home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Crap/Not Crap

Crap
67
88%
Not Crap
9
12%
 
Total votes : 76

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Anthony Flack on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:25 pm

PS you don't "roll" a bowl.
Anthony Flack
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9107
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby kokorodoko on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:33 pm

GrantMcNeilly wrote:my own personal definition of feminism has always been defined as male discomfort / hatred for the female physical body

Could you elaborate on this? What does this hatred, discomfort or anxiety look like? And what leads you to view this as the primary factor in inequality between the sexes?
Janeway wrote:those cat-food-for-lunch-deserving motherfuckers 8)
User avatar
kokorodoko
deep blue
deep blue
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: The Ultra Zone

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Anthony Flack on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:34 pm

Riff Magnum wrote:I mean Trump comes out the other day and actually stands up to the NRA. Holy shit!! Wow!! Cool!!
Then he says we oughta arm teachers......oh well, for this guy one decent thought a day is progress.
But no, each side boos and cheers at the designated and predetermined times with no deviation in the script.


Mm, Trump was praised by gun control groups and slammed by the NRA for those statements. I think though that a lot of people did keep in mind that Trump is completely full of shit.

So anyway he's now had a great (really GREAT!) meeting with the NRA and has announced a slight change of plan... he's not going to do anything whatsoever.

Image

Cognitive dissonance over! Phew.
Last edited by Anthony Flack on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anthony Flack
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9107
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Riff Magnum on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:34 pm

blackmarket wrote:
Riff Magnum wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:my own personal definition of feminism has always been defined as male discomfort / hatred for the female physical body


Feminism strives for equality of the sexes. It has nothing to do with hatred of one thing or another or even bodies for that matter.


Thank you for telling me, a woman what feminism is i appreciate it.


You seem to be confused, so no problem.


Quit being cute, I specified what it meant to me and most feminists have different definitions of it. Just because second wave feminism is unfashionable doesn't mean it's extinct.


In that weinstein interview, his wife Heather said something interesting and i'm paraphrasing here: "Symmetry is not the same thing as equality" as it relates to male/female relations. I think I know what she means by that, but I wonder what you thought about that if you watched it?


I haven't seen that interview and probably won't, but...symmetry would means that two things are exactly the alike. If used to in an attempt to take down Feminism, it's a straw man argument. A logical fallacy. Feminism seeks and equal right of self-determination among the sexes. No two people are exactly alike, man and man/woman and woman/woman and man, so saying that Feminism wants symmetry is laughable on it face. Symmetry is am impossible thing. Anyone who proposes that Feminism seeks symmetry can be discounted immediately as a likely misogynist shill.



jump to conclusions much?
That's pretty much what she's saying in the interview. Women who confuse symmetry with equality are deceiving themselves. A forced "balancing" of the scales is not real equality, it's just people on both sides behaving badly. I think she was talking about the initial stages of the women's lib movement. This constant action, reaction, action, overreaction that's been happening in order to find equilibrium.
User avatar
Riff Magnum
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:58 am
Location: Fort Worthless

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Riff Magnum on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:36 pm

Anthony Flack wrote:PS you don't "roll" a bowl.


Haha!! When I used to smoke weed that was a common expression among the cool kids. I think it's funny.
User avatar
Riff Magnum
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:58 am
Location: Fort Worthless

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby GrantMcNeilly on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:38 pm

kokorodoko wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:my own personal definition of feminism has always been defined as male discomfort / hatred for the female physical body

Could you elaborate on this? What does this hatred, discomfort or anxiety look like? And what leads you to view this as the primary factor in inequality between the sexes?


