Ripping Apart Jordan Peterson's Faux Intellectualism

That's not making it better. Really, if you don't have the self-awareness to realize what shtick Peterson is playing here you are either delusional or just dumb.

I see no difference between Peterson and figures like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro. It's the same platitudes over and over.

Peterson doesn't have any female fans anymore.

He's reading Capital apparently because of that girl on the show.

Yeah and that’s sad. It should tell you something when the alt right perpetually attracts lonely incels.

Hot Take: Jordan Peterson himself isn’t retarded, but his profession (Jungian psychoanalysis) is.

hooktube.com/watch?v=H8PVf5ZSffE
watch this and tell me he isn't retarded

Psychoanalysis is a meme. All forms of it are completely retarded. In before "muh lacan."

Attached: zizek simpsons453.jpg (640x480, 42.89K)

Psychoanalysis is a tool and you can make the argument that it's a shitty tool but it's not meme

everything peterson says not related to his profession is just as if not more retarded than his order vs chaos bs so clearly the problem is greater than Jung.

I mean, it's a meme until the government and certain private sectors need it.
It helped build the modern public relations industry, and much of propaganda as we know it was built from Freudian theories.

wew

Attached: 1342886532968.png (256x269, 129.42K)

Did he just try to claim that individualism was invented in ancient Mesopotamia while also telling us that humanity has always struggled with Nihlism and totalitarianism even though the supposed solution to this problem existed in literally the first civilization ever founded?

Jordan Peterson is an over glorified daycare worker. That's why low lQ rightists look up to him. They have the mentality of children.

Watched a few of his lectures all were bullshit. He spent 40 minutes talking about cartoons and the deep meaning behind them. Peterson is a low lQ and less successful Zizek.

Attached: 6ab71f23ccea4704962b33bd8b53b0dc9bacbfb6e93bbc97e23128af41b23d90.jpg (235x215, 7.85K)

Attached: Jordan Peterson Calls In.webm (640x360, 9.72M)

Was that someone from here that called in?

Fuck you
Reported

Holy shit, that plus the shitty editing is like every Facebook-tier "inspirational" video, ever.
He should team up with Prince Ea. That's gold, right there.

This isn't the video in OP, just an fyi for others.
A couple of good observations, but overall too dry & the guy on the left is trying way too hard to sell it. That being said, I don't think OP's video is bringing any new observations; we know these things about Kermit already.

No one here would care enough to. But if they did, they wouldn't just mock him but provide a critique of his analyses of capitalism, Marxism & "individualism".

hooktube.com/watch?v=ZTcCn9XwCk4

Lel

WHAT THE ACTUAL SHIT IS THIS???

Peterson is vague on purpose, he likes to imply things.

Jung is crap and nonsense.

Peterson is anti male and worships women, yet the people on this video try and paint him as anti female? WTF?

what the fuck are talking about?

watched the video, now my YT feed is full of videos by a channel called "Social Jsutice Fails". use hooktube please.

Autistic MGTOW shit, along with jacking off to Peterson.
Jordan
MAKEUP IS SEXUALY PROVOCATIVE
Peterson
Praise Allah

yeah, that's called being a stupid dick. "Anti female" and "Anti male" means being literally against 50% of the human population. Peterson isn't "against women" he's just really fucking dumb.

Psychoanalysis is good for manipulating people, nothing more. What happens most times when some pseud "analyses" your problems is that he's forcing your problems into his box in which he can then "solve" them.

So you have a new bunch of problems you never thought you had thanks to that pseud.

Does he really think this?

Attached: 1500607716433.png (364x271, 55.68K)

He'd tell you he doesn't know and that he's just asking questions. He asks these question in a rather aggressive way.

Hottest take: JBP shows the utter failure of leftism.
It's pretty clear that if you tell a white guy in his late teens or early twenties who has trouble getting laid that he isn't worthless, he'll sign onto whatever political program you push at him. You can make him a libertarian, a fascist, a monarchist, etc. You can make him praise the enlightenment, and you can make him regurgitate pseudo-jungian platitudes. The only thing you apparently can't make him do is read Marx. I don't like self-pitying incels, but there's no reason to ignore them to the point where "incel" is basically synonymous with "supporter of white identify politics."
And don't give me any "leftists should focus on attracting normal people instead" bullshit. Unless you're talking about the increased support for a few socdem policies in the US, we fucking suck at attracting normies too.

