# Post Modernism in higher education.



## will_shred (Sep 27, 2018)

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that title is enough to cause a flame war alone depending on how you define post modernism, which seems to vary from person to person. My previous thread in Off-Topic got me thinking about the political climate on college campuses. The most notable person raising this issue that i'm aware of is Jordan Peterson. Now, I actually have a lot of respect for Peterson, even as someone who could be defined as "far left". The lectures from his classes he uploaded to youtube on personality theory and his class "maps of meaning" are really fascinating, and really there isn't much mention of politics in his classroom. So is his lecture series analyzing passages from the bible. His debate with Sam Harris in Vancouver is also some good food IMO. With that in mind, I use post modernism in the title because of how Peterson defines it. He sort of uses the terms post modernism and "cultural marxism" interchangeably. This is coming from the guy who started the marxism discussion thread, basically arguing in favor of a kind of marxism.

If I understand his position correctly, and I think I've watched enough interviews to say that I do. Peterson defines cultural marxism as, defining people not by their individual personality but by their group identity. Instead of seeing someone as an individual, the post modern theory defines people only in terms of their group identity. As in, you are defined by your race, your sexual orientation, your gender identity, your political party, your music scene, and so on. Post modernism also suggests that all social dynamics are defined by power, with the various factions of people all attempting to gain the upperhand on the others in political power, social power, financial power, and so on. This worldview has tended to alienate young men, especially young white men, by attaching the baggage of the frankly undeniable history of white supremacist, patriarchal, tendencies that have defined much of western history. I think that the crux of petersons argument against how he defines post modernism is two parts, 1) that people are more complex than just their group identity, the moral character of an individual can't be pinned down to their various group identities, it really only comes from actually knowing that person. 2) Social interactions are also far more complex than simple power dynamics, people's actions cannot be boiled down in this way. 

Of course, this is the definition of a straw man. You mis-characterize the person you're debating and knock down your own shoddy characterization. 

My only experience in college is at my small community college, and I can't say that I've ever met a professor who had beliefs like that, I had one very intelligent english professor who might be defined in this way, but she was more discussing the influences of class and privilege not as defining a person, but as definitely being an undeniable part of that persons identity. I'm interested in hearing from everyone, especially conservatives here. I have heard lots of talk about the "extreme left" taking over college campuses. It seems like a bunch of nonsense to me, but I don't have enough experience in higher education to make that call. I have a very close friend who is transgender who actually agrees that the insular nature of academia has let an extreme left wing ideology grow unchallenged. 

What do you think?


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Sep 27, 2018)

Did you just make a thread reducing the question of whether or not equality-of-outcome can be imposed without tyranny to a dichotomy of left vs right, and then invite the great political minds of sevenstring.org to explain it?


----------



## MickD7 (Sep 27, 2018)

I recently dropped out of some short courses due to the continued argument of identity politics. These courses where prep courses for a 4 year Jazz Guitar Degree and Composition. The continued stalling of actually discussion of Music in favour for Identity Politics really started to grind on me. Especially because of the upfront fees that came along with the course and squeezing it in 6-7 day working week. 

I started reading about Peterson well over a year before these things transpired, since then a lot of the landscape here at home has changed. And I used to be “left wings” and go to protests and rallies and all of that and it started boiling over to how “woke” you are and into an arms race. 

I’m completely ok with people wanting and needing change, however the outcome of most of these things is very short minded. Some of those entering political races now have zero understanding of economics,health care ect. 

12 Rules For Life is a good read for someone like myself. I have Bipolar and ADHD and my wife and I have been through some pretty brutal shit in the last year. Some of the Choas/Order stuff is for me a good boost of energy to keep me on track and take my meds and be responsible. The understanding of being accountable for our actions is something I think a lot of people have forgotten and lost their way on. 

As for the rest.... I stopped performing music for a year due to personal health which was my decision. I’ve continued that break to pursue study and teaching and tech work and I’m glad not to face the gauntlet of wokeness at the end of a show as to why I don’t have x kind of person or y kind of person in my line up of a band. 

They wanted to split hairs so my discussion was well We had a Vegan, A Macedonian and some one with A Mental health disorder. But apparently that’s not “minority” enough or whatever nonsense people ramble on about. And that we should feel bad for being on the cusp of success because we are white.... 

we played a fundraiser show for Utopia the poorest Indigenous Australian town in the country and I donated my first guitar to a 15 year old kid. But still I shouldn’t feel proud about making a difference because I’m white. That’s what I was told by many people with that “Left”point of view and it sounded to me a lot like the “right 

Hard work doesn’t me shit now a days.


----------



## Bentaycanada (Sep 27, 2018)

Awesome, I've been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson's interviews recently, and really enjoying them. This guy came to my attention because of the protests against him, and then you actually hear the man speak and it's like "wait, _this guy_ is Hitler??". I don't think so.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 28, 2018)

Is this the same spposed free-speech advocate Jordan Peterson who claims to deal out harsh truths... but often threatens libel lawsuits when someone critiques his ideas? 

Because that spells "snowflake."


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 28, 2018)

It depends on where you live and your area of study. Colleges like Reed College here in Portland actually identify themselves as a liberal college. At Portland State University extreme left agendas are the status quo, but be aware that the majority of people seeking liberal arts degrees probably won’t have a plethora of decent paying jobs to choose from upon graduation. In Oregon the market is already over saturated with drug counselors, homeless advocates, social workers, counselors etc -none are very lucrative fields, so ideals and the job market that supports ideals are two different things. But yeah...as a history major, the last election was a major distraction of unrelated current political discussions and coincidentally those same people who disrupted everyone else’s education put their convictions before their education and couldn’t understand why they landed behind the grading curve when it came time for mids/finals. Politics don’t belong in everything


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Sep 28, 2018)

I've noticed it. From what I've seen, it's almost as bad as the "conservosphere" paints it out to be.
I've been graded harshly multiple times for not falling in the line with the 'white men are evil' narrative.
I've been personally harassed by a rogue professor with a beef because I challenged her bullshit.
I had a professor call me sexist because I pointed out errors in _*her*_ work and literally tell me that "as long as I am the only one to teach this course, you will never pass it."
I had one instructor deliberately ignore and avoid me prior to the closing of the semester so that I was not able to reconcile my grade resulting in a substantially lower mark. Again- because I didn't play along. I had _*1*_ (one) professor who adhered to the "SJW" mantra that was capable of remaining impartial. She was fantastic. All of the others...I honestly do not believe have any business teaching kids. One is actually currently trying to get a student kicked out of the university because he organized a protest of her class, since she publicly posted anti-american propaganda.

