I'm curious to know, given previous conversations that have taken place in this thread, what reactions the right-wing users in this forum have to the recent firing of Kevin D. Williamson by The Atlantic.

My friend graduated from one of the top three schools in the US for the same major I originally intended to go after, yet is struggling to find a job despite the status of his school and high GPA. — Posty McPostface

Most hiring managers place work experience over education and GPA. Certainly, some companies mainly hire recent graduates from Ivy League schools, but the most important thing on a resume isn't your GPA or what school you graduated from; it's what relevant experience do you have so that we don't have to provide you with additional training.

How funny... on the one hand you tell me that you have a problem with people on the right claiming, for example, that there are biological differences in IQ between black people and white people on average, because it ends up resulting in discrimination, even though logically there is no link between that fact and discrimination. And on the other hand, when it comes to the narratives of the left, you say it's okay, the damage isn't their responsibility, it's not their fault - these are not their tenets. So which is it? You should adopt the same attitude across the board, and you don't. Why is that? — Agustino

Because there is no "narrative of the left", or more focally, tenets of Democratic Party which assert women must value careers over motherhood, or that all whites are destructive. It. Does. Not. Exist. Can card-carrying members of the Democratic Party hold such beliefs? Sure. I'm sure that they exist, and I never doubted the veracity of @Erik's experiences, and I find such beliefs similarly ludicrous. I do "have a problem with them". But do these ideas form the foundation of the modern Democratic Party? NO.

Scientific Racism, however has, in fact, had a long history in America, in practice supplying "scientific" verification to discriminate against Black Americans. Undeniably, discrimination against Blacks continues to exist today, and no doubt there are those who leverage such "science" to validate such beliefs, as history shows us. Additionally, the scientific connection between race genetics and intelligence have been widely discredited, so it's pseudo-science to boot. I not only have a problem with people holding deleterious ideas, but I have a problem with people holding wrong ideas based on bad science. Further, I never claimed that belief in biological differences is a "tenet" of the Right. It certainly may be a tenet of White Supremacists, or the Alt-Right in particular, but not of the Republican Party. No hypocrisy on my part, merely incomprehension and misreadings on yours, as usual.

Here it's not as easy to ridicule people on the right, thanks to the continuous efforts of people like, for example, Thorongil. When you have returned to TPF here, you seem to have brought back with you some of the old dismissive attitudes as the 'right way' to play the game. But things have changed a little in the meantime. — Agustino

Stupid ideas are stupid ideas, and bad philosophy is bad philosophy regardless of where the advocate stands on the political spectrum. I've been happy to call out bullshit ideas that have been held by liberals. It just so coincidentally happens that most forum members promoting bad arguments happen to identify on the Right.

Well, no, because Peterson did not specify which belief he thought was a "murderous equality doctrine." I went over this with Maw. — Pneumenon

Is this honest-to-God that complicated for you? It's astonishing just how far you are willing to bending over backwards in order keep up with this facade of ignorance. Trudeau tweets his support of the Women's March and that the Canadian Government will keep fighting for gender equality. Peterson's response: Is that the murderous equity doctrine? For God's sake, how is this not hyperbolic? Or are you just unable to accept that fact that Jordan Peterson is capable of saying stupid shit on Twitter?

Some quick personal examples include: getting blasted for pulling my younger son out of the public school system in favor of a charter school which takes an unconventional approach to education and child development; my wife being made to feel like a complete failure of a woman for choosing to prioritize our children over career goals (I did the same lest anyone assume ours isn't an equal relationship); getting mocked for expressing an openness to insights found in religions; being attacked by a mob (not literally) for white privilege because I criticized aspects of an article which demonized all white people as being incapable of anything other than racism, destruction, evil, etc. — Erik

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood.

The hell do you think was implied when he tweeted this in response to Justin Tredeau? Imagine Peterson answering the very questions he posed, as simply Yes or No answers. What do you honestly think he'd say?

Your opening post made some general criticisms of right-wing politics, and right-wing politics aren't homogenous, either.

More generally: the "it's not monolithic!" defense is a red herring because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you want to criticize someone for not being specific enough, then make an argument — Pneumenon

Perhaps there are statements which are generalized in the OP, but I nevertheless recognize, within the OP, that as a whole, "Right-Wing politics" includes a multitude of views, the aim in my OP was to pinpoint which aspect of right-wing politics is growing in dominance (as distinct from the Never-Trump conservatives within the op-ed pages of NYT). For Peterson, the heterogeneity of modern-day Feminism isn't acknowledged; leading him to craft ridiculous denouncements, like that supporting a global Woman's Rights march leads to a "murderous equity doctrine".

