Current Events > What particular statements by Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson make them alt righ

LurkerFAQs, Active Database ( 07.23.2018-present ), Database 1, Database 2, Database 3
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3
The Great Muta 22
12/06/18 6:06:39 PM
54
I hate both of them because their fanboys spam videos of them talking or arguing with someone and just act as if it's some way proving a prior point they were arguing about correct. That's not how it works. If you're not good enough to formulate your OWN opinions and cite your own research, don't be a fucking hack and cite those who you feel can do it better than you. That just makes you look lazy as all hell and someone who really can't think for themselves and needs to rely on others to tell them how to think.

And their style is not debating, by the way. Especially Shapiro. Peterson more so isn't debating and is giving lectures or statements about something. But Shapiro and his fanboys have this mentality that gish galloping someone to the point where they can't respond to a series of multiple statements is beating them, which is completely ass backwards. The point of a debate isn't to "win". This mentality needs to be shot into the sun.
---
https://youtu.be/zkNlmYJyFDo?t=80
"Like all fairy tales, Adam. There has to be a Hero, and there has to be a Villain."
darkphoenix181
12/06/18 6:12:30 PM
55
hollow_shrine posted...
Peterson must know how his public image is changing, yet he does nothing to address those trends or assert that he is not an Alt. Right ally in their culture war against the left. Why?


Pretty sure he has addressed it alot actually. If he denounces them and says he is not alt right, woukd you believe him? Prob not.

On google there is videos of him doing just that, I will watch later and link if he indeed does what is claimed in the title. Idk because I don't follow him that closely. I have seen a few vids and pretty sure it was indeed addressed.

Maybe you mean something else in what you are saying?
---
chill02 to me: you are beautiful
Anti-245
12/06/18 6:15:08 PM
56
darkjedilink posted...
Anti-245 posted...
Nothing in particular makes them alt right movement but their views could be counted(I do count them) as white supremacist since they have an obsession with protecting "the west" and whatever that entails on a given day. Sometimes they'll backtrack on things they said they like if it means protecting "the west"( see their hypocrisy on "free speech").
They are also staunch liberals in that they believe in private property, wage labor and all the works. When Liberialism breaks down, they, as most liberals do, flirt with fascism to protect it.

What 'hypocrisy on free speech?'

Peterson was known for suggesting that Marxists wouldn't debate but once challenged by an actual Marxist, he decided in advance that it wasn't worth it because of how toxic the ideology was, which is the very same thing that he rails on his liberal counterparts for doing about fascism.
---
Life in the DoB.
averagejoel
12/06/18 6:25:44 PM
57
Anti-245 posted...
darkjedilink posted...
Anti-245 posted...
Nothing in particular makes them alt right movement but their views could be counted(I do count them) as white supremacist since they have an obsession with protecting "the west" and whatever that entails on a given day. Sometimes they'll backtrack on things they said they like if it means protecting "the west"( see their hypocrisy on "free speech").
They are also staunch liberals in that they believe in private property, wage labor and all the works. When Liberialism breaks down, they, as most liberals do, flirt with fascism to protect it.

What 'hypocrisy on free speech?'

Peterson was known for suggesting that Marxists wouldn't debate but once challenged by an actual Marxist, he decided in advance that it wasn't worth it because of how toxic the ideology was, which is the very same thing that he rails on his liberal counterparts for doing about fascism.

he also became famous for spreading the (completely false) idea that a transgender protection bill would lead to compelled speech
---
peanut butter and dick
Anti-245
12/06/18 6:26:44 PM
58
averagejoel posted...
Anti-245 posted...
darkjedilink posted...
Anti-245 posted...
Nothing in particular makes them alt right movement but their views could be counted(I do count them) as white supremacist since they have an obsession with protecting "the west" and whatever that entails on a given day. Sometimes they'll backtrack on things they said they like if it means protecting "the west"( see their hypocrisy on "free speech").
They are also staunch liberals in that they believe in private property, wage labor and all the works. When Liberialism breaks down, they, as most liberals do, flirt with fascism to protect it.

What 'hypocrisy on free speech?'

Peterson was known for suggesting that Marxists wouldn't debate but once challenged by an actual Marxist, he decided in advance that it wasn't worth it because of how toxic the ideology was, which is the very same thing that he rails on his liberal counterparts for doing about fascism.

he also became famous for spreading the (completely false) idea that a transgender protection bill would lead to compelled speech

True and wasn't it convenient that his fame blew up around the same time the elite declared war on trans folk?
---
Life in the DoB.
metralo
12/06/18 6:50:45 PM
59
darkphoenix181 posted...