It's easy to assume that all of what I said above can easily be attributed to me just being an asshole. Which is probably true, (I am somewhat of a dick) but in general I am one of the quietest, keep-to-myself, soft-spoken people you will ever meet. I hate speaking when I don't have to, I hate making statements and arguments unless I literally have evidence _in my hand_, and I tend to keep my head down and weather bullshit wherever I encounter it. In the context of school, this is all even more true. Most of my interactions with these people were done through extreme care, and I took great care to stick to easily provable statements and to speak very, very delicately whenever there was any hint of a disagreement. With this in mind, I doubt that these interactions were spurred from me being a prick.

But that being said, I live in California. You really can't find a worse place. I'm pretty sure that at most universities and colleges that are located literally anywhere else, it probably isn't so bad. But what I'm seeing, and I think what a lot of these people like Peterson that are so firmly against all of this are noticing, is that it's the beginnings of an alarming movement. The stuff we're seeing now sucks, yes; but when this stuff today becomes normal, what's going to be the over the top stuff then? Guys getting treated like garbage is rapidly becoming 'accepted' and it baffles and alarms me how this trend continues as if it's encountering zero resistance. Even outside of school, I still notice this 'group identity' phenomena being stronger than ever. I don't know if it's always been this way and I just never noticed it as a kid, but cliques are absolutely pervasive. Everything you can imagine has a clique for it, and if you deviate even slightly, you're out. Not only out, but almost _persecuted_ by the in-group.

Kind of why I love this place so much, is purely because it doesn't really feel like that.


----------



## Drew (Sep 28, 2018)

will_shred said:


> Instead of seeing someone as an individual, the post modern theory defines people only in terms of their group identity. As in, you are defined by your race, your sexual orientation, your gender identity, your political party, your music scene, and so on. Post modernism also suggests that all social dynamics are defined by power, with the various factions of people all attempting to gain the upperhand on the others in political power, social power, financial power, and so on.


That sounds arguably more like modernism and structuralism than post-modernism, in the Derrida/deconstructionist sense of the term at least (and IMO he would know), wherein since all meaning is arbitrary anyway and only exists in opposition to some other meaning you're free to ignore those power structures and group identities and creatively redefine them as you see fit.

At a bare minimum, a post-modern reading of that quote above would require me to point out that you are NOT defined by your race, your sexual orientation, et al, so much as you are defined by what you are _not_, and knowing oneself in any concrete and non-arbitrary term would require the knowledge and existence of a binary anti-self.

Also, if Peterson is claiming that he's a post-modernist, while making what appear to be fundamentally structurallist arguments, then he's a fucking idiot.


----------



## vilk (Sep 28, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I've noticed it. From what I've seen, it's almost as bad as the "conservosphere" paints it out to be.
> I've been graded harshly multiple times for not falling in the line with the 'white men are evil' narrative.
> I've been personally harassed by a rogue professor with a beef because I challenged her bullshit.
> I had a professor call me sexist because I pointed out errors in _*her*_ work and literally tell me that "as long as I am the only one to teach this course, you will never pass it."
> ...



Please don't take it the wrong way, but every time I read this kind of sob story it comes across as excuses and blaming others for your poor marks. I went to a big 10 school and saw firsthand people make these exact same kind of cop-out excuses in an attempt to reconcile that they simply didn't do as well as they thought they deserved to.

Let me let you in on a secret: even politically left-leaning students earn poor marks. They even sometimes think they deserve better and try to blame the professor; they just don't blame the 'evil jew libral indoctrination brainwash machine'

Maybe what you say did really happen, I'm sure it's not impossible. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Sep 28, 2018)

vilk said:


> Please don't take it the wrong way, but every time I read this kind of sob story it comes across as excuses and blaming others for your poor marks. I went to a big 10 school and saw firsthand people make these exact same kind of cop-out excuses in an attempt to reconcile that they simply didn't do as well as they thought they deserved to.
> 
> Let me let you in on a secret: even politically left-leaning students earn poor marks. They even sometimes think they deserve better and try to blame the professor; they just don't blame the 'evil jew libral indoctrination brainwash machine'
> 
> Maybe what you say did really happen, I'm sure it's not impossible. I'm just sayin'.



Not a sob story so much as it is anecdotal evidence. Aside from these instructors, teaching usually General Education (read- laughably easy) courses, I was an A, maybe sometimes B student. I graduated high school at 15 years old with a >4.0 GPA and my first three semesters of college already under my belt. These courses were a GE Political Science course, a GE Anthropology course, an advanced level Programming and Algorithms course (the first of which I ever scored less than a 93), and a GE "Cultural Studies" course. The only important and difficult course was the algorithms, which is coincidentally the one where the issue was that I had to _*correct *_my instructor's work.

Making excuses? No. Blaming others? Absolutely. 
I went to college because I wanted to be somebody. 

This sounds to me like I stated something you don't want to hear and instead opted to dismiss what I had to say. Why? You know nothing about me.


----------



## vilk (Sep 28, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Not a sob story so much as it is anecdotal evidence. Aside from these instructors, teaching usually General Education (read- laughably easy) courses, I was an A, maybe sometimes B student. I graduated high school at 15 years old with a >4.0 GPA and my first three semesters of college already under my belt. These courses were a GE Political Science course, a GE Anthropology course, an advanced level Programming and Algorithms course (the first of which I ever scored less than a 93), and a GE "Cultural Studies" course. The only important and difficult course was the algorithms, which is coincidentally the one where the issue was that I had to _*correct *_my instructor's work.
> 
> Making excuses? No. Blaming others? Absolutely.
> I went to college because I wanted to be somebody.
> ...



lol I wasn't questioning whether or not _you_ believe yourself...


