the fascist points Peterson argues for?
Are we talking about actual fascism here or just the expanded use of the word? (eg. cultural conservatism)
Because if we've to go by the latter and expanded use of the word then 90% of planet Earth constitutes fascism, from Chinese to Middle-Eastern to South-American culture.

[Azadina]

What exactly are some of the fascist points Peterson argues for?
Are we talking about actual fascism here or just the expanded use of the word? (eg. cultural conservatism)
Because if we've to go by the latter and expanded use of the word then 90% of planet Earth constitutes fascism, from Chinese to Middle-Eastern to South-American culture.

Explain forced monogamy for starters (in the context of fixing the incel problem it was presented). Cleaning the room yet?

[Yas-Queen Rochana]

Explain forced monogamy for starters (in the context of fixing the incel problem it was presented). Cleaning the room yet?

So you are talking about the expanded use of the word?
Like, everything punks don't like equals fascism?

I can't comment much on whether or not 'forced monogamy' is the best solution for the incel problem, but I do think Western society might have to deal with gross repercussions and mental health issues when close to 40% of the young adult male population is starting to feel disenfranchised or rejected in society. Seems to me like the ideal recipe for a resurgence of actual / real fascism.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So you are talking about the expanded use of the word?
Like, everything punks don't like equals fascism?

I can't comment much on whether or not 'forced monogamy' is the best solution for the incel problem, but I do think Western society might have to deal with gross repercussions and mental health issues when close to 40% of the young adult male population is starting to feel disenfranchised or rejected in society. Seems to me like the ideal recipe for a resurgence of actual / real fascism.

Forced Monogamy is fascism. Full Stop.

[Yas-Queen Rochana]

Forced Monogamy is fascism. Full Stop.

Sure, and by that measure you just declared that almost every culture in the world is fascist.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sure, and by that measure you just declared that almost every culture in the world is fascist.

No, what I've declared that any law that enforces monogamy is fascist.

[Yas-Queen Rochana]

No, what I've declared that any law that enforces monogamy is fascist.

I agree that it would be a great overreach from the government to impose such laws.
But sadly we have many of those kinds of laws already...

[Shadowferal]

I would replace the word "monogamy" with "marriage." Unless the argument is for polygamy?

(....just walked in curious as to why anyone gives a damn about whoever this Peterson person is and why...oh why anyone cares what this person says.)

[Azadina]

So you are talking about the expanded use of the word?
Like, everything punks don't like equals fascism?

I can't comment much on whether or not 'forced monogamy' is the best solution for the incel problem, but I do think Western society might have to deal with gross repercussions and mental health issues when close to 40% of the young adult male population is starting to feel disenfranchised or rejected in society. Seems to me like the ideal recipe for a resurgence of actual / real fascism.

I mean... you could have written /dodge as a reply and it would have done the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I would replace the word "monogamy" with "marriage." Unless the argument is for polygamy?

(....just walked in curious as to why anyone gives a damn about whoever this Peterson person is and why...oh why anyone cares what this person says.)

People cheat in marriages and it's not particularly illegal. What do you think forced monogamy means? It's not just forced marriage, so that word swap doesn't work for the idea behind it.

[Machismo]

I agree that it would be a great overreach from the government to impose such laws.
But sadly we have many of those kinds of laws already...

Thanks for arguing against those social programs you've been whining for over the past few years.