Ironically, your argument is a red herring, because you're distracting from the real issue: is stating that modern feminism is "a murderous equity doctrine" valid criticism, or acidic hyperbole? That's the question I'd like answered. And if not, what would?

I do not think that Maw was using "conservative" in the sense you're thinking. He seems to apply it to right-wing politics in general. — Pneumenon

Not the case within the post you quoted, as evidenced by the fact that I think other forms of right-wing politics are "in-fashion" so to speak.

As with any large-scale social movement, there are valid, or justifiable criticisms of particular elements in modern-day Feminism (e.g. Feminist Epistemology). But it's not clear to me that "criticizing the feminist movement" is meaningful, because the movement itself is not homogeneous. If Peterson had as accurate a pulse on the feminist movement as he claims to have, he would recognize this and perhaps act accordingly. Instead, he delivers "over-the-top hyperbole", i.e., modern feminism as a "murderous equity doctrine". If this isn't "acidic" or "vehement" as I said, I shudder to think what remarks would qualify as such...

Internet anonymity :wink:

I'm confused how being pro-choice, or the majority of the party planks listed on the Democratic Party's website adopts "major tenets of the postmodernist New Left".

Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally — Erik

The Democrats have moved very far to the left socially, effectively adopting all the major tenets of the postmodernist New Left. — Thorongil

Expand on that

lol ok :up:

I find it interesting that you think that Peterson, of all people, is zany. I find his views pretty mild and banal. — Pneumenon

In response to a Justin Trudeau tweet commending those who came out to march in support Women's Rights, Peterson tweeted that such support leads to a "murderous equity doctrine".

This type of acidic vehemency isn't atypical for him, and it's anything but mild or banal. I don't know how long Peterson will last as a "public intellectual". He seems to have been abruptly placed in the spotlight, and so can disappear just as easily, especially given the fact that he likely has exhausted his philosophy, which, inherently, is unlikely to evolve or be tweaked. Perhaps this is true of conservatism as well, which, having retained the same talking points for decades, has exhausted itself, has fallen out of fashion.

Oriflamme: any flag, banner or standard, especially one that serves as a rallying point or symbol.

Yes, and? It doesn't at all conflict with what I said.

Most likely (young) white males.

I don't think the past year has persuaded them to become neo-Nazis. Do you? — frank

No, but I'm not sure how that relates to anything I previously said.

No, it's always existed, it's just gotten more publicity and the illusion of power with Trump — Thorongil

Right, so is this newfound publicity shaping it to be more of a mainstream movement rather than a mere underground coterie that it once was? And I would argue that, given Trump's election (or at minimum, his nomination as the Republican candidate) certainly does not operate on the level of illusory power.

I used the term "Conservatism" in the title and opening post as a synecdoche for right-wing political thought in general, rather than conservatism in particular.

That said, while Trump is certainly not a conservative, he nevertheless transforming right-wing politics; moving it into a particular direction. The question is: does this boisterous form of politics, which flirts with white supremacy, race realism, advocates economic nationalism, America First priorities, etc., represent the new intellectual movement of right-wing philosophy? An overwhelming amount of Republicans approve of Trump, and we've recently seen the preeminence of public "intellectuals" (perhaps architects is a better word here) who advocate alternative right, or quasi-alternative right politics.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Lol, everything you don't like is "propaganda". You are a self-described constitutional Monarchist, you are not "slightly-left leaning".

"Conservative" is the wrong term here, which I admittedly used slap-dashedly. More appropriately would "Right-Wing" as a umbrella term encompasses all forms of right wing thought and ideology, within which includes conservatism. But I don't want to get the discussion hung up on terminology, however.

I think we can all agree that, to some extent, Conservatism has lost its allure within contemporary Right-Wing philosophy. The question then is, what is replacing it within mainstream thought, and does this thought have intellectual value?

Also, just had a curious thought relating this idea of chronopoltics to the "X" History Month, where X is a historically/currently excluded minority (e.g. Gays/Blacks/Women), in which our collective society recognize this community and prominent individuals within the it, and celebrate them in ways that range from meaningful to cheap Capitalist cash-grabs, but ultimately relegate the importance and dignity of such communities to merely one month out of the year, like some annual ritual where, for a paltry 30 days (28 for Black America), we celebrate the contributions of certain communities, then return to "normal". No doubt this is not a novel idea in-itself, but I think it does play into the concept of chronopoltics.