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Sep 28, 2018)

I guess I'm just confused about why you would come into a thread asking about users' experience with this type of behavior in an academic setting, only to challenge somebody's experience with this type of behavior in an academic setting without any background knowledge about what you're questioning whatsoever.


----------



## vilk (Sep 28, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I guess I'm just confused about why you would come into a thread asking about users' experience with this type of behavior in an academic setting, only to challenge somebody's experience with this type of behavior in an academic setting without any background knowledge about what you're questioning whatsoever.



Pardon me for giving my own experience. Going to university in Indiana I heard this same BS constantly.


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 28, 2018)

I also saw a huge difference in quality and ethics between the instructors at the Clark community college where I attended and the tenured professors I had at Portland State University and Willamette University...


----------



## Drew (Sep 28, 2018)

Can we maybe stay on topic here, which near as I can tell is that Jordan Peterson wouldn't know what post-modernism is if someone hit him over the head with a copy of Of Grammatology?


----------



## wannabguitarist (Sep 28, 2018)

I used to listen to a lot of Peterson 2ish years ago, and for a while his points really echoed with me because the extreme identity politics of the far left is well, awful. The thing is though, outside of college campuses people do not actually talk or act like that, and college kids have always been reactionary and dumb. It just feels like an old, slightly out of touch guy making money of young/middle age white dudes that are angry at dumb things college kids are saying.

I do believe this is true:


will_shred said:


> ...who actually agrees that the insular nature of academia has let an extreme left wing ideology grow unchallenged.



I've been out of college for close to 6 years now so this viewpoint wasn't as prevalent back then, but it was still super frustrating trying to participate in a debate and occasionally getting shouted down because of who I am (straight white dude), and not because my point was bad (most of the contention was over minutia as I already lean left ). Not what I was expecting from one of the top Political Science programs in the state and because like you said, social interactions are also far more complex than simple power dynamics. This was extremely rare though.

I guess I agree with Peterson that you can't boil a person down to their whatever identity is or how they fit into society's power structures, but the whole problem he's talking about is extremely overblown. There are a lot of uncomfortable white men out there that are concerned because power structures are shifting. That's going to lead to some discomfort, but focusing on the loudest, most irrational voices is just dumb.



Drew said:


> Can we maybe stay on topic here, which near as I can tell is that Jordan Peterson wouldn't know what post-modernism is if someone hit him over the head with a copy of Of Grammatology?



Well Peterson doesn't consider himself a post-modernist; he's constantly arguing against that belief system. The more I listen to him however, the more I believe he is actually an idiot 



NateFalcon said:


> Politics don’t belong in everything



This might be worth making another thread, but it's not hard to argue that really everything is political at its core.


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 28, 2018)

I’m talking about National partisan politics...how is say Math and Engineering intrinsically a left/right political issue? I’m curious


----------



## NateFalcon (Sep 28, 2018)

I remember the people who used the first 15 minutes of class to talk about about the partisan horizon in Calculus class and asserted that “it’s ALL relevant” were the exact same ones who didn’t pass the class. I think it’s safe to say it was a distraction (both sides)...not beneficial insights. But yeah, you can make anything political if you want to


----------



## narad (Sep 28, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> But what I'm seeing, and I think what a lot of these people like Peterson that are so firmly against all of this are noticing, is that it's the beginnings of an alarming movement. The stuff we're seeing now sucks, yes; but when this stuff today becomes normal, what's going to be the over the top stuff then? Guys getting treated like garbage is rapidly becoming 'accepted' and it baffles and alarms me how this trend continues as if it's encountering zero resistance.



Guys getting treated like garbage is rapidly becoming accepted? Guys are getting treated like garbage? That's a weird bubble to be in.

I don't follow Peterson but to me it seems like you're doing the same sort of thing. You're creating a group identity of academics, and assigning them a largely SJW stance on things, despite them all being individual people with varying degrees of agreement on such issues, and further, varying degrees to which their own politics/biases infiltrate their teaching and professional lives. Your scope of academia is like .001% of instructors at .00001% of schools, and that's going to give you enough leverage to make claims about the group and its effect on society's trajectory? Seems like a little bit of a reach.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 29, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Is this the same spposed free-speech advocate Jordan Peterson who claims to deal out harsh truths... but often threatens libel lawsuits when someone critiques his ideas?
> 
> Because that spells "snowflake."



Explorer, I usually appreciate your input but this comment hasn't really contributed anything to the conversation. I haven't heard anything about Peterson threatening to sue his critics, and from what I understand that would be extremely out of character for him. You're gonna have to provide a citation for that claim. Also, nobody here has made any mention of "snowflakes" besides you. The reason I wanted to make this thread is to get above that noise and actually talk about this issue in a reasonable way. It seems like group identity is very important for a lot of people, and I genuinely want to get a deeper understanding of why that is. Or, if, there is a substantial number of people who seem to take it too far as Peterson claims (Because I genuinely don't know). The terms "political correctness" "snowflake", ect, are never used in constructive ways in my experience.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 29, 2018)

Drew said:


> Can we maybe stay on topic here, which near as I can tell is that Jordan Peterson wouldn't know what post-modernism is if someone hit him over the head with a copy of Of Grammatology?



I agree with you there, I managed to read "structure, sign, and play", with great difficulty. I understand how Peterson can conflate actual post modernism with his "cultural marxism" but if you listen to a lot of Petersons arguments, especially when he gets into things like biblical interpretation, he sounds very post modern. Of course in order to criticize someone constructively, you have to have a decent understanding of that persons positions. That's why I initially became interested in Peterson, I think he has a lot of interesting stuff, especially in his field of expertise which is psychology. But like anyone, he isn't perfect, and he does tout some ideas that are still more ideological than logical.

Peterson on Derrida:


----------



## will_shred (Sep 29, 2018)

Relevant podcast:


----------



## fps (Sep 29, 2018)

All I can say is coming from an English literature and language background I don't at all recognise postmodernism in the way it's being defined here. It has far ranging political and social consequences as a way of thinking, but I do not recognise it as being linked with identity politics.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 29, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Is this the same supposed free-speech advocate Jordan Peterson who claims to deal out harsh truths... but often threatens libel lawsuits when someone critiques his ideas? Because that spells "snowflake."





will_shred said:


> Explorer, I usually appreciate your input but this comment hasn't really contributed anything to the conversation. I haven't heard anything about Peterson threatening to sue his critics, and from what I understand that would be extremely out of character for him. You're gonna have to provide a citation for that claim.