I've already gotten flack for it in this thread and I'm not interested in people piling on me for my own beliefs, but in general I believe that the primary barrier to women achieving equality, throughout history, as been male anxiety about the female body. This hatred takes various social forms, such as women being considered nymphomaniacs by the ancient greeks or frigid by the Victorians, so it certainly has nothing to do with a consistency in female 'nature' or patterns of behavior. I think it's the primary factor in inequality in the sexes because it is one of the easiest thing for men to fall back on whenever they are under economic / social burdens. I tend to think inequality is something that occurs from visual cues and not behavior - really stupid, basic shit like that.
TheMilford wrote: We're talking about TV here, not a Slint record or Albert Camus....
User avatar
GrantMcNeilly
dr. j
dr. j
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby blackmarket on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:41 pm

Riff Magnum wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
Riff Magnum wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
GrantMcNeilly wrote:my own personal definition of feminism has always been defined as male discomfort / hatred for the female physical body


Feminism strives for equality of the sexes. It has nothing to do with hatred of one thing or another or even bodies for that matter.


Thank you for telling me, a woman what feminism is i appreciate it.


You seem to be confused, so no problem.


Quit being cute, I specified what it meant to me and most feminists have different definitions of it. Just because second wave feminism is unfashionable doesn't mean it's extinct.


In that weinstein interview, his wife Heather said something interesting and i'm paraphrasing here: "Symmetry is not the same thing as equality" as it relates to male/female relations. I think I know what she means by that, but I wonder what you thought about that if you watched it?


I haven't seen that interview and probably won't, but...symmetry would means that two things are exactly the alike. If used to in an attempt to take down Feminism, it's a straw man argument. A logical fallacy. Feminism seeks and equal right of self-determination among the sexes. No two people are exactly alike, man and man/woman and woman/woman and man, so saying that Feminism wants symmetry is laughable on it face. Symmetry is am impossible thing. Anyone who proposes that Feminism seeks symmetry can be discounted immediately as a likely misogynist shill.



jump to conclusions much?
That's pretty much what she's saying in the interview. Women who confuse symmetry with equality are deceiving themselves.


Again, if used to take down Feminism, it is a straw man argument. Who are these feminists proposing the impossible scenario of symmetry? I'm pretty sure they don't exist. I have never met a feminist who thought this way. It sounds like an idea that came from someone who, passive-aggressively, seeks to put a chink in the Leftist's armor by making things up.
User avatar
blackmarket
meatball enthusiast
meatball enthusiast
 
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Riff Magnum on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:44 pm

Anthony Flack wrote:
Riff Magnum wrote:I mean Trump comes out the other day and actually stands up to the NRA. Holy shit!! Wow!! Cool!!
Then he says we oughta arm teachers......oh well, for this guy one decent thought a day is progress.
But no, each side boos and cheers at the designated and predetermined times with no deviation in the script.


Mm, Trump was praised by gun control groups and slammed by the NRA for those statements. I think though that a lot of people did keep in mind that Trump is completely full of shit.

So anyway he's now had a great (really GREAT!) meeting with the NRA and has announced a slight change of plan... he's not going to do anything whatsoever.

Image

Cognitive dissonance over! Phew.


You're probably right. I was talking more about individuals though. Trump haters won't ever give him any props and maybe that's totally deserved, I dunno. It's just not a productive way to operate long term.
Walmart came out and said they won't sell guns to anyone under 21 and won't sell anything that even looks like an assault rifle, even toys.
Can't fucking believe this, but I feel like it has more to do with those kids going to the florida state legislature than anything Trump did.
I'm fine with slow progress as long as it's progress in the right direction.
User avatar
Riff Magnum
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:58 am
Location: Fort Worthless

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby kokorodoko on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:46 pm

Grant McNeilly wrote:I've already gotten flack for it in this thread and I'm not interested in people piling on me for my own beliefs, but in general I believe that the primary barrier to women achieving equality, throughout history, as been male anxiety about the female body. This hatred takes various social forms, such as women being considered nymphomaniacs by the ancient greeks or frigid by the Victorians, so it certainly has nothing to do with a consistency in female 'nature' or patterns of behavior. I think it's the primary factor in inequality in the sexes because it is one of the easiest thing for men to fall back on whenever they are under economic / social burdens. I tend to think inequality is something that occurs from visual cues and not behavior - really stupid, basic shit like that.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. The examples you brought up makes me think of men having fear of female freedom, thus no matter what type of behaviour she chooses it is wrong, but that can't be it since you specifically talked about hatred of the physical body. Also the last part I didn't get, visual cues and not behaviour?