*An additional thought: in the US - although not only in the US - such considerations are also massively bound up with questions of race, insofar as the legacy of redlining - 30 years of racial neighbourhood segregation - has effects that still play themselves out today, effects that I think were perhaps even more consequential - although far less talked about - than school or other institutional segregation. So just by thinking in terms of space and time, you actually get to tie in a whole range of other considerations too: demography, geography, economics, and public policy, to name a few.* — StreetlightX

Exactly. Black-Americans have largely been excluded from - not merely the idyllic concept of the "American Dream", but, more substantively, the real phenomenon of upwards social mobility, inherited transfer of wealth, education opportunities, etc., due to a vast collection of racist policies and politics stretching from slavery, Jim Crow laws, redlining, the War on Drugs, and a nearly endless stream of racially motivated forms of exclusionary practices. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a famous article, also for The Atlantic in 2014 on "The Case For Reparations", arguing that, White America owes a "moral" and literal debt to Black Americans due to "two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy," that effectively rendered Black Americans literally segregated from opportunities available to other general Americans.

No, that the gender-pay gap does exist is not contentious. It's more or less accepted that it does. What is controversial is why the gender-pay gap exist. Is it because simply because women freely choose less lucrative careers? Or is it because of sexism within higher paying industries (e.g. STEM) and "boy's club" mentality? Is it because women naturally tend to sacrifice careers over family? Or is it because there is societal pressure for women to choose the latter over the former?

As with most sociological issues, the problem is multi-variant, but, undeniably I think, sexism plays a prominent role.

Yes, and the point is that such overlap does not constitute a refutation of the view in question. You're playing the part of historian at best, not philosopher, when you harp and carp on about these alleged "overlaps." — Thorongil

I literally stated in the previous post that, "no one is 'refuting' Peterson's ideas" simple because they overlap with historically vile politics (which you subsequently quoted yourself). And yes, I, or more precisely, Mishra, is playing the role of historian over a philosopher. That's essentially the main crux of the article, within which he states:

It is imperative to ask why and how this obscure Canadian academic, who insists that gender and class hierarchies are ordained by nature and validated by science, has suddenly come to be hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual....

Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson’s ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations...

In all respects, Peterson’s ancient wisdom is unmistakably modern. The “tradition” he promotes stretches no further back than the late nineteenth century, when there first emerged a sinister correlation between intellectual exhortations to toughen up and strongmen politics.

That is, as I have stated multiple times now, he is contextualizing Peterson's thought within a larger intellectual tradition of combining mysticism and "right-wing pieties". Of course, that's not to say that the article is "not philosophical", but if you think that the intent of Mishra's article is to "refute" Peterson's own philosophy, you have severely misread it.

I haven't ever seen such a refutation, curiously enough. — Thorongil

Well if you position yourself on the right of Peterson, I daresay you never will.

No, I'm well aware that anti-natalism can flirt uncomfortably with eugenics and genocide. Personally, I feel very comfortable disassociating myself with that "totalitarian" strain of anti-natalist thought, as I believe anti-natalism should be a free choice by the individual, rather than imposed. Benatar, if I recall correctly, has stated that if he were in a viable position of power he would make it illegal or enforce an anti-natalist policy, which I find utterly detestable. But I am at least comfortable (and not delusional) enough to acknowledge the fact that anti-natalism can overlap with virulent politics.

But if you locate your own politics to the right of Peterson, and if you believe there is "nothing wrong" with natural hierarchy or masculine politics or that, perhaps, these aren't right-wing, then I seriously question how we can have a meaningful conversation on where Peterson fits politically when our own political views are so unaligned. I think the really important question here is whether or not you think we (or rather Mishra) can appropriately discuss mysticism within Fascist or Quasi-Fascist thought, by bringing together several key thinkers and epigones and their overlaps, or "family resemblances" (pace Eco), while acknowledging that differences exist as well. It's called nuance. No one is "refuting" Peterson's ideas based on such casual observations, especially since Peterson's views can be easily refuted without such appeals.

Very insightful post, and one (if I am understanding correctly) egregious example of the application of chrono-politics that immediately comes to mind, to me, is how members of the Republican Party and the NRA, promptly attempt to depoliticize the nature of a mass shooting, "killing time", by suggesting that "now is not the time for politics", and stretching the time in which it will be appropriate to discuss political solutions to a undisclosed future in which the urgency and the emotion will have dissipated.

Haha alrighty then.

You are misunderstanding entirely. You mistakenly believe that by contextualizing Peterson within a genealogy of intellectuals, some of whom were Fascist, that we are claiming Peterson is a Fascist too. Neither Jung nor Campbell, both of whom are hugely influential for Peterson, were out-and-out Fascists, and yet Jung believed that Aryan's were a superior race, and Campbell, who also spoke disdainfully of academic Marxists who were "overtaking American universities", harbored a deep hatred of Blacks and Jews.