That's why I asked if the Jordan Peterson being discussed was the same one whom I discovered by a simple Google search. Here's one example.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-he-sees-harsh-truths-can-he-take-them-return

So again I ask... is the Jordan Peterson being discussed in the OP the same one for whom anyone can Google "jordan peterson lawsuit" and discover what you didn't when you presumably did a similar search?



will_shred said:


> Also, nobody here has made any mention of "snowflakes" besides you. The reason I wanted to make this thread is to get above that noise and actually talk about this issue in a reasonable way.



I made an honest effort to start reading through this guy's ideas, but discovered enough silliness and lack of academic rigor that I wanted to establish if the guy I was learning about was the same one whose ideas where being discussed. To me, that matters. 

I am hopeful you'll tell me that these are actually two different people, of course.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Sep 29, 2018)

Alright: They are two different people.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 29, 2018)

ok a few caveats. 

1. I think Jon Peterson is an idiot. 

2. I think he grossly and deliberately misrepresents really simple ideas when he tries to actually engage with any real post-modern theorists.

3. I almost got a phd in critical theory and postmodernism but fucking grad school is way harder then living at my parents and checking Internet forums all day.

With that out of the way. Identity politics is stupid as shit. But it's not a philosophy and it's not all of post-modernism. It's the result of a very narrow and specific reading of certain texts for a politicized purpose. 

that being said..it's the popular political strategy that a lot of leftists are part. But it's not post-modernism.


----------



## narad (Sep 29, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> I almost got a phd in critical theory and postmodernism but fucking grad school is way harder then living at my parents and checking Internet forums all day.



Dude, that is a PhD in postmodernism.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 29, 2018)

Explorer said:


> That's why I asked if the Jordan Peterson being discussed was the same one whom I discovered by a simple Google search. Here's one example.
> 
> https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-he-sees-harsh-truths-can-he-take-them-return
> 
> ...




That he threatened to sue her for defamation is ridiculous, and hypocritical.

However, I think some of the statements made in the article are problematic. Especially this one



> Manne is not the first person Peterson’s threatened with a lawsuit. In May, Wendy Lynne Lee, a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, tweeted that Peterson is an “incel misogynist” and “committed white nationalist,” in reference to an announcement that he would be a featured speaker at the Turning Point USA’s Young Women’s Leadership Summit."



I think those statements are completely ridiculous. Peterson to my knowledge has never defended incels, and he absolutely doesn't endorse white nationalism. I also disagree with the characterization that he is a misogynist. I have never seen him argue for "male superiority". He often cites that in the countries with the highest levels of gender equality, men and women willingly tend to pick different career paths. That's not to say there isn't overlap, because of course averages don't say anything about individuals. She also criticized his being invited to the young women's leadership summit. Which sounds more like envy to me than actual criticism. His discussion at the conference is also available to watch, so you can judge for yourself whether you think the characterizations in that article are accurate or not.



There's also this 



> The TA secretly recording the meeting, in which several professors questioned Peterson’s academic credentials and compared playing his comments in class to playing a speech by Hitler.



So, behind closed doors, several professors literally equated him to Hitler. To me that doesn't look good for the argument that there isn't an extremest left wing faction, at least at that school. Peterson has also made his position very clear on the Canadian Transgender bill. His criticism wasn't about recognizing people's gender identity, it was about how the bill was written. Specifically how vague and open ended the language to define discrimination was. He has said, I believe on the Joe Rogan podcast, that if a transgender student asked him to refer to them by their preferred pronoun, he would do so. His problem is with the state attempting to reinforce the evolution of language in that way. Which is more of a philosophical difference than him being transphobic.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 29, 2018)

narad said:


> Dude, that is a PhD in postmodernism.



you'd think. but you actually have to work and write and teach and shit.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 29, 2018)

Libel laws don’t undermine Freedom of Speech.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Sep 29, 2018)

narad said:


> I don't follow Peterson but to me it seems like you're doing the same sort of thing. You're creating a group identity of academics, and assigning them a largely SJW stance on things, despite them all being individual people with varying degrees of agreement on such issues, and further, varying degrees to which their own politics/biases infiltrate their teaching and professional lives. Your scope of academia is like .001% of instructors at .00001% of schools, and that's going to give you enough leverage to make claims about the group and its effect on society's trajectory? Seems like a little bit of a reach.



Of course it does! Because that's not what I'm saying at all.
I kind of thought it was a given so I didn't say it, but of course all people are their own autonomous person- I don't _believe_ I made any blanket statements in that post. Nor did I intend to pass on the impression that I believe this is a ubiquitous thing in academia, I don't even think I referred to them as a group in the way you're implying. All I was trying to say was that yes, I've experienced it; and that yes, coupled with the stories I've heard from other people it's enough to be concerning to me. I had no idea that would be such a controversial statement- I even deliberately stated that I'm sure that most colleges and universities are different.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 29, 2018)

To add onto what I said above: suing for Libel/defamation is not a move against free speech. Indeed, if your speech is truthful, it will be defensible in court. Litigation alone is not an infringement, and free speech doesn’t mean that you are shielded by your speech. Considering that Peterson has spent decades criticizing identity politics of all kinds (including, and maybe even especially white supremacy), calling him a white supremacist should come with the risk of consequence.


----------



## narad (Sep 29, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Of course it does! Because that's not what I'm saying at all.
> I kind of thought it was a given so I didn't say it, but of course all people are their own autonomous person- I don't _believe_ I made any blanket statements in that post. Nor did I intend to pass on the impression that I believe this is a ubiquitous thing in academia, I don't even think I referred to them as a group in the way you're implying. All I was trying to say was that yes, I've experienced it; and that yes, coupled with the stories I've heard from other people it's enough to be concerning to me. I had no idea that would be such a controversial statement- I even deliberately stated that I'm sure that most colleges and universities are different.



Fair enough - basically read your posts backwards and I see you really did mention the anecdotal nature of it all with respect to academia. The guys treated like garbage bit is still ridiculous and blanketed.