If you don't want to stir up a debate I understand, but I am genuinely interested.
Janeway wrote:those cat-food-for-lunch-deserving motherfuckers 8)
User avatar
kokorodoko
deep blue
deep blue
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: The Ultra Zone

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby blackmarket on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:52 pm

Riff Magnum wrote:
Anthony Flack wrote:
Riff Magnum wrote:I mean Trump comes out the other day and actually stands up to the NRA. Holy shit!! Wow!! Cool!!
Then he says we oughta arm teachers......oh well, for this guy one decent thought a day is progress.
But no, each side boos and cheers at the designated and predetermined times with no deviation in the script.


Mm, Trump was praised by gun control groups and slammed by the NRA for those statements. I think though that a lot of people did keep in mind that Trump is completely full of shit.

So anyway he's now had a great (really GREAT!) meeting with the NRA and has announced a slight change of plan... he's not going to do anything whatsoever.

Image

Cognitive dissonance over! Phew.


You're probably right. I was talking more about individuals though. Trump haters won't ever give him any props and maybe that's totally deserved, I dunno. It's just not a productive way to operate long term.


Umm...why would Liberals, progressives, and Leftists give props to 45 for saying something? He is famous for flipping and doing/Tweeting the opposite the very next day. It's kind of what defines his presidency.
User avatar
blackmarket
meatball enthusiast
meatball enthusiast
 
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby GrantMcNeilly on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:53 pm

kokorodoko wrote:I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. The examples you brought up makes me think of men having fear of female freedom, thus no matter what type of behaviour she chooses it is wrong, but that can't be it since you specifically talked about hatred of the physical body. Also the last part I didn't get, visual cues and not behaviour?

If you don't want to stir up a debate I understand, but I am genuinely interested.


No it's fine. In general, I think of things very externally - I think that, most of the time, intolerance comes from the side of the oppressor more than the oppressed. I feel that men fear female freedom precisely because they look different from themselves and have a different body from themselves. These men would not think to be exerting their beliefs on women's sexuality if the women didn't have different sexual organs, weren't capable of having babies, etc.

Moreover, it's important to remember here that the concept of 'freedom' is a fluid one, and the female body much less so, and much less restricted to variation across time and space (although it has changed, certainly - just not as much as our concepts of freedom and autonomy, which should tell us something). As I've said before, I think the distancing of discussions of feminism and gender from material, physical considerations has accompanied a move in the last 40 years of distancing of material considerations in general when it comes to explaining things (this was MUCH more prevalent back in the day when people were still Marxists, or Freudians, etc. it is less popular in a knowledge economy).
TheMilford wrote: We're talking about TV here, not a Slint record or Albert Camus....
User avatar
GrantMcNeilly
dr. j
dr. j
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Me Again on Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:58 pm

This Peterson guy strikes me as far too much of a "wanker" to devote 21 pages to, like the schlub author who wrote The 48 Laws of Power who isn't known for anything but his dumb, horribly misguided and derivative books.

Last year it was Milo What's-his-face, now it's this guy.

Trolls come in all shapes and sizes, I guess.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
...with Euro-Sprockets coming at you from every direction.
User avatar
Me Again
tommy vercetti
tommy vercetti
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:08 am

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby famousjunkie on Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:52 pm

Me Again wrote:This Peterson guy strikes me as far too much of a "wanker" to devote 21 pages to, like the schlub author who wrote The 48 Laws of Power who isn't known for anything but his dumb, horribly misguided and derivative books.

Last year it was Milo What's-his-face, now it's this guy.