That is why he says what he says about "that is not what I am saying" because it literally and logically is not what he is saying.


probably because he doesn't back it up. like I said, he makes an outrageous claim, says "thats not what im saying" when called out on it, and then doesn't explain further. leading him to have a fanbase that JUST SO HAPPENS to agree with things like "women shouldn't wear make up in the work place". i wonder why his fan base typically are alt right/incel crowds? i wonder why the only other person vigorously defending him besides you hates black people? really makes you think
---
darkphoenix181
12/06/18 7:49:18 PM
60
metralo posted...
wonder why the only other person vigorously defending him besides you hates black people? really makes you think


Did you even read my posts? My intent is not to defend him but to clear up that people like you do say he says things he actually really don't say.

Read post #9 of this thread. You can find plenty of fault with him in the post.
---
chill02 to me: you are beautiful
Esrac
12/06/18 7:59:01 PM
61
darkjedilink posted...
Anti-245 posted...
Nothing in particular makes them alt right movement but their views could be counted(I do count them) as white supremacist since they have an obsession with protecting "the west" and whatever that entails on a given day. Sometimes they'll backtrack on things they said they like if it means protecting "the west"( see their hypocrisy on "free speech").
They are also staunch liberals in that they believe in private property, wage labor and all the works. When Liberialism breaks down, they, as most liberals do, flirt with fascism to protect it.

What 'hypocrisy on free speech?'


How about that time he and his co-hosts kicked a woman off their panel at a free speech because she went to on a white nationalist podcast?
---
Grischnak
12/06/18 8:19:10 PM
62
scar the 1 posted...
Grischnak posted...
scar the 1 posted...
Peterson had that one exchange where he made excuses for Hitler, and depicted the Nazis as "order" compared to the "chaos" that communism represented.


I don't really get the issue with either point. Being "order" doesn't mean something is good. I mean, the Galactic Empire is "order". Still super evil though. As for Hitler, explaining his reasoning and why he did the things he did does imply support of his actions. It's like explaining how someone born into poverty and surround by gang culture feels like they have "no choice" to become a drug dealer. Obviously they do have a choice and their actions are wrong but that doesn't mean you can't try and see things from their perspective.

The issue is that it's echoing literal Nazi apologia. It's the kind of obfuscation and rationalization that Hitler's proponents did back then. And since JBP "studied Hitler a lot", he knows this. So he knows exactly what he's doing and who he's appealing to when he's making those kinds of statements.
They might be misguided or well-intentioned if you ignore the context. The context is that JBP is well aware that he's an alt-right Messiah of sorts, and he's well aware of what he's saying and who he's saying it to.


I don't buy that. Explaining the reasoning behind something is not being an apologist for it. For example, I can explain the logic behind why people own slaves. That doesn't make me a slavery apologist. As for him pandering to Nazis, are you saying people should ignore the reality of post WW1 Germany and pretend that WW2 era Germany just appeared out of the ether to ravage the world just so Neo Nazis don't have shitty arguing points? There are explanations for why WW2 era Germany came into existence. That doesn't make why they did ok but there's no reason to ignore the reasons behind the things that happened.
scar the 1
12/07/18 1:19:27 AM
63
Grischnak posted...
I don't buy that. Explaining the reasoning behind something is not being an apologist for it. For example, I can explain the logic behind why people own slaves. That doesn't make me a slavery apologist. As for him pandering to Nazis, are you saying people should ignore the reality of post WW1 Germany and pretend that WW2 era Germany just appeared out of the ether to ravage the world just so Neo Nazis don't have s***ty arguing points? There are explanations for why WW2 era Germany came into existence. That doesn't make why they did ok but there's no reason to ignore the reasons behind the things that happened.

I didn't really go into how correct he actually was in his explanation, but shockingly it actually turns out he wasn't. His line of reasoning relied on some simplifications of the facts of the matter, so not only was he doing the same apologia that the Nazis were doing at the time, he was also relying on a such oversimplified description of how things were that it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny This has already been pointed out on CE before.
Again, he knew exactly what he was saying, he knew it was false, and he knew who he was talking to.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Grischnak
12/07/18 3:53:32 AM
64
scar the 1 posted...
I didn't really go into how correct he actually was in his explanation, but shockingly it actually turns out he wasn't. His line of reasoning relied on some simplifications of the facts of the matter, so not only was he doing the same apologia that the Nazis were doing at the time, he was also relying on a such oversimplified description of how things were that it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny This has already been pointed out on CE before.
Again, he knew exactly what he was saying, he knew it was false, and he knew who he was talking to.


