Current Events > Jordan Peterson: Nazi apologist

(+) Yeah! (+)

That argument is so fucking stupid.

"Oh, the Nazis were just doing what they thought was best"
Here's a hint, if your solution involves the murder of 17 million innocent people, it's not what's 'best'.

GregShmedley posted...

I have no knowledge on his opinions on other matters and only know he is loved by right wingers and hated by left wingers. That being said, I don't see where he is being a Nazi apologist. Sounds to me that he was explaining why Hitler felt how he did and how he was able to rise to power.

IIRC he once said that women and men shouldnt work together and women shouldnt be wearing make up and expect not be be sexually harassed at work
but thats just how someone paraphrased it to me i just dont care enough to fact check because i dont really have any interest in what this guy says so i dont usually pay attention
---

Nice.
---

yusiko posted...

GregShmedley posted...

I have no knowledge on his opinions on other matters and only know he is loved by right wingers and hated by left wingers. That being said, I don't see where he is being a Nazi apologist. Sounds to me that he was explaining why Hitler felt how he did and how he was able to rise to power.

IIRC he once said that women and men shouldnt work together and women shouldnt be wearing make up and expect not be be sexually harassed at work
but thats just how someone paraphrased it to me i just dont care enough to fact check because i dont really have any interest in what this guy says so i dont usually pay attention

He also said he couldn't support Australia overturning the gay marriage ban because he thought that it might be letting the 'Cultural Marxists' get a win which was intolerable.

For reference, 'Cultural Marxist' is pretty much antisemitism with the serial numbers filed off.

Also, there is something hilariously hypocritical about a man who preaches that people need to take responsiblilty for their actions trying to justify the Nazi ideology.

jfc
---

JBP stans are so pathetic lol. He's not telling it like it is, or being "nuanced". It's historical revisionism and apologia, pure and simple. Hitler didn't rail against the jews because that was got the loudest reactions from the german people. Hitler and the ideology of the Nazi party was born of the complete and total eradication of those deemed inferior. The was the beginning and their end game from the very start, it was the core of their beliefs. Trying to equivocate and paint the nazis as opportunists picking the most efficient target is equal parts pathetic and ignorant.
---

Hes figured out who butters his bread. Why stop?
---

Understanding their thought process isn't the same as defending it.

I'm basically a determinist but we have to act like free will exists.

Recognizing how Nazis came to power is important.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Understanding their thought process isn't the same as defending it.

I'm basically a determinist but we have to act like free will exists.

Recognizing how Nazis came to power is important.

Yes, but pretending that antisemitism was just picked at random and they didn't really mean it is bullshit. Regardless, 'how they came to power' is actually quite more complex and involves false flags, realpolitiking, and literal fucking mass murder.

Dash_Harber posted...

false flags

On that one it's really a point of debate that probably can't ever be settled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Dispute_about_Van_der_Lubbe's_role_in_the_Reichstag_fire

Either way it was exactly what they needed to get into power.
---

ssjevot posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

false flags

On that one it's really a point of debate that probably can't ever be settled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Dispute_about_Van_der_Lubbe's_role_in_the_Reichstag_fire

Either way it was exactly what they needed to get into power.

Sure. Like I said, people acting like they just walked up to the podium, spat out some antisemitism, and instantly got voted into office are completely oblivious to historical fact.

Dash_Harber posted...

Like I said, people acting like they just walked up to the podium, spat out some antisemitism, and instantly got voted into office are completely oblivious to historical fact.

I don't think anyone had implied that.
But how much do you want in a 2 min clip?
---

JP: literally satan incarnate
---

He's a weirdo. That clip doesn't actually say anything as a defense for Hitler, so I don't know what that post was about, but Peterson seems to hate "muh pc culture" more than anything else in this world, to the detriment of actually making any sense.
---

Jurassic Park
---

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

Or Kermit
---

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

Well, you can read and listen to his work for yourself. There are plenty well-tenured types that I'm sure you would call bullshit feminists, or some such.
---

Guide posted...

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

Well, you can read and listen to his work for yourself. There are plenty well-tenured types that I'm sure you would call bullshit feminists, or some such.

I read the first chapter of his latest book. It was a bit longwinded but the analogy to the point he was making, and the point he was making resonated well with me.

Proto_Spark posted...

Germany lost WWI and got completely screwed over (Germany didn't have a "Roaring Twenties" just a really long depression

Nope. 1925-28 are known as the "gold-plated" years of the Weimar economy, which recovered from the recession of winter 1926-27 with a twelve-month growth rate higher than any achieved during the Third Reich.