Trolls come in all shapes and sizes, I guess.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Eh, take a look at the last few pages and we're hardly talking about the man himself but are instead essentially dusting off media fluff in order to debate the fuckin' is/ought problem.
Last edited by famousjunkie on Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
famousjunkie
ollie
ollie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby famousjunkie on Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:15 pm

GrantMcNeilly wrote:
Riff Magnum wrote:It's enlightenment or nothing, huh?
Fair enough, but everything they talk about is relevant to the discussion we're having, especially when you consider both Bret and his wife Heather lost their teaching jobs at Evergreen because he came to school and taught on a "white people stay home" day.


You've brought up Weinstein a couple times now and I just wanted to chime in about this. Yes, what happened to Weinstein was horrible, but to get stuck on it is really to fundamentally misunderstand what academia is about (and I think this is one of the reasons that there are a lot of complaints about the liberal bias in academia, etc). In general, academia - especially in its higher echelons - is about catering to the wealthiest members of society in ways that are going to make them feel good about themselves / make them feel like they have as much power over the world as they can possibly have. Yes, great work is being done, but you can really see academic ideas as a riff on protestant theology in promoting a capitalist work ethic / self-restraint / resistance, etc, since that is at the origins of these colleges and 'modernity' itself, which most of these courses are obsessed with, has protestant roots. Such theories definitely do lend themselves to the work of thinkers like Foucault, Judith Butler, and all those people who scare Peterson because it's about promoting personal agency, especially in regards to material considerations (this goes for Marxism as well - what could be more modern than completely abstracting material considerations and saying they work according to a dialectic?). When academia embraces far left ideas about equality, abstraction, etc, it is meant to make the student feel empowered and provide them with a sense of autonomy, and education and the rhetoric it uses is a form of cultural capital. This isn't a case of brainwashing students from above, it is a mutual interaction between students of a certain influential economic background and professors based on class. The only way people get freaked out about this is, perhaps, when they aren't involved (and let's face it, this is why people who AREN'T in control of their material circumstances are often disdainful of the humanities, or feel somehow betrayed for spending so much money on being an English major, or whatever).

In other words, there is a high demand for humanities courses that are abstract and empowering, a high demand from very wealthy, privileged people, and so that is the output (colleges ARE dictated by market considerations, one mustn't forget that). One can freak out about what happened to Weinstein, but if there was not demand for the material that's being taught in those humanities courses that got him in trouble, that never would have happened. Weinstein did not help his cause by going on Dave Rubin and a bunch of other right wing talk shows. He can't help himself from looking at things in a biological way (the same way James Watson can't really help being a racist because he looks at everything genetically), but he's shown an incredible amount of thick-headedness when navigating how to work this out.


Hm. Clearly, you are talking about something that is happening at a certain level (meaning, at the level which decides curricula), but it seems a bit condescending to reduce not only entire bodies of work but the decisions to engage said bodies of work internationally to merely serving up the fancies of a privileged class. I can understand it as a passing psychological read, but we can't write off academia as a whole like that, right?

You mention a "demand" for this kind of material, but I'm unsure of whether you mean an unconscious demand or direct, particular demand (which would be wanting of evidence).

And re: Watson and genetics, be sure that the link between race and genetics is itself highly debated territory. One shouldn't count on a geneticist tending toward this or that perspective.
famousjunkie
ollie
ollie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby GrantMcNeilly on Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:30 pm

famousjunkie wrote:Hm. Clearly, you are talking about something that is happening at a certain level (meaning, at the level which decides curricula), but it seems a bit condescending to reduce not only entire bodies of work but the decisions to engage said bodies of work internationally to merely serving up the fancies of a privileged class. I can understand it as a passing psychological read, but we can't write off academia as a whole like that, right?


For the purposes of this conversation I was zero-ing in on the trends in academia that Peterson involves himself with, French post-structuralism and whatnot. Academia has many, MANY different trends (I am currently standing in the middle of 3 very different ones right now). I would venture to say, however, that there is some level of demand for all of them.

You mention a "demand" for this kind of material, but I'm unsure of whether you mean an unconscious demand or direct, particular demand (which would be wanting of evidence).