Do you really think Nazis are a huge section of the H3H3 audience? That's the clip we're talking about right? As for him being factually wrong, about what? The disgust thing? I don't know much about that. Maybe it is wrong? But his overall point about post-WW1 Germany being a hellhole and that situation leading the rise of the Nazi party is accurate. I don't see how anyone can even try to refute that.
scar the 1
12/07/18 5:16:40 AM
65
Grischnak posted...
scar the 1 posted...
I didn't really go into how correct he actually was in his explanation, but shockingly it actually turns out he wasn't. His line of reasoning relied on some simplifications of the facts of the matter, so not only was he doing the same apologia that the Nazis were doing at the time, he was also relying on a such oversimplified description of how things were that it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny This has already been pointed out on CE before.
Again, he knew exactly what he was saying, he knew it was false, and he knew who he was talking to.


Do you really think Nazis are a huge section of the H3H3 audience? That's the clip we're talking about right? As for him being factually wrong, about what? The disgust thing? I don't know much about that. Maybe it is wrong? But his overall point about post-WW1 Germany being a hellhole and that situation leading the rise of the Nazi party is accurate. I don't see how anyone can even try to refute that.

I think that alt-right/neo-Nazis are a significant section of his audience, and I think his audience will seek out and share clips with him. About his factual inaccuracies, like I said, this was already discussed on CE in the topic "Jordan Peterson: Nazi apologist". Particularly, Firewerx made an informative post about post-WW1 Germany being a hellhole and Hitler capitalizing on it. Dash_Harber also elaborates a bit.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Grischnak
12/07/18 6:24:02 AM
66
scar the 1 posted...
I think that alt-right/neo-Nazis are a significant section of his audience, and I think his audience will seek out and share clips with him. About his factual inaccuracies, like I said, this was already discussed on CE in the topic "Jordan Peterson: Nazi apologist". Particularly, Firewerx made an informative post about post-WW1 Germany being a hellhole and Hitler capitalizing on it. Dash_Harber also elaborates a bit.


I don't care about what they said. I'm talking to you. Are you claiming post-WW1 Germany was...what? A fine place to live? That the suffering of German people was a lie? "Hellhole" is clearly a subjective term. Obviously you can argue that other places have it worse(and many places probably do). But I can't imagine anything that they could possibly have said that would convince me that Germany was in a good state at that time in history. And more to point, what exactly is that even arguing? That Germans in that era were just born evil?
Sativa_Rose
12/07/18 6:28:27 AM
67
Neither of them are alt-right. People throw around that label with no idea what it means.
---
[This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
scar the 1
12/07/18 6:36:07 AM
68
Grischnak posted...
I don't care about what they said. I'm talking to you. Are you claiming post-WW1 Germany was...what? A fine place to live? That the suffering of German people was a lie? "Hellhole" is clearly a subjective term. Obviously you can argue that other places have it worse(and many places probably do). But I can't imagine anything that they could possibly have said that would convince me that Germany was in a good state at that time in history. And more to point, what exactly is that even arguing? That Germans in that era were just born evil?

I referred to what they said because it's unnecessary to repeat it. If you don't care what they said, you seem more interested in proving me wrong than in actually figuring out if there's any merit to what I'm saying.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Grischnak
12/07/18 1:59:59 PM
69
scar the 1 posted...
I referred to what they said because it's unnecessary to repeat it. If you don't care what they said, you seem more interested in proving me wrong than in actually figuring out if there's any merit to what I'm saying.


You're not even saying anything guy. You're literally arguing "This other guy said something in a topic a long time ago but I'm going to tell you what he said". What sort of argument is that? Even linking a Huffington Post article would be better then that. At least it would give me something to digest. You're giving me nothing and acting like you're arguing some irrefutable point.
scar the 1
12/07/18 2:56:41 PM
70
Grischnak posted...
scar the 1 posted...
I referred to what they said because it's unnecessary to repeat it. If you don't care what they said, you seem more interested in proving me wrong than in actually figuring out if there's any merit to what I'm saying.