----------



## Drew (Oct 1, 2018)

fps said:


> All I can say is coming from an English literature and language background I don't at all recognise postmodernism in the way it's being defined here. It has far ranging political and social consequences as a way of thinking, but I do not recognise it as being linked with identity politics.


Yeah, this. Broken record here, but if Jordan Peterson thinks identity politics is post-modernism, then he _really_ doesn't understand post-modernist thought. 

EDIT - and, I guess, why that matters; I don't see how we cann have a conversation about post-modernism in academia, when the guy we're citing as proof that there is post-modernism in academia doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about. 

If you want to have a conversation about identity politics in academia, then sure - go for it. But I think you might be better off changing the name of this thread, or, better, just starting a new one. Because if anything I'd say identity politics as a concept is inherently _anti_-post-modern.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 1, 2018)

Drew said:


> Yeah, this. Broken record here, but if Jordan Peterson thinks identity politics is post-modernism, then he _really_ doesn't understand post-modernist thought.
> 
> EDIT - and, I guess, why that matters; I don't see how we cann have a conversation about post-modernism in academia, when the guy we're citing as proof that there is post-modernism in academia doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 
> If you want to have a conversation about identity politics in academia, then sure - go for it. But I think you might be better off changing the name of this thread, or, better, just starting a new one. Because if anything I'd say identity politics as a concept is inherently _anti_-post-modern.



this about sums it up.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 3, 2018)

Peterson has talked at length about the confusion you’re highlighting, Drew. You might want to look into that, but the abbreviated response is: postmodernism maintains that social structures are arbitrarily built for the sake of leveraging power for certain groups. The solution? Take the dominant group to task. What does that invariably entail? Bloody, illogical identity politics. Nobody accused these people of being intellectually honest.

Edit: in other words, postmodernism has it that there is no legitimate reason for there to be a dominant group, so identity politics is used to combat this unjust distribution of power. It’s not logically inconsistent until you get closer to the end game and realize that there is no philosophical underpinning, and that you’re being driven by nihilism and resentment.


----------



## Drew (Oct 3, 2018)

So, tl;dr, Peterson is an idiot, and the whole premise of this thread is kind of nonsensical?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 3, 2018)

Drew said:


> So, tl;dr, Peterson is an idiot, and the whole premise of this thread is kind of nonsensical?



That’s not what I was getting at. Peterson argues that postmodernism is effectively cultural nihilism, and that its critique on western culture has bloomed into full blown identity politics, which is predictable. He talks about how Marxism and postmodernism should be at odds with each other, but are somehow hand-in-hand on college campuses anyway. My point is that Peterson isn’t misidentifying whatever cultural force is spreading through academia - he’s identifying its absurdity. He’s a frighteningly intelligent guy, and I find that most of critics either aren’t understanding or aren’t trying to understand him, which is maybe even reasonable, since he often takes 3 hours to explain his point. Give him an honest chance if you find the time.


----------



## Drew (Oct 3, 2018)

If I'm using tl;dr to summarize an argument I'm unimpressed with, I probably don't have the time to give him three hours.  

I'll say you summary makes a little more sense, allthough I'd probably want more info on, and likely would question, his assertation that Marxism and postmodernism go hand in hand. If he's referring to the Hegelian dialectic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis and all that, then that's also well on the modernist and not postmodernist side of the debate. If by Marxism he means liberalism in the American political sense, however, then that's just sloppy, and makes it a lot easier to equate liberalism with identity politics being used to deconstruct the dominant power structure, and in fact that even makes a little more sense since identity politics aren't even the structure in play here, so much as the wedge used to go after it. 

Still... if he takes three hours to get to the point, and because of that often gets confused with a misogynist or a racist, he's doing himself no favors and could probably use a good editor.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 3, 2018)

Drew said:


> If I'm using tl;dr to summarize an argument I'm unimpressed with, I probably don't have the time to give him three hours.
> 
> I'll say you summary makes a little more sense, allthough I'd probably want more info on, and likely would question, his assertation that Marxism and postmodernism go hand in hand. If he's referring to the Hegelian dialectic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis and all that, then that's also well on the modernist and not postmodernist side of the debate. If by Marxism he means liberalism in the American political sense, however, then that's just sloppy, and makes it a lot easier to equate liberalism with identity politics being used to deconstruct the dominant power structure, and in fact that even makes a little more sense since identity politics aren't even the structure in play here, so much as the wedge used to go after it.
> 
> Still... if he takes three hours to get to the point, and because of that often gets confused with a misogynist or a racist, he's doing himself no favors and could probably use a good editor.



He does a brutally good job at explaining how postmodernism and Marxism are married in present day academia (again, he acknowledges that they absolutely shouldn’t be, if only it’s proponents were being intellectually thorough and honest), but the basic gist is: again, power structures are arbitrary, and serve the dominant group (here you have your postmodernism). The solution is to dethrone the dominant group and evenly distribute/diffuse power (here you have your Marxism), but not before clearly identifying the dominant group and, of course, ranking the dispossessed by degree of oppression (here you have your identity politics) in order to keep the score straight.

In any case, the only people calling him a racist or a misogynist are morons, saboteurs, and the people parroting them, because he has several hundred hours of lectures on YouTube and none of it contains a single racist or misogynistic remark. The memes that poke fun at the far left for calling everything racist are describing real people, and the charge against Jordan is a perfect example of that. He’s built a career on dismantling identity politics, so he might literally be the last guy to play that game.


----------



## wat (Oct 3, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Is this the same spposed free-speech advocate Jordan Peterson who claims to deal out harsh truths... but often threatens libel lawsuits when someone critiques his ideas?
> 
> Because that spells "snowflake."



Spreading false info, especially accusations (singling out students with the intention of making them targets for abuse, specifically) that could damage someone's career warrants some recourse. Hence, defamation laws. Hardly a free speech issue or a contradiction.


----------



## wat (Oct 3, 2018)

Double post


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 3, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> That’s not what I was getting at. Peterson argues that postmodernism is effectively cultural nihilism, and that its critique on western culture has bloomed into full blown identity politics, which is predictable. He talks about how Marxism and postmodernism should be at odds with each other, but are somehow hand-in-hand on college campuses anyway. My point is that Peterson isn’t misidentifying whatever cultural force is spreading through academia - he’s identifying its absurdity. He’s a frighteningly intelligent guy, and I find that most of critics either aren’t understanding or aren’t trying to understand him, which is maybe even reasonable, since he often takes 3 hours to explain his point. Give him an honest chance if you find the time.