There are several funding bodies for the humanities all around the world, and most of the time who gets funding depends on research that appeals to both other scholars AND the interests of the funding bodies, or sometimes just patrons, themselves. The interests of the latter groups often have to do with social and political issues that are familiar to everyone. It is usually very straightforward. But importantly - especially in America - these funding bodies do NOT tend to come from the government.

And re: Watson and genetics, be sure that the link between race and genetics is itself highly debated territory. One shouldn't count on a geneticist tending toward this or that perspective.


I actually read an article by an acquaintance of watson who said that he tends to look at most things from the genetic perspective, which is why i used him as an example. I can try to dig it up if you want it.
TheMilford wrote: We're talking about TV here, not a Slint record or Albert Camus....
User avatar
GrantMcNeilly
dr. j
dr. j
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby famousjunkie on Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:40 pm

GrantMcNeilly wrote:
For the purposes of this conversation I was zero-ing in on the trends in academia that Peterson involves himself with, French post-structuralism and whatnot. Academia has many, MANY different trends (I am currently standing in the middle of 3 very different ones right now).


Yes, but even zeroing in on post-structuralism, I find that perspective a bit lacking. Foucault and Butler are studied almost everywhere (in the humanities).

There are several funding bodies for the humanities all around the world, and most of the time who gets funding depends on research that appeals to both other scholars AND the interests of the funding bodies, or sometimes just patrons, themselves. The interests of the latter groups often have to do with social and political issues that are familiar to everyone. It is usually very straightforward. But importantly - especially in America - these funding bodies do NOT tend to come from the government.


I don't doubt that this is true, but to be fair, you made the point that a certain class favors and has influence over a certain curriculum. I am totally open to this idea, but really -- where do you get it from?

I actually read an article by an acquaintance of watson who said that he tends to look at most things from the genetic perspective, which is why i used him as an example. I can try to dig it up if you want it.


Right, but what I was trying to get at is that not everybody would agree that looking at everything from a genetic perspective would imply looking at it from a race perspective.
famousjunkie
ollie
ollie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby GrantMcNeilly on Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:54 pm

famousjunkie wrote:Yes, but even zeroing in on post-structuralism, I find that perspective a bit lacking. Foucault and Butler are studied almost everywhere (in the humanities).


I'm not entirely following what you're saying. My perspective is my perspective, it doesn't mean you have to agree with it. I think thinkers like Foucault and Butler are extremely congenial our contemporary concepts of individualism, it makes sense that they are studied everywhere. I think there is a high demand of people who want to read what they've written, as their work is appealing both for their hyper-critical outlook, ideas of decentralized power and performativity, and rhetorical flourish. All of these things are in high demand and, in fact, extremely useful both as a way of shifting one's perspective and as a form of cultural capital. More than anything though I think their work contributes to an idea of control in the reader, Foucault ironically by emphasizing the awareness of one's lack of control, and Butler by emphasizing transgressive acts. And hey, if power is everywhere you have a zillion more chances to shake things up and make money than you did before, amiright?

In the most general sense the humanities tend to be focused squarely on 'modernity' and the practice of resistance that emerged from Protestantism. Right now it's about resisting against "modernity" and "the canon", in the same way "modernity" itself was an enlightenment form of resisting religion, and Protestantism resisted Catholicism, and so forth and so on. In this sense Foucault and Butler are working in a long tradition (Foucault, notably, attempting to resist that idea of resistance). A lot of academia is about resistance. And so a lot of academics tend to write in this manner, it's not a big secret. I think that this kind of 'resistance' work that academia does, which really as an institution emerged from Protestantism, is very conducive to capitalism as well, as capitalism in a lot of way is also intimately connected to Protestantism. That is my opinion, but these traditions are VERY strong and overt when you study because those are the works most people are engaging with.

I don't doubt that this is true, but to be fair, you made the point that a certain class favors and has influence over a certain curriculum. I am totally open to this idea, but really -- where do you get it from?