You're not even saying anything guy. You're literally arguing "This other guy said something in a topic a long time ago but I'm going to tell you what he said". What sort of argument is that? Even linking a Huffington Post article would be better then that. At least it would give me something to digest. You're giving me nothing and acting like you're arguing some irrefutable point.

It's not really a long time ago and you're perfectly capable of looking it up if you were interested.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Romes187
12/07/18 3:07:04 PM
71
Lmao this board has so many stupid people on it
Pancake
12/07/18 3:12:37 PM
72
In both cases, it's a pretty clear the goal is "destroy their reputation so people don't listen to them".

i found out about him through his lectures and had no idea there was even the political assignment until very late. i think you have it all right.
---
mario2000
12/07/18 3:16:01 PM
73
they are worshiped by the alt right but they aren't necessarily alt right themselves

just regular bog-standard republican right
---
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash
legendary_zell
12/07/18 4:31:54 PM
74
Ben Shapiro has said some heinous stuff about Muslims and Palestinians. Stuff that's beyond even regular republican craziness. They both are very culture war focused and talked about that war in a way that's very attractive to the alt-right. They wouldn't self identify as that though, and I wouldn't label them as that. I'd just call them wrong.
---
Grischnak
12/07/18 8:22:04 PM
75
scar the 1 posted...
Grischnak posted...
scar the 1 posted...
I referred to what they said because it's unnecessary to repeat it. If you don't care what they said, you seem more interested in proving me wrong than in actually figuring out if there's any merit to what I'm saying.


You're not even saying anything guy. You're literally arguing "This other guy said something in a topic a long time ago but I'm going to tell you what he said". What sort of argument is that? Even linking a Huffington Post article would be better then that. At least it would give me something to digest. You're giving me nothing and acting like you're arguing some irrefutable point.

It's not really a long time ago and you're perfectly capable of looking it up if you were interested.


I did look. It's gone.
scar the 1
12/08/18 1:08:01 AM
76
Grischnak posted...
I did look. It's gone.

If only there was some sort of log where you could look up old topics
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Grischnak
12/08/18 1:38:55 AM
77
scar the 1 posted...
Grischnak posted...
I did look. It's gone.

If only there was some sort of log where you could look up old topics


This is the stupidest argument I've ever had on this forum. "You're wrong but I'm not going to explain why because some other guy did in another topic that has been purged. Look it up if you want to know how wrong you are.". Fuck this nonsense dude. I'm done with this.
TheMikh
12/08/18 1:45:59 AM
78
Shapiro is a neocon, basically making him the antithesis of any kind of "alternative" right-wing ideologue. He's just managed to make the rightfully disgraced school of thought relevant to a new generation.

Peterson is arguably more in line with the insurgent right since some of his beliefs are a hop and a skip away from NRx, but he's also rather liberal, both socially and politically, even if it pales in comparison to the present state of the left.
---
TheMikh
12/08/18 1:53:24 AM
79
COVxy posted...
Jordan Peterson most certainly is playing to his audience, though the main reason for this perception is the alt-right's clear support of him in lieu of any other authority figure.

The alt-right despises Peterson (and Shapiro). The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism, the latter because they're antisemitic (and because he is opposed to biological essentialism with respect to the question of nationalism).
---
averagejoel
12/08/18 2:14:01 AM
80
TheMikh posted...
COVxy posted...
Jordan Peterson most certainly is playing to his audience, though the main reason for this perception is the alt-right's clear support of him in lieu of any other authority figure.

The alt-right despises Peterson (and Shapiro). The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism, the latter because they're antisemitic (and because he is opposed to biological essentialism with respect to the question of nationalism).

this is an argument based exclusively in semantics, and it's an argument that has no consequences either way.

whether or not Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are alt right, they're right wing nutjobs whose core views have a significant overlap with those of the alt right. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over them being labelled as such.
---
peanut butter and dick
Dash_Harber
12/08/18 2:15:31 AM
81
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.
scar the 1
12/08/18 2:47:34 AM
82
Grischnak posted...
scar the 1 posted...
Grischnak posted...
I did look. It's gone.

If only there was some sort of log where you could look up old topics


This is the stupidest argument I've ever had on this forum. "You're wrong but I'm not going to explain why because some other guy did in another topic that has been purged. Look it up if you want to know how wrong you are.". Fuck this nonsense dude. I'm done with this.