As been stated before this argument makes no sense. There are no casual links between any of this stuff. He’s taking a small but very vocal group and equating that to a whole field of study. 

I studied post modernism for years in grad school and not one of the authors I worked on would ever advocate for identity politics. 

Also Peterson makes the problem a lot more pervasive then it appears. I went to college 10 years ago. My sister just graduated 3 years ago. I have a degree in political science. My sisters is in international relations and finance. 

I had one class where I was assigned anything remotely post modern. My sister read one book by Foucault the entire time she was at school. 

If you don’t like post modernism or your conservative or whatever that’s fine. 

But the way that Peterson works is that he attracts people who don’t actually want to engage with certain ideas and he makes those ideas seem terrible so you feel great for not wanting to engage with them in the first place. 

But that’s how most teachers teach now anyway.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 3, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> That’s not what I was getting at. Peterson argues that postmodernism is effectively cultural nihilism, and that its critique on western culture has bloomed into full blown identity politics, which is predictable. He talks about how Marxism and postmodernism should be at odds with each other, but are somehow hand-in-hand on college campuses anyway. My point is that Peterson isn’t misidentifying whatever cultural force is spreading through academia - he’s identifying its absurdity. He’s a frighteningly intelligent guy, and I find that most of critics either aren’t understanding or aren’t trying to understand him, which is maybe even reasonable, since he often takes 3 hours to explain his point. Give him an honest chance if you find the time.




As been stated before this argument makes no sense. There are no casual links between any of this stuff. He’s taking a small but very vocal group and equating that to a whole field of study. 

I studied post modernism for years in grad school and not one of the authors I worked on would ever advocate for identity politics. 

Also Peterson makes the problem a lot more pervasive then it appears. I went to college 10 years ago. My sister just graduated 3 years ago. I have a degree in political science. My sisters is in international relations and finance. 

I had one class where I was assigned anything remotely post modern. My sister read one book by Foucault the entire time she was at school. 

If you don’t like post modernism or your conservative or whatever that’s fine. 

But the way that Peterson works is that he attracts people who don’t actually want to engage with certain ideas and he makes those ideas seem terrible so you feel great for not wanting to engage with them in the first place. 

But that’s how most teachers teach now anyway.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

The way Peterson “works” is that he has spent decades painstakingly working out his arguments before the world outside of his classroom took an interest in them. He’s incredibly thorough and open to improvement and criticism, and consequently quick to point out the peculiarities of his arguments, like, for example, for the 4th time, the marriage of postmodernism and cultural Marxism, despite their apparent incompatibility. I already gave an abridged explanation as to how these ideas play out together. For starters, postmodernism is ill-defined as a rule, and it’s easy enough to make the case that it’s nothing more than an intellectual expression of nihilism. It’s also easy to argue that Marxism is a fundamentally nihilistic philosophy. Resentment and nihilism is the “causal link” between the two, and if you ask Peterson, the only substance in both philosophies. And its actually a compelling argument.

All you have to do is spend any amount of time on social media where millennials are discussing social and political issues to see the traction these ideas are gaining, and it’s really just not controversial to say that the universities have played a meaningful role to that end. My girlfriend, for example, while in college, heard the phrase “dead white European male” so often that she became numb to it. You might not see a pattern or a problem, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

Edit: for the record, I think of myself as left-leaning, and for that matter, I think Peterson sits closer to Left-Center than not. Not sure this matters, but intuitively seems like a relevant bit of context.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 4, 2018)

That’s like saying medicine is defined by a specific speciality or philosophy means what one guy thought. 

Post modernism isn’t ill defined. It’s a school of thought that’s very broadly defined. Whatever gave root to identity politics is a very very very small part of it. 

Peterson’s attacks on identity politics are fine. His arguments against post modernism are non sense. 

I don’t think the posters here could be any more clear on that.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

Postmodernism is nihilistic. I don’t see any way around that.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

Or, better yet, there’s virtually no difference between postmodernism and nihilism as philosophical forces in society - whether you’re dismantling social hierarchies as a postmodernist or a nihilist, you’re doing so because you are convinced that they lack actual value. Again, I don’t see anyway around that. The argument is that any postmodernist claiming to be without nihilistic sentiments is ill-informed, confused, or in denial, because that’s what sits at the bottom.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 4, 2018)

sure why not.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

I don’t know - you tell me.


----------



## Drew (Oct 4, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The solution is to dethrone the dominant group and evenly distribute/diffuse power (here you have your Marxism)...



...but, again, that doesn't sound at all like Marxism to me, or at least is a super generalized, generic reading wherein you throw the economic classes of proletariat and bourgeois out the window, and instead apply Marx's economic structuralist model to ANY (economic or otherwise) power structure, which, hey, is a totally valid postmodern move even if it ignores most of what makes Marxism Marxism, but then it's hard to turn around after deconstructing Marxism into pure structuralism and say, "no, but really, this IS actually Marxism."


----------



## Drew (Oct 4, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Or, better yet, there’s virtually no difference between postmodernism and nihilism as philosophical forces in society - whether you’re dismantling social hierarchies as a postmodernist or a nihilist, you’re doing so because you are convinced that they lack actual value. Again, I don’t see anyway around that. The argument is that any postmodernist claiming to be without nihilistic sentiments is ill-informed, confused, or in denial, because that’s what sits at the bottom.


Disagree - intrinsic in postmodernism isnt just the sure-let's-call-it-nihilistic deconstructionist viewpoint, but also the concept of play, and that a world with no structural identity frees you to reassemble the pieces as you personally see fit. 

Which, per my previous post, is actually a very postmodernist thing to do... But then you can't turn around and pretend that it's NOT happening, and that a deconstructed Marxism is actually Marxism.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

But the world does have a “structural identity” - this is where Peterson invokes the lobster and points out that the dominance hierarchy is 350 million years old. “It’s in there, man.” Your entire dopaminergic system is constantly involved in “play” with respect to the dominance hierarchy (that is, put crudely, all of your motivations come from your perceived social status, and what you believe your potential is) and so the person who wishes to dismantle the entire thing is nihilistic and resentful under the surface, whether they know it or not. This is very Jungian stuff, actually.