He wouldn't tell you that he doesn't know. He'd frame his response in a way that shows the question is trivially true, like pointing out that women wear makeup to be attractive. Of course that isn't the only reason they wear makeup, but it's besides the point. Leftist idiots like you would inevitably attack his true, factual claim rather than the absurd implications he derives from the claim. Reactionaries would point out that you denied something which everyone knows to be true.
That's how redpilling works. Redpilling is only possible because """""""""""""""""""""""leftists""""""""""""""""""""""" deny uncomfortable facts, like the racial composition of pedophile grooming groups, rather than attack the policy that reactionaries support based off of those facts, like an ethnic cleansing of Muslims.

this is a misunderstanding of what peterson said. he didnt necesarrily say makeup is "sexually provocative", but that it is sexual in nature and a sexual signal. in the same way heels are.we might not consciously consider it to be that but that is what it is. sexuality is an important integral part of human beings and all human relations, even between same gender non homosexual individuals.

personally, this is why although i think it would freak me out at first, id like to see the use of heels, makeup, wigs, painted nails, and body hair shaving, etc to be "abolished" at the same level as men. obviously not legally, because it isnt a law but a social/cultural norm. men dont have to do any of this shit. women do. they walk around like walking products, it's crazy. its only the flip side of the niqab that women in religious muslim communities must wear.

he's never read capital? lmao

t. totally not a Peterson fan, I swear.

I don't know anything about that particular subject so maybe its more unawareness of these facts or how they pertain to anything. How do you respond to this kind of cherrypicking?

Is this what american leftist humor is ?
Embarassing.

Most men do a lot to improve their appearance for the same reasons women do. They generally don't do as much, but still quite a bit. It starts with the clothes you're wearing. Your hair cut. Shaving. Perhaps working out.

these are just soft upper middle class liberals whose wealth and property would be expropriated if shit ever hit the fan. though tbh chapo trap house and cumtown are more left and not that much funnier or interesting

This imply that muslims are badly integrated and should be kicked out because the pedophile groups are overwhelmingly "asians" as the british newspaper puts it.

Zig Forums use that to justify its crusade while Zig Forums says it's racist and never bring it up again.

i consider that just basic maintenance. you dont get bonus points for wearing clothes and cutting your hair.
it varies a bit by country but not by much look outside or on the train, most men dress and look like total slobs or normies at best. women have to do their hair, makeup, nearly their entire body, nails, clothes are far more revealing and suggestive, etc.

but also, the point isnt that some men also work on their appearance, its that men can afford to not do these things. if a man looks like a slob and dresses like a slob, doesnt shave, etc its whatever, hes a guy. he can get away with it.

a woman cant neglect doing her hair nails, shaving, wearing at least somewhat suggestive clothing without being looked at as weird or even mentally ill. there is an implicit totalitarian command on women to look sexual and attractive that simply is not there for men.

Unless you're extremly competent, people WILL care and will have a lesser opinions of the guy.
There's a difference between puting on makeup and dressing nicely.

you're not understanding me. people will have a lesser opinion of him, but he's still just a guy. hes just a slob

a woman that forgoes doing all the work to look like an attractive product for men is looked at as mentally ill or having something seriously wrong with her.

imagine some dude in baggy walmart clothes, long greasy hair, facial hair, maybe he's overweight whatever. now imagine an overweight woman in baggy walmart clothes, greasy hair, some facial hair as well as body hair, no makeup ,etc.

there is a much more visceral reaction to one as opposed to the other and it is because of the violation of the inherent totalitarian directive on women to send out more sexually appealing signals to society to a greater degree than men.

We do. Peterson cultists don't.

Psychoanalysis isn't ego-psychology, Alcoholics Anonymous, or a self-help cult. The Lacanian analyst doesn't strive to solve or conceptualize your problems for you.

Read a book, nigger.

medicaldaily.com/obesity-america-womens-health-prevention-388841
Women don't seem to be obeying their inherent totalitarian directive.