Oh boo hoo, I'm really sad that you're done with this exchange that I'm sure you entered with perfectly honest, well-meaning intentions.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Romes187
12/08/18 10:21:59 AM
83
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.


Uh... what
averagejoel
12/08/18 11:14:24 AM
84
Romes187 posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.


Uh... what

it's pretty common among the far right to use "socialist" as a synonym for "jew"

in nazi germany it was called "cultural bolshevism", referring to the bolshevik party. now "cultural marxism" is their preferred term
---
peanut butter and dick
Romes187
12/08/18 11:57:17 AM
85
Romes187 posted...
Lmao this board has so many stupid people on it
TheMikh
12/08/18 12:02:46 PM
86
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.
---
averagejoel
12/08/18 12:06:02 PM
87
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

"cultural marxism" is actually a dogwhistle though
---
peanut butter and dick
scar the 1
12/08/18 7:14:57 PM
88
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

Go ahead and elaborate what "cultural Marxism" means
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Anti-245
12/08/18 7:16:35 PM
89
scar the 1 posted...
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

Go ahead and elaborate what "cultural Marxism" means

It's a continuation of Nazi propaganda.
---
Life in the DoB.
TheMikh
12/08/18 7:50:21 PM
90
Anti-245 posted...
scar the 1 posted...
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

Go ahead and elaborate what "cultural Marxism" means

It's a continuation of Nazi propaganda.

That's the baggage I was referring to, though the Nazis did not use the phrase "cultural marixsm" itself, but rather "cultural bolshevism," but I'm needlessly splitting hairs.

Nowadays "cultural marxism" a reference to the application of conflict theory (which originated in Marxist thought) to the cultural realm. Regardless of whether or not you believe the theory itself is valid, it has become quite visibly pervasive in every kind of relation in modern society - between cultures, ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, and even generations.

Critics of this trend and those who proliferate it refer to this ideological phenomenon with the umbrella term "cultural marxism."

The fundamental difference between its use by Nazis and its use by opponents of conflict theory today is that the former used it to refer to anything they didn't like in society, whereas the modern use has a clear and quite accurate definition that is as applicable to the identitarian left (see: "SJWs") as it is to the identitarian right (see: the post-2016 alt-right).
---
Anti-245
12/08/18 7:59:53 PM
91
TheMikh posted...
Anti-245 posted...
scar the 1 posted...
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

Go ahead and elaborate what "cultural Marxism" means

It's a continuation of Nazi propaganda.

That's the baggage I was referring to, though the Nazis did not use the phrase "cultural marixsm" itself, but rather "cultural bolshevism," but I'm needlessly splitting hairs.

Nowadays "cultural marxism" a reference to the application of conflict theory (which originated in Marxist thought) to the cultural realm. Regardless of whether or not you believe the theory itself is valid, it has become quite visibly pervasive in every kind of relation in modern society - between cultures, ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, and even generations.

Critics of this trend and those who proliferate it refer to this ideological phenomenon with the umbrella term "cultural marxism."

The fundamental difference between its use by Nazis and its use by opponents of conflict theory today is that the former used it to refer to anything they didn't like in society, whereas the modern use has a clear and quite accurate definition that is as applicable to the identitarian left (see: "SJWs") as it is to the identitarian right (see: the post-2016 alt-right).

All of those "conflicts" were built into America in its foundation and that was noted, which predates any Marxist thought so I'm not sure why Marx is tied to this.
And I disagree with your second point as Peterson and the like clearly know this, yet label any critiques of the U.S. as such. It doesn't even make sense as Marxists and so called sjws rebuke each other every chance they get.
---
Life in the DoB.
TheMikh
12/08/18 9:20:21 PM
92
Anti-245 posted...
TheMikh posted...
Anti-245 posted...
scar the 1 posted...
TheMikh posted...
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The former for refusing to buy into their antisemitism,


Yeah, he just calls it 'Cultural Marxism' instead.

Six or seven years ago when use of the term was confined to basement dregs, this claim might have held water, but it has since entered mainstream terminology on the right while stripping itself of the old baggage and implications with respect to those using it, except among those who see everything as a dog whistle.

Go ahead and elaborate what "cultural Marxism" means

It's a continuation of Nazi propaganda.

That's the baggage I was referring to, though the Nazis did not use the phrase "cultural marixsm" itself, but rather "cultural bolshevism," but I'm needlessly splitting hairs.