But even during the most painful years of the early 1920s -- hyper-inflation and the Ruhr Crisis -- Hitler's party never managed to win more than 6.5% of the votes in federal elections. Worse, the Party's share of the vote actually fell from 6.5% in May 1924 to 3% in December that year, and then crashed to a feeble 2.6% in May 1928. The most popular party in Germany for ten years after the end of WW1 remained the centre-left SPD. In other words, even when memories of defeat and Versailles were freshest and most bitter, the German public didn't rush to vote Nazi out of spite.

Yet suddenly in September 1930, after a decade spent as nothing more than a fringe party and almost disappearing from the political scene by the end of the 1920s, the Nazi vote shoots up to 19%. I think only a fool would see no connection between the impact of Brning's deeply unpopular deflationary policies and the surge of support for Hitler's party. Heaping all the blame for the Nazi victory on Versailles is as over-simplistic an explanation as claiming that Germans fell over themselves to vote big-time for Jew-hatred. It was clearly a more complex phenomenon.
---

t_paynes_ghost posted...

I read the first chapter of his latest book. It was a bit longwinded but the analogy to the point he was making, and the point he was making resonated well with me.

You always know when an academic is bullshitting you when he's writing a pop-sci book outside of his expertise.
---

Isn't Jordan Peterson the guy who said he drank a glass of apple cider and it made him stay awake for 25 days?

Guys a fucking idiot.

How you can call yourself a "philosopher" and give credence to moral relativism or moral subjectivity is beyond me lol
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I don't think anyone had implied that.
But how much do you want in a 2 min clip?

Well here are the issues I have;
- He doesn't understand the history. Hitler didn't 'serve in the trenches'. He was a messenger. His war record has been thoroughly debunked by historians and, IIRC, his medal of honor was Nazi propaganda.
- He implies that Hitler's politics were created by mob rule. That's not true. He held those beliefs and espoused them long before he even started thinking about politics. It's well documented. He was antisemitic before he joined the Nazis.
- The fact that he somehow argues that Germany was a victim is fucking weird. Germany, in WWI, was one of the aggressors. While I agree that Germany was in a sorry state after the war and that the Treaty of Versailles was especially harsh, acting like they were unfairly targeted is a huge stretch.
- He is a psychologist whose name checking Jung, which is a bit weird. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain Jung, Freud and the ilk are not nearly as well respected as they used to be.

I mean, if he could get all that wrong in a 2 minute clip ...

Smashingpmkns posted...

How you can call yourself a "philosopher" and give credence to moral relativism or moral subjectivity is beyond me lol

The ironic part is that he completely abandons the 'moral relativism' argument when it would be used against his particular brand of 'philosophy' (I use quotes, because he is essentially using motivational speaking rhetoric and basic moral philosophies from well established ideas in order to sell books and mask his virulent political stances). Like, when Australia was voting on gay marriage, and he argued I didn't think they should allow it because it was morally wrong to let 'Cultural Marxists' have a victory.

The guy is a conman with an agenda.

COVxy posted...

t_paynes_ghost posted...

I read the first chapter of his latest book. It was a bit longwinded but the analogy to the point he was making, and the point he was making resonated well with me.

You always know when an academic is bullshitting you when he's writing a pop-sci book

That's really all you need. Pop-sci books almost always push a one-sided agenda because they do not need peer review and a simple story sells better to the masses. So many so called experts selling biased garbage to either make money, push an agenda, or both.
---

ssjevot posted...

That's really all you need. Pop-sci books almost always push a one-sided agenda because they do not need peer review and a simple story sells better to the masses. So many so called experts selling biased garbage to either make money, push an agenda, or both.

I can think of a couple of popsci books that are pretty good easy disceminations of the field the author works in.
---

Haven't watched the clip and I'm not the biggest fan of JP (his stance against that "anti-free speech" law was complete bullshit, he buys into the cultural marxist conspiracy, and while not his fault necessarily he's a launching point into deeper alt-right ideologies simply from association & pushing his agenda). However, if people are saying he's just trying to explain German/Nazi behavior and not defending it... the fuck is wrong with that? He's a psychologist, that's what they're meant to do. From what I know he's not a complete hack in that field. I'll have to watch the vid, but tbh I've seen many people take him out of context and vilify him. Like shit on the guy if you want, but don't fucking use lies and misinformation to do so.
---

I also forgot to add;
- For someone who claims to have 'studied Hitler a lot', he doesn't seem to understand how he came to power. Firstly, he actually wasn't elected. He lost the election in 1932. Instead, he capitalized on (or created, depending on your historical views) on the Reichstag fire to blame a dangerous element and secure power for himself after he was appointed Chancellor by the Weimar republic (specifically, Hindenburg). After that, they issued the Reichstag Fire Decrees which suspended civil liberties and turned the country into a dictatorship.

Even before this point, however, his 'popular support' is pretty suspect given that he actively employed thugs to beat people and essentially organized a gang (the 'Brown Shirts' or SA) to violently coerce people into supporting his party. After his appointment, support was legally enforced, essentially on threat of violence or imprisonment, meaning it's pretty hard to argue he ever had massive popularity.