And, yes, Marx was concerned with classism, whereas these postmodern cultural marxists are very much concerned with group identity, which is honestly not terribly different in essence, and in some sense is exactly the same. You identify your socioeconomic oppressors, build the case that they’re responsible for the senseless suffering all around you, and then attempt to redistribute the power they hold. Why? Because you care about the disenfranchised and believe in equality, of course, and are enlightened enough to understand the social mechanisms that have resulted in a disproportionate distribution of wealth and power, Right? It definitely has nothing to do with resentment for those who outrank you on the dominance hierarchy, because you’ve done the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe, right? Not likely, says Peterson.


----------



## Drew (Oct 4, 2018)

I'm sorry.

1) If Peterson claims to be a post-modernist, but in the same breath makes arguments like "the world does have a structural identity," then he's a modernist an d structuralist masquerading as a post-modernist.
2) Use of phrases like "cultural marxist" is probably one of the reasons Peterson runs afoul of people who suspect he has alt-right affinities, but moving past that, he's basically trying to say Marxism and neo-Marxism are the same thing, which they aren't.
3) Arguing that doing "...the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe..." _doesn't _protect you from claims of being motivated by resentment, in turn, doesn't absolve the person _making the argument against this_ from claims they themselves are motivated by resentment and a desire to keep the existing power structure in place, which unless I'm greatly mistaken is a criticism, I'm sure you'd say unfairly, often lobbed at Peterson, no?

To me this really sounds like Peterson is getting kind of loosey-goosey with a whole bunch of definitions in order to bend them enough to hang an argument together, and I don't buy it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 4, 2018)

...Peterson doesn’t identify as a post-modernist. I don’t think you’re following, Drew, because I thought that was abundantly clear. He doesn’t claim that the current power structures are without corruption, or that they’re perfect as is. It’s not as if there’s no middle ground between status-quo and complete deconstruction. Going with the Jungian/archetype thing, much of his lectures are about how cultural structures are inherent, but subject to absolute corruption. That a system is corrupt doesn’t make it inherently bad (which is what the postmodernists in question might tell you, and what virtually any Marxist would tell you of western culture/economy), and indeed can be renewed. This a painfully crude abbreviation, and you might actually enjoy his lectures about it. Likewise, a painfully crude interpretation is that Jordan is an advocate of the corrupt system, but that’s just not true.

Edit: I don’t want to put words in his mouth and say that he’s equating neo-Marxism with Marxism (to memory, he more often uses the term neo-Marxism). But, the theme of redistributing the power unfairly wielded by the elite group is consistent in both, and that’s all that really matters, because he’s addressing the motivations behind these and similar ideologies. He’s describing cultural/social phenomena whether or not you agree with his language (and I’m not at all convinced that you’re understanding his language well enough to disagree with it, nor am I claiming to relay his ideas to you verbatim). Again, the guy is brutally sharp and thorough, and it’s better to get it from him.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 4, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> brutally good job at explaining


It's very possible that I'm just an idiot, and without knowing ahead of time what postmodernism is, and being entirely "uneducated" in the world of identity politics (or really any politics), this all goes over my head - but I don't think anyone has done any good job of explaining _anything_.

It all sounds like nonsense to me. Like people trying to sound smarter than everyone around them. Like people trying very hard to deconstruct the world around them in terms that justify their politics. But what's the practical value of any of this if nobody is communicating on the same level, or defining things the same way, etc?

I mean it's all great if a handful of Very Smart People have decided they've figured the world out, but it means nothing to the average idiot like me who just wants to go about his day without being called a sexist for no reason or something like that.

I have nothing clever to contribute, I just think it's all ridiculous. All the philosophy and politics and identity stuff is, as far as is meaningful to me, ridiculous.

Feel free to "educate me" on how wrong I am to undervalue these things, but I challenge you to put such a thing into practical terms for an average person rather than diving down some academic rabbit hole.


----------



## narad (Oct 5, 2018)

TedEH said:


> It all sounds like nonsense to me. Like people trying to sound smarter than everyone around them. Like people trying very hard to deconstruct the world around them in terms that justify their politics. But what's the practical value of any of this if nobody is communicating on the same level, or defining things the same way, etc?



Kinda in the same boat. Can anyone just rephrase in like 5 sentences, using everyday words, what/why to care? People could waffle for 3 pages regarding whether or not they're both using the same definition of postmodernism, or you could just _not use that term_.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Oct 5, 2018)

Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Did you just make a thread reducing the question of whether or not equality-of-outcome can be imposed without tyranny to a dichotomy of left vs right, and then invite the great political minds of sevenstring.org to explain it?


----------



## Drew (Oct 5, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...Peterson doesn’t identify as a post-modernist. I don’t think you’re following, Drew, because I thought that was abundantly clear. He doesn’t claim that the current power structures are without corruption, or that they’re perfect as is. It’s not as if there’s no middle ground between status-quo and complete deconstruction. Going with the Jungian/archetype thing, much of his lectures are about how cultural structures are inherent, but subject to absolute corruption. That a system is corrupt doesn’t make it inherently bad (which is what the postmodernists in question might tell you, and what virtually any Marxist would tell you of western culture/economy), and indeed can be renewed. This a painfully crude abbreviation, and you might actually enjoy his lectures about it. Likewise, a painfully crude interpretation is that Jordan is an advocate of the corrupt system, but that’s just not true.
> 
> Edit: I don’t want to put words in his mouth and say that he’s equating neo-Marxism with Marxism (to memory, he more often uses the term neo-Marxism). But, the theme of redistributing the power unfairly wielded by the elite group is consistent in both, and that’s all that really matters, because he’s addressing the motivations behind these and similar ideologies. He’s describing cultural/social phenomena whether or not you agree with his language (and I’m not at all convinced that you’re understanding his language well enough to disagree with it, nor am I claiming to relay his ideas to you verbatim). Again, the guy is brutally sharp and thorough, and it’s better to get it from him.