Nowadays "cultural marxism" a reference to the application of conflict theory (which originated in Marxist thought) to the cultural realm. Regardless of whether or not you believe the theory itself is valid, it has become quite visibly pervasive in every kind of relation in modern society - between cultures, ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, and even generations.

Critics of this trend and those who proliferate it refer to this ideological phenomenon with the umbrella term "cultural marxism."

The fundamental difference between its use by Nazis and its use by opponents of conflict theory today is that the former used it to refer to anything they didn't like in society, whereas the modern use has a clear and quite accurate definition that is as applicable to the identitarian left (see: "SJWs") as it is to the identitarian right (see: the post-2016 alt-right).

All of those "conflicts" were built into America in its foundation and that was noted, which predates any Marxist thought so I'm not sure why Marx is tied to this.
And I disagree with your second point as Peterson and the like clearly know this, yet label any critiques of the U.S. as such. It doesn't even make sense as Marxists and so called sjws rebuke each other every chance they get.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theories

Karl Marx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the four major paradigms of sociology.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp

The conflict theory, suggested by Karl Marx, claims society is in a state of perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. It holds that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity.

SJWs and Communists, despite having common ideological roots, are perennially at odds because Communists maintain focus on the class struggle, and believe identity takes a backseat to economic class.

Conflict may have been baked into the United States since its founding, especially economic and ethnic, but the weaponization of conflict along every possible line is a comparatively recent phenomenon.
---
Anti-245
12/08/18 9:25:28 PM
93
I disagree with what Wikipedia says.
Any look into American history can see this weaponization from slavery to women's rights to gay rights. It certainly was not "recent" by any stretch.
---
Life in the DoB.
Anti-245
12/08/18 9:37:28 PM
94
Also, every communist isn't a Marxist. I'm not sure how we got to communism anyway.
---
Life in the DoB.
TheMikh
12/08/18 9:40:17 PM
95
Anti-245 posted...
Also, every communist isn't a Marxist. I'm not sure how we got to communism anyway.


GqHrT1O
---
Anti-245
12/08/18 9:43:35 PM
96
TheMikh posted...
Anti-245 posted...
Also, every communist isn't a Marxist. I'm not sure how we got to communism anyway.


GqHrT1O

Marx used communist and socialist interchangeably in his day. Contemporary socialists and communists do not. Like I said, every communist is not a Marxist. And have you actually read the manifesto? Because most of the things he proposes most nations have anyway and they're certainly not communist or even socialist(which is how he used it).
---
Life in the DoB.
TheMikh
12/08/18 10:07:42 PM
97
Marx used communist and socialist interchangeably in his day. Contemporary socialists and communists do not.


Communists were not the only socialists in the 19th Century, and socialists were most certainly not entirely communists; there were many schools of socialism that emerged during that century. Communism was but one of them, and it was intrinsically applied - on paper, anyway - Marxist thought.

And have you actually read the manifesto? Because most of the things he proposes most nations have anyway and they're certainly not communist or even socialist(which is how he used it).


The proposals are not intrinsically communist, but anyone can make hollow proposals that reflect more universal concerns. The devil is in the details of execution - which, to my vague recollection, the manifesto was lacking with respect to.
---
Dash_Harber
12/08/18 11:10:12 PM
98
TheMikh posted...
The fundamental difference between its use by Nazis and its use by opponents of conflict theory today is that the former used it to refer to anything they didn't like in society


This is exactly what Peterson does with Cultural Marxism, though. Remember when he said he didn't think he could support gay marriage legalization in Australia because it would be giving to much ground to the 'Cultural Marxists'?

The most telling feature is that he can't identify a single group or entity that actively claims to be Cultural Marxists. It's just a label he applies to anyone he doesn't agree with to try and discredit them ad-hominem.
TheMikh
12/08/18 11:52:08 PM
99
Dash_Harber posted...
TheMikh posted...
The fundamental difference between its use by Nazis and its use by opponents of conflict theory today is that the former used it to refer to anything they didn't like in society


This is exactly what Peterson does with Cultural Marxism, though. Remember when he said he didn't think he could support gay marriage legalization in Australia because it would be giving to much ground to the 'Cultural Marxists'?

The most telling feature is that he can't identify a single group or entity that actively claims to be Cultural Marxists. It's just a label he applies to anyone he doesn't agree with to try and discredit them ad-hominem.

Touch.

His claim is indefensible in that context, and you are correct that his use of the term is vague with respect to a concrete definition, aside from the occasional namedropping with questionable accuracy, as far as I know.