Maybe in your delusional views. I know severals girls who don't use makeup and the only one who's seens by me and the people I know as mentally ill is a trans ftm who dress like a fucking clown.

stay in school kid

if you dont get my point then i dont care. its not about just makeup. get your reading comprehension to a point where you dont have to use your finger to follow along then get back to me

Attached: eh.jpg (400x460, 22.23K)

it isnt an explicit command its implicit, dumbass. as an example of what i mean, fat dudes can usually get some pussy if they are just fat normal dudes. fat women, not so much

but for what? not for health or hygienic reasons. you don't just cut your hair off when it's annoying you. you go to the hair stylist to cut it into a specific way. and maybe style it every day. people shave their beard frequently and in specific styles. you also don't just go into the clothing store and pick what fits. you're looking specifically what you think looks good.

So can women. And some do. But as (who is btw not me) pointed out, others will judge you for it.

No, people won't think worse of her than of a male who took no care of himself.

Gonna need a source on that. I'm pretty sure fat women have sex too.

your experience means jack shit, and it isnt about women that just dont wear makeup.

what is makeup? as peterson said it is a sexual signal. as is revealing clothing, as is shaving your body hair because it signals (in a weird way) youth.

it doesnt matter if a woman doesnt wear makeup if shes also wearing appropriate (suggestive) clothing and is shaving facial and body hair, etc. its when she refuses to do all of these and in doing so refusing the directive of women to be sexual objects for heterosexual men that she is seen as having something wrong with her. imagine some woman with unkempt hair, baggy clothing, facial hair and leg/arm hair. you would think this woman had something wrong with her in order for her to look like that.

I'm not sure I understand your post, but I don't think that bringing up that particular fact is cherry picking. I'm American myself, so it wasn't the best example. I'll throw out some American info instead.

This is a longish post, so I'm stating my conclusion early on in a clear place. American liberals and leftists are missing a chance to argue against idealism in general and the obsession with the nuclear family in particular by at best ignoring and at worst outright dismissing a statistic which is seen as "racist" and which at first glance goes against the social and cultural narrative that liberals and self-proclaimed leftists prefer to reality.

Something that white conservatives and black liberal feminists like to mention in America is the great absence of black fathers. Fucking and running is the punchline to a lot of jokes, but it's the white conservatives and black feminists that use it as a political weapon. They use the fact that there are lots of blacks having kids out of wedlock to trace all of their problems to a cultural source. Implicit in this is the assertion that having a father present to raise his kids, especially your sons, affects how your children will behave. Of course you can make nastier claims about blacks being uncivilized in that they can't maintain a nuclear family and so on.
Liberals and leftists either ignore the uncomfortable truth that lots of blacks have kids out of wedlock or deny the implicit assertion that it's important for a kid to have a father figure. This creates a vacuum that reactionaries can fill. Reactionaries can attribute whatever causes and effects they want to to relative absence of the nuclear family among blacks, and no one will push back on them.
I recognize that this isn't the most illustrative example to explain the principle I set out, but it's good for showing how ignoring facts leads to missed opportunities. Data shows that black fathers are still present in their kids lives, in some ways to a greater extent than white fathers. So there's not some cultural issue making blacks incapable of raising kids. Further than that, male black children's success is not predicated on whether their biological father is present but whether there are father figures in the kid's community. The insistence on the nuclear family for success is baseless. I see some black liberals bring this up, and a few favorable op-eds here and there, but for every one of them, there are millions of idealist conservatives.

t. pedo

Attached: Child_beauty_pageant.jpg (1200x896, 206.02K)

human society is super weird once you get down into it dude. especially western.

Yes, just as I would imagine a guy has something wrong for looking like that.

Are you a fat woman or something ? You know you can just eat less and you'll get thinner. Maybe less paranoid too.

Here's their vid on Peterson's twitter meltdowns:
youtube.com/watch?v=8z3V2JtAQ0Q

youre telling me a fat guy with facial and arm/leg hair and bad clothing and unkempt hair is in the exact same level as a fat woman with facial and arm/leg hair and bad clothing and unkempt hair?