Ok, then strike point one - Peterson is probably a modernist/structuralist, but that still leaves point 2 - that Marxism and neo-Marxism are different things that Peterson seems to be conflating, and point 3, that accusing the other side of being driven by resentment doesn't prove that you yourself aren't driven by a desire to keep what you have. 

Idunno. This is besides the point. The whole idea that there's some sort of postmodernist twist in higher ed, because identity politics, is nonsensical.


----------



## Drew (Oct 5, 2018)

TedEH said:


> Feel free to "educate me" on how wrong I am to undervalue these things, but I challenge you to put such a thing into practical terms for an average person rather than diving down some academic rabbit hole.


I mean, at the most literal level, this is the politics and current events forum, so of COURSE we're going down a nonsensical rabbit hole.  

Structuralism and post-modernism are the sort of things that are kind of tough to put into plain english, because fundamentally they're attempts to describe the way we know things. But basically on one hand you have a structuralist/modernist way of seeing the world where things like identity _exist_, for example, whereas post-modernism is the belief that things like iidentity are just constructed human conventions and sort of intellectual shorthand but there isn't actually any fundamental truth to them and they're really just artificial human constructions, and as such you're perfectly free to tear them apart and reassemble them however you see fit.


----------



## fps (Oct 10, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Or, better yet, there’s virtually no difference between postmodernism and nihilism as philosophical forces in society - whether you’re dismantling social hierarchies as a postmodernist or a nihilist, you’re doing so because you are convinced that they lack actual value. Again, I don’t see anyway around that. The argument is that any postmodernist claiming to be without nihilistic sentiments is ill-informed, confused, or in denial, because that’s what sits at the bottom.



I like the post, but back Drew who finds merit in the sense of play, playing with structures, poking the eye of them, yet ultimately relying on them as the thing which is kicked against, and provides the material. I don't think that necessarily has to mean a willingness to dismantle those structures.

I can see where there would be correlation between postmodernism and nihilism in the recognition of the lack of value, in your personal response, to these things, but one can still recognise the value others place in the structures, and indeed that's part of the charm of mashing them up and wilfully baffling an audience. I see a closer connection to existentialism than nihilism, in fact, because it's taking in all culture and input within a single moment and trying to respond to it in a single moment. But these are broad generalisations I'm making due to lack of time, sorry.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 11, 2018)

The mistake is in thinking that culture is an arbitrary set of ideas and habits that you have to actively choose to participate in. I’m not exactly a biological determinist, but when somebody says that culture and hierarchy are social constructs, I always say “constructed from what?” It’s like, you have to trace it back to something, and to say that you can trace it back to the playful experimentation of a free agent is a bit careless. Free will exists (as far as I can tell, but this is a whole other can of worms), but there are rules (biology, environment, physics) and they significantly limit the scope of the “game,” such that you don’t really have the luxury of being a post-modernist if you wanted to. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but rejecting biology, nature, and the intuition that life is worth doing right (that is, living in a way that is meaningful) is nihilism, no matter how you word it or sugar coat it.


----------



## Drew (Oct 11, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The mistake is in thinking that culture is an arbitrary set of ideas and habits that you have to actively choose to participate in. I’m not exactly a biological determinist, but when somebody says that culture and hierarchy are social constructs, I always say “constructed from what?” It’s like, you have to trace it back to something, and to say that you can trace it back to the playful experimentation of a free agent is a bit careless. Free will exists (as far as I can tell, but this is a whole other can of worms), but there are rules (biology, environment, physics) and they significantly limit the scope of the “game,” such that you don’t really have the luxury of being a post-modernist if you wanted to. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but rejecting biology, nature, and the intuition that life is worth doing right (that is, living in a way that is meaningful) is nihilism, no matter how you word it or sugar coat it.


...so, you, along with Peterson, are both modernists?

I strongly disagree with your claim that post-modernism is nihilism, but whatever.


----------



## fps (Oct 11, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The mistake is in thinking that culture is an arbitrary set of ideas and habits that you have to actively choose to participate in. I’m not exactly a biological determinist, but when somebody says that culture and hierarchy are social constructs, I always say “constructed from what?” It’s like, you have to trace it back to something, and to say that you can trace it back to the playful experimentation of a free agent is a bit careless. Free will exists (as far as I can tell, but this is a whole other can of worms), but there are rules (biology, environment, physics) and they significantly limit the scope of the “game,” such that you don’t really have the luxury of being a post-modernist if you wanted to. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but rejecting biology, nature, and the intuition that life is worth doing right (that is, living in a way that is meaningful) is nihilism, no matter how you word it or sugar coat it.



I think we can say culture can be constructed from the human urge and need to interact, and the potential for culture within any group of individuals thrown together, can't we? It's certainly interaction rather than free agents. I don't understand the bit from there where you say no-one has the "luxury" of being a post-modernist - I think many people do, and of course the personal and professional are also different spheres in this regard. Not that post-modernism is necessarily linked to any financial system, unless we're drawing everything to its extreme conclusions.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 21, 2018)

After accidentally running across a Reddit story (veracity unknown) from a guy whose girlfriend left him after he took her to a Jordan Peterson lecture, I did a little more reading. 

I was amused and surprised/not surprised to see that Peterson has a lecture about male privilege being a lie, and that he misunderstands how serotonin works in the human brain.


----------



## Azathoth43 (Jan 15, 2019)

vilk said:


> Please don't take it the wrong way, but every time I read this kind of sob story it comes across as excuses and blaming others for your poor marks. I went to a big 10 school and saw firsthand people make these exact same kind of cop-out excuses in an attempt to reconcile that they simply didn't do as well as they thought they deserved to.
> 
> Let me let you in on a secret: even politically left-leaning students earn poor marks. They even sometimes think they deserve better and try to blame the professor; they just don't blame the 'evil jew libral indoctrination brainwash machine'
> 
> Maybe what you say did really happen, I'm sure it's not impossible. I'm just sayin'.




Neat trick trying to make him into an anti-semite.


----------



## narad (Jan 15, 2019)

Having now listened to a million Joe Rogan podcasts, I've transitioned from not understanding what anyone here was saying to wishing I didn't understand what anyone here was saying.


----------