Furthermore, his trademark bogeyman "the bloody postmodern neomarxists" is loaded with inaccurate assertions about poststructuralism and its thinkers, which to my understanding quite is distinct from Marxism and its derivatives, despite some overlap here or there.

I maintain that his opposition to antisemitism and to racial identitarianism of any kind (the latter in particular, as there are some otherwise terrible alt-right figureheads that are not antisemitic) is the primary litmus test with respect to whether he falls under the category of the alt-right, or at least its post-2016 incarnation. But he certainly uses the term "cultural marxism" inappropriately.
---
Anti-245
12/09/18 12:10:29 AM
100
TheMikh posted...
Marx used communist and socialist interchangeably in his day. Contemporary socialists and communists do not.


Communists were not the only socialists in the 19th Century, and socialists were most certainly not entirely communists; there were many schools of socialism that emerged during that century. Communism was but one of them, and it was intrinsically applied - on paper, anyway - Marxist thought.

And have you actually read the manifesto? Because most of the things he proposes most nations have anyway and they're certainly not communist or even socialist(which is how he used it).


The proposals are not intrinsically communist, but anyone can make hollow proposals that reflect more universal concerns. The devil is in the details of execution - which, to my vague recollection, the manifesto was lacking with respect to.

Exactly, so why are we talking about communism again? The manifesto gives answer to several questions some of which are extremely detailed. The demands of the communist party of Germany are listed near the end and as I said most nations already have them, which they would considering that times have changed. If they are not intrinsically communist (not sure what this means) then the term "communist" is irrelevant.
---
Life in the DoB.
s0nicfan
12/09/18 12:40:48 AM
101
Anti-245 posted...
Marx used communist and socialist interchangeably in his day. Contemporary socialists and communists do not. Like I said, every communist is not a Marxist. And have you actually read the manifesto? Because most of the things he proposes most nations have anyway and they're certainly not communist or even socialist(which is how he used it).


So people should exercise a nuanced understanding of the use of the word communism when relating to Marx, but any use of "Cultural Marxism" is:
Anti-245 posted...
It's a continuation of Nazi propaganda.


Without consideration for any modern use or interpretation of the phrase.
---
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
TheMikh
12/09/18 12:55:42 AM
102
Exactly, so why are we talking about communism again?

You claimed "SJWs" (Conflict Theory -> Culture) and "Communists" (Conflict Theory -> Economics) are at odds with each other, insinuating that as such, they're not both derivatives of Marxist thought.

The manifesto gives answer to several questions some of which are extremely detailed. The demands of the communist party of Germany are listed near the end and as I said most nations already have them, which they would considering that times have changed. If they are not intrinsically communist (not sure what this means) then the term "communist" is irrelevant.

People want the same basic things. Different ideological systems promise the same basic things as ends, but realized through different means.

To go off on a tangent and offer an illustration, Capitalists and Communists both wish to applaud when their respective heads of state make an appearance, and then to stop applauding at some point. The length of the applause varies dramatically, from a matter of seconds to several hours, and the consequences for the first person to stop applauding are also quite different. Just because the applauding inevitably comes to an end doesn't mean the systems are the same, or that the differences are irrelevant.
---
Romes187
12/09/18 1:46:21 AM
103
TheMikh posted...
Exactly, so why are we talking about communism again?

You claimed "SJWs" (Conflict Theory -> Culture) and "Communists" (Conflict Theory -> Economics) are at odds with each other, insinuating that as such, they're not both derivatives of Marxist thought.

The manifesto gives answer to several questions some of which are extremely detailed. The demands of the communist party of Germany are listed near the end and as I said most nations already have them, which they would considering that times have changed. If they are not intrinsically communist (not sure what this means) then the term "communist" is irrelevant.

People want the same basic things. Different ideological systems promise the same basic things as ends, but realized through different means.

To go off on a tangent and offer an illustration, Capitalists and Communists both wish to applaud when their respective heads of state make an appearance, and then to stop applauding at some point. The length of the applause varies dramatically, from a matter of seconds to several hours, and the consequences for the first person to stop applauding are also quite different. Just because the applauding inevitably comes to an end doesn't mean the systems are the same, or that the differences are irrelevant.


I appreciate you responding to his posts in a thoughtful manner but remember we are on gfaqs. The poster doesnt care about discussion clearly. Peterson bad white man
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3