Oh, and then you have the period where they were still nominally part of a democracy, at which point the Nazi party pretended to embrace a wide array of philosophies to try and create a sort of coalition party to gain their fringe party popular support. In fact, the origin of the name 'National Socialism' is a basic marketing ploy; the Nazis were virulently against socialism, as they felt it was a Jewish ploy to steal the great works and resources of non-Jewish people, but used the name to attract disenfranchised parties on the left to their cause. Of course, this was followed by "The Night of the Long Knives" where, after consolidating and centralizing his power, Hitler ordered the assassination of pretty much everyone who might be a threat to him, including the majority of the centrists who were attracted by the facade in the first place.

And again, Germany had a right to be angry, but anger alone does not justify genocide, and that sort of moral relativism is absolute bullshit.

Also don't forget he betrayed the SA as well and had their leader (someone who actually wanted socialist policies) executed. He used the working class members of the SA until he didn't need them anymore and instead largely courted the upper-class once in power.
---

Yeah I feel like Peterson could have benefited from reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
---

Is this gonna be another topic where people refuse to see how the socioeconomic environment can negatively affect black people, but "you just gotta understand the Nazi's circumstances, MAN!" is a thing?
---

Dash_Harber posted...

And again, Germany had a right to be angry

I'm not so sure most Germans were that angry. It's hard to make a strong case that public resentment over Versailles was the main reason why people voted Nazi. Far right parties, who constantly used the Treaty as a big club with which to beat their opponents over the head, found it harder and harder to sustain electoral momentum in Germany after the Ruhr occupation came to an end. (German heads of business, by the way, criticized the Ruhr occupation on the grounds that it violated the Treaty of Versailles.) As I've said, for the first ten years after the Treaty was signed Germany's biggest party remained the centre-left Social Democratic Party.

The far right's difficulty in using Versailles to mobilize public opinion is starkly illustrated by the degree of voter apathy over the 1929 referendum on whether Germany should pass a law to formally renounce the Treaty and ban the collection of reparations. Fewer than 15% of German voters even bothered to turn out for the referendum. Again, despite the conventional wisdom in today's school classrooms that Versailles stoked the German public so badly they rushed to vote Nazi out of spite, it seems to demonstrate instead a remarkable apathy about the Treaty as a specific issue.
---

Everyone I don't understand is a Nazi, topic #982750934
---

Antifar posted...

The history here isn't correct, though: Hitler was a virulent anti-Semite before his public speeches. Before even the Treaty of Versailles.

---

deupd_u posted...

Everyone I don't understand is a Nazi, topic #982750934

You don't have to be a Nazi to be a Nazi apologist, just as you don't have to be an Islamic fundamentalist to give ISIS too easy a ride. Being a cranky contrarian probably helps, though.
---

I don't want to live in a world where lobsters are sieg heiling all over the place
---

Firewerx posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

And again, Germany had a right to be angry

I'm not so sure most Germans were that angry. It's hard to make a strong case that public resentment over Versailles was the main reason why people voted Nazi. Far right parties, who constantly used the Treaty as a big club with which to beat their opponents over the head, found it harder and harder to sustain electoral momentum in Germany after the Ruhr occupation came to an end. (German heads of business, by the way, criticized the Ruhr occupation on the grounds that it violated the Treaty of Versailles.) As I've said, for the first ten years after the Treaty was signed Germany's biggest party remained the centre-left Social Democratic Party.

The far right's difficulty in using Versailles to mobilize public opinion is starkly illustrated by the degree of voter apathy over the 1929 referendum on whether Germany should pass a law to formally renounce the Treaty and ban the collection of reparations. Fewer than 15% of German voters even bothered to turn out for the referendum. Again, despite the conventional wisdom in today's school classrooms that Versailles stoked the German public so badly they rushed to vote Nazi out of spite, it seems to demonstrate instead a remarkable apathy about the Treaty as a specific issue.

First, people didn't vote for Nazis. Hitler was made Chancellor, but actually lost the election of 1932. He was appointed by Hindenburg.

Second, the Nazis weren't blatantly a far-right party until after the Night of the Long Knives. Before that, they masqueraded as a fringe centrist party in order to secure disenfranchised groups from both sides so they could go from a fringe minority to a sizable group.

Third, the reason was not the treaty alone. The treaty was crippling and basically ensured Germany couldn't be a world power again without getting rid of it. However, it's important to understand how WWI ended for the average citizen. They spent four years being told that victory was just around the corner. They were inundated with propaganda telling them that the Kaiser was going to grant them victory any day now. Then they lost. It would have seemed like it happened out of nowhere and some were looking for someone to blame for what seemed like a sudden and inexplicable loss. You have to remember that the media at the time was synonymous with the government, and that means they only heard pro-war, pro-German reports that made the government look good. Then, the country was saddled with the ineffectual and foreign empowered Weimar Republic, after spending years being indoctrinated to the believe that Germany were the people of 'blood and iron'.

deupd_u posted...

