Mhm nothing like conspiracy theories and calling all college professors neo marxists. This is the same guy who bitches and moans anytime anyone minorly misrepresents his positions or doesn’t include three hours of context. Yet he goes around calling all college professors and trans activists maoists and marxists. “Intellectual honesty for thee but not for me” should be JBP’s motto
He's never said all professors subscribe to that ideology, far from it. But many do, as do much of the administrative side of academia. It's also completely true that some questionable stuff is being taught to very young children. Have you listened to much of his content, especially the non politicized stuff? He's actually one of the most logically consistent people I've ever heard. You're misrepresenting his positions on things right now lol and then wonder why he calls people out for exactly that?
He’s repeatedly claimed that the same ideology which underlies trans activist underlies Maoism and Marxism which is completely misrepresentation of their actual ideology. Also the clear implication from the videos is that Marxism is widespread in acaademia and that kids are being mislead into believing radical Marxist ideology at schools which he has no evidence for and claims matter of factly. He also claims the basis for identity politics is Marxism which is laughably stupid. Marxism and identity politics are often at odds with each other on the left. The more hardcore marxist types oftwn deride liberals for being too obsessed with identity and valuing social justice over economic justice. But even beyond that it’s simply not true that Marxism was applied to race, gender by postmodernists. Postmodernists were largely about deconstructing meta narratives and breaking away from meta narratives like Marxism. It’s as if he’s never actually read a single post modernist text. I listened to close to 30 hours of his various speaking and I honestly find it pretty uncompelling. Most of his self help stuff is pretty basic but if it helps people I’m glad. His jungian psychoanalytic stuff is straight mystical unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo used to validate reactionary politics. Just because something was a certain way throughout history doesn’t mean it tells us some fundamental truth about human nature. Often times it just tells us about the conditions both social, political, and economic that lead to that practice. It essentially gives him license to poo poo any change he dislikes by appealing to an unfalsifiable claim. Don’t like changing gender roles, while obviously that’s bad because gender roles wouldn’t exist unless it said something fundamentally true about the intrinsic nature of what it is to be a man or woman. I can’t reasonably test that theory in any manner which is why it’s not a convincing argument in any way. His actual political ideology is just standard run of the mill comseveryaive when he actually chooses to advocate a political belief. When he gets to philosophy it’s hilariously bad. His representation of Derrida/Foucault/other Pomo philosophers is a historical revisionism at best and I would say just outright lies at worst.
He actually does have a point about Marxist thought influencing movements like feminism, gender activists, race activists, etc.. Marxists look at wealth disparity, conclude it must be due to oppression, and divide society into two categories; oppressor or oppressed. They then look to redistribute wealth in a way they deem "fair". Feminists and racial activist groups do something similar, identifying disparities between men and women or between one race and another, conclude it must be due to oppression, and divide society into either oppressors(men in feminism, white people in racial activism) or oppressed. Any and all aggression towards the oppressor class is justified by their status as the oppressor. He doesn't say they all explicitly espouse Marxism, that's why they're called neo-Marxists, but the parallels can't be denied. There's massive evidence that men and women are intrinsically different. You see similar behavior patterns in men and women all over the world,regardless of culture, which wouldn't be the case if gender roles were entirely socially constructed. Differences in choice of occupation between men and women also tend to be highest in high income countries with strong civil liberties. This suggests that men and women voluntarily choose different paths when given the freedom to do so. Women are still vastly outnumbered by men in STEM jobs for example, despite massive efforts to get them to pursue such jobs.
Getting to all of this, back from a month of intense work Just hit the spliff tho feels good We'll sort this out bucko
You should probably consult Jordan's latest take on Trudeau, where he was asked about him at the 1:09:12 mark.
Ummm. No. I'm saying that the Liberal Party in Canada made a good Progressive decision to legalize Cannabis. Jordan tends to emphasize that these political divisions are not all black and white and here you go, a Jordan Peterson fanatic, trying to make a black and white issue out of it. You see how quickly your underware crawled up your butt when I said Progressive? ?
i like Peterson and what he says but feel he is way too intelligent, rational and overall centered, self actualized (if not enlightened) for the average dumbed down legal resident of the US of Amnesia to comprehend... most don't have an attention span long enough nor could they tear themselves away from the boob tube or other mind numbing habit to give him the time of day... takes a guy who can sell the sizzle even though the steak tastes like rice cakes and is as tough as boot leather to capture and hold attention of many... oh and tell them what you know they WANT to hear at each stop along the way... Once again i like him and agree with everything i've heard but he, like many before him were ahead of their time... i do appreciate that some are awake and clear enough to follow him and agree... not saying his way will not work or come to pass but not in my lifetime...
Nope. If you wish to conflate a Peterson post with Trudeau support based on the one issue of cannabis, it only makes sense to point out to that Peterson is on frequent record voicing his many other disagreements with him and his governing. The "underware" is fine though thanks.
When it comes to the wage gap, of course you are going to have studies that have unexplained differences in earnings, because no study(especially in social science) can possibly identify let alone control for all the factors that influence earnings. For one, wage discrimination is illegal and if someone actually did have this happen to them, they already have legal recourse. But the best argument is the economic one, that if you could truly get away with paying women less than men, employers would do so at every opportunity and we should see women outnumbering men in the workforce, but we don't. I don't see how this myth has survived in this day and age. As for Peterson rejecting the feminist narrative of "until feminism, history is a tale of men oppressing women", he does support his argument on this. He points out that a division of labor between the sexes developed naturally because such gender roles helped make life better for both men and women. People don't really understand this because life has changed so much in last five or six decades. Things like the traditional role of women staying home, keeping the house and raising the kids are portrayed as a subjugation of women by men, when in reality it was just the arrangement that had the most utility at the time. People had way more kids because of the lack of birth control and high infant mortality rates, so having one parent raise them full time made more sense. Keeping a household of any size was also much more work back then than it is today with modern technology. Women and men had very rigid, defined roles that were enforced socially and culturally, but these roles weren't entirely to the benefit of men to the detriment of women. There were advantages and disadvantages to each role. A privilege women have enjoyed throughout history is their being protected from the worst of wars, not having to fight, be accorded more mercy, etc.. Many feminists would regard women born in the 1920's as oppressed, yet how many men drafted for war do you think envied their women staying safe at home? Feminists pretend there were no historical advantages to being female, which just isn't true. Their reading of history is utter nonsense.
It's clear what you referenced, together with a giant Justin Trudeau picture. That's why you got 2 videos of Jordan Peterson trashing him in response. Just so you aren't confused where JP stands on Trudeau. Maybe take a deep breath or two yourself and review the footage, bucko. It'll prevent you from posting pro-Trudeau stuff in wrong places in the future.
Bucko? So you're saying Justin's decision to legalize cannabis in Canada is a bad progressive decision? Is that what your saying? Cause what I'm saying is, that it's a fantastic progressive decision.