As Umberto Eco wrote regarding "Ur-Fascism", incidentally also in the New York Review of Books:

The fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some 'family resemblance,' as Wittgenstein put it.

There is no doubt, to me, that some of Peterson's views harbor "family resemblance" to Fascism, which aren't "hilariously uniformed caricatures" (seriously...have you even read Peterson's work, or watched a single video? And he literally has a video titled "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", as posted in the beginning of this thread).

I am not claiming Peterson is a Fascist. 'Y' might overlap in several key conceptual ideas with "X", without being considered "X", outright. What I found most interesting about Pankaj Mishra's article is how Peterson's thought fits into a larger intellectual history, and how this history can help explain Peterson's sudden prominence and influence. I don't see how you can consider his views innocuous, but I suppose if you position your own political views to the right of Peterson, well then that would explain quite a bit.

I don't think it's incumbent upon the critic to delineate "good reasons" people might be captivated by Peterson's message (and not just because I don't think there are really any "good reasons"). I can understand (and I'm sure the author understands), that many young people, particularly men, may feel lost and displaced in modern capitalism, within a highly volatile job market, where, mostly white men, feel they are losing cultural power to minorities and women. Of course that's not a "good reason" to become a Peterson acolyte.

There's nothing wrong with these things per se. — Thorongil

Of course not. However, as the author points out, they have also been used, historically, to bolster a Fascist volkgeist.

In regards to Peterson's politically leanings, I never said he was an "outright fascist". I said he is part of a intellectual lineage, and some of whom, within said lineage (e.g. Julius Evola) were highly influential fascists, and who leveraged national myths etc. to promote their fascism. No, I certainly don't think Jordan Peterson is a fascist, or part of the white supremacist alternative-right. But if you advocate a socio-political hierarchy that's based on social Darwinism, and criticize social activism in abstract, or believe that women's inherent psychological traits mean they are unsuitable to work with men, or take positions of political power, and conduct lectures criticizing "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", etc. etc. etc. then I don't know what to call you, other than right-wing, and disturbingly far enough on the spectrum to warrant concern. Richard Spencer, by the way, while disagreeing with Peterson on a range of views, has nevertheless said that he and Peterson "share a lot of common ground and political starting points".

How is it a hit-piece?

Pankaj Mishra wrote a unique article in the New York Review of Book yesterday, placing Peterson within a line of "intellectuals" who promote national myth, religious stories, and symbolic archetypes to advance a right-wing, hyper-masculine, quasi-fascist (or just outright fascist) hierarchical-based politics.

Peterson responded with an entertaining twitter meltdown, where he threatened to slap the author, which is totally not a hyper-masculine response.

For sure. I mean my apartment is currently a mess, I guess that means I can't care about transgender rights

Here is a very curious interview (or snippet of a longer interview) with Jordan Peterson. I thought the host did a (mostly) good job of articulating his skepticism towards Peterson's views on activism, and forcing Peterson to explain his convoluted and controversial remarks (pay no attention to the hyper-partisan, moronic video title).

However, when confronting Peterson's disdain towards activism, and his belief that one should "clean up one's own room" before engaging in political activism, I thought the interviewer committed a huge misstep when bringing up Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of one who had personal issues, but was nonetheless committed to political activism. Peterson easily waves this away because while he can't say no, MLK was not right to commit himself to social justice when he should have worked out his personal problems first, he can uncontroversially admit that Martin Luther King Jr. was an exception to the rule, and no one is going to argue that run-of-the-mill activists are comparable to the venerated Martin Luther King Jr.

rather, the interviewer should have offered the example of those civil rights activists generally, who marched with, worked with, and protested alongside MLK. Martin Luther King Jr. played an important role in the Civil Rights Movement, but he didn't work in a vacuum, he had hundreds of thousands if not millions of activists who were there with him. If asked pointblank, I'm sure Peterson would argue that most of these activists had personal problems as well, but if they heeded Peterson's advice, then the Civil Rights Movement would have likely failed. In fact, the Civil Rights Movement would very much likely have been successful, one way or another, without MLK. Taking Peterson's advice would have made any activist movement a non-starter.

Anyway, it's an interesting conversation that taps into Peterson's view and exposes his limitations as a serious public intellectual. He stumbles quite dramatically near the end of the video when discussing climate change.

Peterson tweeted about the Current Events article yesterday, and hilariously, couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate ad and a parody.