Do we though? Usually I see people accept these statistics and then blame some underlying issue whether it be racism or sexism for liberals or capitalism for leftists.
I'm not tied to the idea myself. It certainly shouldn't carry as much weight as it does when evaluating what a good parent is.

yes, that is what he told you. you seem to be projecting

Yes. I'll say I'd be more sympathetic toward the fat guy but that because I knew a couple of nice fat dude and the only fat woman I personally knew stole from her boyfriend.

I do react with equal disgust whenever I see fat american tourists in my country though. America and Teutony should both be nuked to let the glorious french neo-empire conquer the world.

By other women. It's ==NOT== men enforcing these standards. The truth is that most heterosexual men have extremely low standards when it comes to sex and will fuck anything human in possession of a vulva. It's women that enforce this on each other.

fuck off. youre on an internet board. why are you lying

The only person who could ever possibily believe this is somebody who has never had a girlfriend. For most girls makeup is literally a hobby like cars or fucking stamp collecting. Peterson just says random nonsense and virgins with no contact with actual women eat it up because they don’t know any better.

Serious question. Are you a virgin?

Can someone tell me what's wrong with wanting to improve yourself?
Objectively speaking, cleaning your room, improving your posture, watching what you eat and, in general, staying away from the cheetos and PC 14-hours-a-day life is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to it.

Because he smuggles in reactionary rhetoric. He didn’t blow up because he wrote self help books, he blew up for yelling at transgendered people.

How is the fact that many people make a hobby of something stop it being sexually provocative? This is incoherent nonsense.

Just because you interpreted something as being sexually provocative doesn’t mean that’s what it’s intended to signify. By your logic I could randomly decide that the close your wearing are sexually provocative and use that as an excuse to molest you. Intending meaning > interpreted meaning.

Are you a virgin?

Get out

No, which is why I know that women dressing how they want and putting on makeup isn’t in and of itself a sign of sexual availability.

Except I didn't claim that it was sexually provocative. I asked how it being someone's hobby stopped it from being so, which is what you asserted.
Again, this is incoherent nonsense. Given the assertion in
Which means that make up is intended to be sexually provocative. So you seem to just be throwing out bullshit now. Nice reddit spacing, too.

Oh yeah how'd that work out?

Im the original guy you responded to and no I'm not but its sus that youre even asking another man's sexual history over the internet

Your mistake is in assuming that visually attractive = sexually provocative, and that working to make yourself visually appealing is the same as signalling sexual interest or availability. So either your are suggesting that a person making themselves look good entitles you to harass them or you admit that it doesn’t in which case your argument is pointless, since it would mean that being “sexually provocative” ought to have no impact on how you treat a person.

...

that's what *you're* suggesting. because despite prior accusations of others being virgins, youre the one that has an adolescent understanding of what sexuality even is.

all humans are sexual beings. this doesnt mean all humans are sexually available and sexually interested in all other humans. sexuality is inherent in all social relations because it is inherent in all humans. applying makeup and wearing heels is a sexual signal, and thats perfectly okay because sexual signals are a constant. that doesnt mean that the people that wear makeup and heels are "asking for it". it is just how humans communicate.

...

What makes it a sexual signal?

*although i will add that sexual signals are human the wearing of heels and applying of makeup isnt inherent and is actually damaging to the health of women

culture

...

So people dislike Sam Seder, but how do they feel about Michael Brooks?

He seems more genuinely Marxist, consistently takes an anti-imperialist position and is friends with Zeroboks man.

Forgot your flag

Peterson himself doesn't even take Jungian psychoanalysis seriously, abusing it for its own end. He barely talks about how dreams are the forefront of archetypes, nor does any of his self-help bullshit include any advise with regards to dreams.

Jungian psychoanalysis for better or for worse is retroactive and very individualistic in his analysis, but Peterson weaponizes it to be exoteric blanket self-help shit.

he sucks too

I think Brooks is all right. Maybe a little too demsucc but he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

Daily reminder that Peterson has been hit with at least three sexual harassment cases during his career and likely blames feminism for his inability to woo his female students.

Jungians all do that. The end game is to manipulate people with their bullshit pseudoscience like the NLPfags. Avoid them. Avoid all of them. Avoid psychometricians too because they drivel Jung's bullshit in spades.