Everyone I don't understand is a Nazi, topic #982750934

I never accused him of being a Nazi. As I have thoroughly demonstrated, he is not knowledgeable enough to comment on the rise of Hitler, and therefore it makes it really suspect when he suddenly starts talking about it given his predisposition towards politicizing history and psychology.

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

do you hold professors you disagree with in such high esteem?
---

ThyCorndog posted...

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

do you hold professors you disagree with in such high esteem?

There is actually two problems with ghost's argument; Firstly, it's blatant appeal to authority. Second, I have a BA degree in History, meaning I actually am more accredited than him in that field and by the original logic, should be more qualified to talk about it than him.

Dash_Harber posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Who to believe?
A well tenured and respected Proffesor that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities.
or
One CEboi.

do you hold professors you disagree with in such high esteem?

There is actually two problems with ghost's argument; Firstly, it's blatant appeal to authority. Second, I have a BA degree in History, meaning I actually am more accredited than him in that field and by the original logic, should be more qualified to talk about it than him.

yeah but are you a well tenured and respected Proffessor (sic) that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities? do you only eat beef and salt? do you keep popping up on random youtube videos? do you sound like kermit the frog? we both know the answers to these questions
---

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah but are you a well tenured and respected Proffessor (sic) that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities?

'tenured and respected' means sweet fuck all outside of the relevant discipline. Do you take your car to get fixed by an archaeology professor?

pogo_rabid posted...

Is this yet another case of him being taken out of context in bad faith?

Of course it is.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah but are you a well tenured and respected Proffessor (sic) that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities?

'tenured and respected' means sweet fuck all outside of the relevant discipline. Do you take your car to get fixed by an archaeology professor?

I can't tell if you were able to read my obvious sarcasm or not
---

donkeyjack posted...

pogo_rabid posted...

Is this yet another case of him being taken out of context in bad faith?

Of course it is.

Lmao

In what context is apologizing for Nazis good?

EliteC posted...

donkeyjack posted...

pogo_rabid posted...

Is this yet another case of him being taken out of context in bad faith?

Of course it is.

Lmao

In what context is apologizing for Nazis good?

I mean that depends on if you think hes apologizing.

From what I gather, he wants to understand the motivations so it doesnt happen again. If you think the only motivation was anti Semitism then you likely arent worried about becoming a nazi if you arent anti Semitic.

But if you think there is something that is triggered in certain situations that causes humans to behave like that, you would want to understand that something so when youre out in a position that is too terrible to imagine, youll make the right choice.

Or hes a secret nazi slowly working to gather more supporters of an awful ideology by telling potential converts that nazis are disgusting but understandable in the context.

Either way

ThyCorndog posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah but are you a well tenured and respected Proffessor (sic) that held jobs at multiple high grade Universities?

'tenured and respected' means sweet fuck all outside of the relevant discipline. Do you take your car to get fixed by an archaeology professor?

I can't tell if you were able to read my obvious sarcasm or not

My mistake. It's honestly a bit hard to tell on here sometimes. Anyway, I apologize, my mistake.

EliteC posted...

In what context is apologizing for Nazis good?

I've already listed how he was wrong;
- Hitler wasn't elected, nor did he have popular support until it was legally enforced. He was actually appointed after the Reichstag Fire (many people think they started it as a false flag), then used the fires to create laws suspending civil rights, meaning he could violently enforce support. They also employed the 'Brown Shirts' or 'SA' to patrol the streets, beating up people and coercing support.
- The early Nazi party masqueraded as a centrist party to attract fringe elements from both sides, so even if they were popular (they weren't), the people were taken in by their propaganda. During the Night of the Long Knives, after aforementioned Reichstag Fire Decrees, he ordered the assassination of everyone in the party that didn't tow the party line.
- Hitler was not a war hero. His record was fabricated after the fact. He was a messenger, not a soldier in the trenches.
- His assertion that Hitler would say 'Thing A' and 'Thing B' and then only continue with which one is more popular is bullshit. Hitler was an outspoken antisemite long before he entered politics. It's a matter of public record. In fact, he wrote a book about it long before he was giving his rally speeches.
- Yes, the German people were angry because of the things I already listed (the Treaty of Versailles, the 'betrayal', and the 'Blood and Iron' identity), but that doesn't justify genocide. Anyone even hinting at that is fucking insane.

Now, there are only two possible reasons he would make so many errors; either he is a complete moron who is lying about 'studying Hitler' or he is purposely misinterpreting facts in order to push an agenda.

saul good fam
---