I wasn't really talking about a certain curriculum, I think that certain funding bodies, which only come from certain classes, obviously, go out of their way to fund the humanities, and often with express political purposes in mind. I know this from my experience with academics who are constantly looking for funding, and from my own attempts at getting funding for my research - you need to accomodate your research to topics that are politically and economically relevant. The bottom line of most of the grants one apply for are, generally, modernity, diversity, and the emergence of capitalism.

Right, but what I was trying to get at is that not everybody would agree that looking at everything from a genetic perspective would imply looking at it from a race perspective.


I didn't really mean to suggest that, sorry if i was unclear. In the same way i don't think every biologist would react the way Weinstein has, we just shouldn't be surprised if he goes that route.
TheMilford wrote: We're talking about TV here, not a Slint record or Albert Camus....
User avatar
GrantMcNeilly
dr. j
dr. j
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby Janeway on Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:10 am

this thread is blowing my mind. what are some of the trends in academia? i liked where that was going
Kayte wrote: i'm like, pour me a fucking synthohol bish.
User avatar
Janeway
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3892
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: here

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby GrantMcNeilly on Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:38 am

Janeway wrote:this thread is blowing my mind. what are some of the trends in academia? i liked where that was going


if you're referring to what i wrote about, with the 'three different' strands, I'd say that I'm involved with three different traditions of humanistic thought at the moment, one coming from America, one coming from the UK, and one coming from Italy. In general all three are VERY different.
Both European academic perspectives are highly nationalized. The UK's perspective is extremely straightforward, materially-focused and un-rhetorical (this is at least the Oxbridge approach, i think it's pretty different at other UK universities, especially goldsmiths. I have quite a few friends at UCL though and it seems largely the same). The Italian perspective, in contrast, is EXTREMELY abstract, coming from over a century of idealism and now almost another century of marxist theorizing.
The US is more open-minded and fluid, but also less politically involved and easier to dismiss. You can have the most satisfying personal intellectual experience in the US, but the end result of a lot of work that tends to come out of the stuff i read is, you know, 'resistance resistance resistance' etc etc etc and it gets super tiresome.

In the end, you can see echoes of government administration in the way academia is set up in these different countries. The stakes are much higher, and the pay is much higher, in the US, so you have more of a culture of academic superstars and self-assertion, etc. In the UK what i've found is more of a community, with a kind of elite forum of intellectuals regulating what's going on beneath. I know about the Italian administration much less but it's VERY much a closed group.
TheMilford wrote: We're talking about TV here, not a Slint record or Albert Camus....
User avatar
GrantMcNeilly
dr. j
dr. j
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Alt-right darling: Jordan Peterson

Postby kokorodoko on Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:36 am

GrantMcNeilly wrote:No it's fine. In general, I think of things very externally - I think that, most of the time, intolerance comes from the side of the oppressor more than the oppressed. I feel that men fear female freedom precisely because they look different from themselves and have a different body from themselves. These men would not think to be exerting their beliefs on women's sexuality if the women didn't have different sexual organs, weren't capable of having babies, etc.

Moreover, it's important to remember here that the concept of 'freedom' is a fluid one, and the female body much less so, and much less restricted to variation across time and space (although it has changed, certainly - just not as much as our concepts of freedom and autonomy, which should tell us something). As I've said before, I think the distancing of discussions of feminism and gender from material, physical considerations has accompanied a move in the last 40 years of distancing of material considerations in general when it comes to explaining things (this was MUCH more prevalent back in the day when people were still Marxists, or Freudians, etc. it is less popular in a knowledge economy).

Hm, ok. What I wonder then is: What are the other ways that the cause of oppression is commonly conceived? The conceptions in other words, that you don't agree with, and how is your view different? In what ways would intolerance be seen as coming from the side of the oppressed, as opposed to the oppressor, in this case?

If discussions have shifted from material, physical considerations in the last 40 years, can you give some examples of this? How is today different from then?
Janeway wrote:those cat-food-for-lunch-deserving motherfuckers 8)
User avatar
kokorodoko
deep blue
deep blue
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: The Ultra Zone

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ErikG, Google [Bot], uglysound, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests