Ben Shapiro

Suv666 said:
Postmodernism and Marxism are inherently conflicting idealogy. A reconcillation between the two is absurd. Postmodernism is against grand narratives, and Marxism is based on the grandest narrative ever. If you're a postmodernist you cant be a Marxist and vice versa. Marxists likewise have been dismissive of postmodernism and claim its not a valid philosophy and more of a cultural thing. There have been multiple books written on the subject-
David Harvey- The Condition of Postmodernity
Alex Callinicos- Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique

Yes, a connection between postmodernism and Marxism does exist, many famous thinkers were involved in leftist politics at one point in their lives but its purely genealogical.

The Cultural Marxism bs is basically the Nazi propaganda of "Cultural Bolshevism" which the Nazis claimed was the degeneration of German culture. Sound familiar? Womens rights, being accepting of homosexuality, abstract art all were signs of a plot by the Bolsheviks to take over German society.
Lets not forget people are quick to point out the Frankfurt school, which consists of a of Jewish thinkers, being part of this plot to take over the world. So add in a dash of anti-semitism as well.
I dont think Peterson is a Nazi btw, he's an ultra consertviive Christian who sees postmodernism as a threat to religion as postmodernism breaks down meaning and points to a world devoid of God. His lectures are based on very superficial readings of Marxism and Postmodernism. i would urge you to actually read the works and decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

Thanks, great post. There are so many reasons to be skeptical of "Cultural Marxism". One which hit hard at home was when the far-right terrorist of the 22 July attacks specifically referred to Cultural Marxism as perhaps the reason de'tre in his manifesto. I read the manifesto at the time, and initially found it to be the craziest thing I'd ever read. Of course, later it became clear that he had basically plagiarized almost all of it, but that's neither here nor there.

Amazingly there are still right-wing politicians in Norway who will refer to Cultural Marxism, usually on Facebook.
 
pierrethesnack said:
I'm sure all that's true, but again, it doesn't really matter whether they're formally conflicting to a person versed in ideology and philosphy. That doesn't mean that strong elements from them can't coexist as a cultural construct in people's minds on a large scale.
Click to expand...
:lol:

perfect example of why 'debating" any conservative is just a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
KirkDuyt said:
That's fair enough, but the very essence of conservatism is based on resistance to progress. Especially progress that impacts your own wealth, privelige, standing and whatnot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy that, although I recognise that's what the dictionary definition says. Conservatives also seem very happy to promote the creative destruction of capitalism, the institutional destruction of Brexit etc. Certainly much of conservatism seems driven by the desire to protect what you have, but it's more complicated than that.

KirkDuyt said:
I can, for instance simply not see any other motivation for wealthy people to not want to pay higher taxes than greed.
Click to expand...

Depends on the tax to be honest (and many extremely wealthy people do in fact advocate for higher taxes). But there are other motivations - the motivation to protect your belongings from other people, a reaction to the threat of confiscation by the government, a belief that hard work is deserving of reward, an individualist dislike of being told what to do by others, a philosophical belief that you are the best judge of how to spend your money, a sense that personal freedom extends to money as well as personal behaviour etc. What might look like selfishness might be grounded in other attitudes.

KirkDuyt said:
These conservatives want to uphold the status quo because the status quo is in their favour. In order the do this, they try to convince the mob that they have their best interest at heart with lies and false promises. This has happened since the beginning of time. There is a podcast called Thr history of Rome that goes into great detail about the machinations the patrician class used to keep the poor stupid and under the illussion that they were championing their rights even though they gave feck all about them.

Conservatism is calculated and cynical in my opinion, whereas progressives who veer to the extreme left are idealistic to a point of naivity.
Click to expand...

I'd be careful applying modern political labels to the patricians of Ancient Rome, there wasn't really an ideological separation between the various Republican ruling classes.

Also it's it's a bit like calling the extreme islamic revolutionary government of Iran 'conservative' as you sometimes get in the news. Or the Dacha owning communist apparatchiks of the Soviet Union 'conservative'.
 
fergieisold said:
Which aspects exactly. As far as I've seen he's right when he says gender has only a small part to play in the pay gap. I think most people know that by now though?
Click to expand...

Even if you ignore the data, common sense and life experience should tell you that gender is an important factor in the pay gap. Women have babies. Men don’t. Time out of work on maternity leave can change a person’s priorities. And people tend to have their first baby at an age when their career is either just about to take off, or flatline.

They might prefer to work part time when they get back. They might decide that the shitty work life balance and time spent travelling that comes from chasing a high powered job doesn’t suit them as a parent of a young child. All of which gives men an advantage when it comes to chasing the big bucks.

Obviously all the above also applies to new dads. Although to a lesser extent. Which is probably partly down to traditional gender roles and partly down to something inherent in the difference between the maternal vs paternal experience of being a new parent. Which element you think is more important will tend to be dictated by your personal politics. You can probably guss what point of view Ben Shapiro would prefer.
 
nickm said:
Also it's it's a bit like calling the extreme islamic revolutionary government of Iran 'conservative' as you sometimes get in the news. Or the Dacha owning communist apparatchiks of the Soviet Union 'conservative'.
Click to expand...

Both of those are valid statements to make, with context. Stalin, for example, was in many ways a conservative, reigning in and outright going back on many of the cultural experiments of the early Soviet Union. He obviously wasn't a fan of capitalism, but capitalism and conservatism aren't completely bound together. Just take a look at how quickly and easily Russia went from the communist Soviet Union to the ultra-conservative orthodox country we have today.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Even if you ignore the data, common sense and life experience should tell you that gender is an important factor in the pay gap. Women have babies. Men don’t. Time out of work on maternity leave can change a person’s priorities. And people tend to have their first baby at an age when their career is either just about to take off, or flatline.

They might prefer to work part time when they get back. They might decide that the shitty work life balance and time spent travelling that comes from chasing a high powered job doesn’t suit them as a parent of a young child. All of which gives men an advantage when it comes to chasing the big bucks.

Obviously all the above also applies to new dads. Although to a lesser extent. Which is probably partly down to traditional gender roles and partly down to something inherent in the difference between the maternal vs paternal experience of being a new parent. Which element you think is more important will tend to be dictated by your personal politics. You can probably guss what point of view Ben Shapiro would prefer.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't clear, I agree. I meant straight up sexism. I think men and women have genuinely different outlooks on what they want to do, which isn't explained by nurture alone.
 
nimic said:
Both of those are valid statements to make, with context. Stalin, for example, was in many ways a conservative, reigning in and outright going back on many of the cultural experiments of the early Soviet Union. He obviously wasn't a fan of capitalism, but capitalism and conservatism aren't completely bound together. Just take a look at how quickly and easily Russia went from the communist Soviet Union to the ultra-conservative orthodox country we have today.
Click to expand...

EdszPIxXoAEvLLO
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think so too. Although you can’t ignore the role that society (and upbringing) plays in shaping those outlooks.
Click to expand...

yeh it certainly does have an impact. But it’s annoying to me that money is so powerful...as if it’s the end goal of life. There was a study recently that found women were disadvantaged because they weren’t as ambitious as men to get into the top universities. The conclusion was to advise women to be more ambitious! everything seems to be chasing the money, everything is in the context of money earned rather than what men and women actually want to do with their lives.
 
fergieisold said:
yeh, when I say I’m a big fan I mean from a psychology point of view. I do also agree with many things he says about things like the gender pay gap and why equality of opportunity is desirable over equality of outcomes.

now I know he has brought in elements of other fields to support his arguments but I’ve not seen him claim hes an expert in them.



I have absolutely no idea. When I say I’m a big fan it’s to do with mainly what I’ve seen on his motivational work and also his opinion on the gender pay gap etc. the fact he sees some factions of the left as illiberal is also something I agree with.
Click to expand...

I actually agree about the equality of opportunity spiel and also that there are more factors to the gender pay gap issue. But I'd disagree on his conclusions that equal opportunity is commonplace, and that sexism is an irrelevant part of the pay gap.

And just so you know what I'm on about when he claims to be an expert in things, this is a response from an actual evolutionary biologist.

 
fergieisold said:
Which aspects exactly. As far as I've seen he's right when he says gender has only a small part to play in the pay gap. I think most people know that by now though?
Click to expand...
I see that @NotThatSoph has provided a good, in-depth resource on the subject, but I'll give some words of my own.

Peterson essentially argues that the pay gap is largely caused by ineradicable differences between men and women. Women choose lower paying jobs, women choose to work part-time, women choose to have kids, women are more agreeable and thus more likely to settle for a lower wage than men. While it might be true, that doesn't mean we can't look at why this is, and it doesn't mean that we can't look at ways to change it. It also doesn't mean that sexism plays no part.

Why do professions dominated by women pay less, even when compared to male-dominated fields with similar requirements to education and competence? Why is it that having kids has a much stronger negative effect on a woman's career than on a man's? Why do women end up working part time to a greater extent than men? There are reasons for these things, and I'd argue that they aren't ineradicable.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
I actually agree about the equality of opportunity spiel and also that there are more factors to the gender pay gap issue. But I'd disagree on his conclusions that equal opportunity is commonplace, and that sexism is an irrelevant part of the pay gap.

And just so you know what I'm on about when he claims to be an expert in things, this is a response from an actual evolutionary biologist.

Click to expand...


I agree equal opportunity isn’t there and I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was. I’m not saying sexism is irrelevant but I’d hope in it’s purist form it’s not very common.

I’m not claiming Peterson isn’t wrong btw, just doubt he claims to be an expert in certain fields.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
I actually agree about the equality of opportunity spiel and also that there are more factors to the gender pay gap issue. But I'd disagree on his conclusions that equal opportunity is commonplace, and that sexism is an irrelevant part of the pay gap.

And just so you know what I'm on about when he claims to be an expert in things, this is a response from an actual evolutionary biologist.

Click to expand...


Ah, good old PZ Myers. I used to read his blog (lol blogs in current year). For some reason I stopped, I seem to recall there was some controversy, but as far as I can tell from his twitter and blog he's still fighting the good cause. He certainly hasn't fallen into the regressive Gamergate-ish trap that many other prominent internet atheists fell into.
 
Halftrack said:
I see that @NotThatSoph has provided a good, in-depth resource on the subject, but I'll give some words of my own.

Peterson essentially argues that the pay gap is largely caused by ineradicable differences between men and women. Women choose lower paying jobs, women choose to work part-time, women choose to have kids, women are more agreeable and thus more likely to settle for a lower wage than men. While it might be true, that doesn't mean we can't look at why this is, and it doesn't mean that we can't look at ways to change it. It also doesn't mean that sexism plays no part.

Why do professions dominated by women pay less, even when compared to male-dominated fields with similar requirements to education and competence? Why is it that having kids has a much stronger negative effect on a woman's career than on a man's? Why do women end up working part time to a greater extent than men? There are reasons for these things, and I'd argue that they aren't ineradicable.
Click to expand...

Im not arguing sexism doesn’t play a part, I just suspect it’s a small part of the problem. why do we need to eradicate the differences? Is that a good idea?
 
fergieisold said:
I agree equal opportunity isn’t there and I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was. I’m not saying sexism is irrelevant but I’d hope in it’s purist form it’s not very common.

I’m not claiming Peterson isn’t wrong btw, just doubt he claims to be an expert in certain fields.
Click to expand...

I wasn't claiming you were, more that Peterson seems to claim sexism is irrelevant.

He claims to be an evolutionary biologist in that video I posted, but he's not.

nimic said:
Ah, good old PZ Myers. I used to read his blog (lol blogs in current year). For some reason I stopped, I seem to recall there was some controversy, but as far as I can tell from his twitter and blog he's still fighting the good cause. He certainly hasn't fallen into the regressive Gamergate-ish trap that many other prominent internet atheists fell into.
Click to expand...

I'm not really familiar with him to be honest, just couldn't find the original peterson interview!
 
nimic said:
Which elements, in particular?
Click to expand...

I'd say the most normal/prominent ones are deconstructionism of eatablished "truths" based in tradition (in a loose sense, not strictly what Derrida specifically wrote on) and the zero sum thinking that is often extrapolated from Marxism, rightly or wrongly so.
 
Sweet Square said:
third time's a charm...which elements, in particular?
Click to expand...
pierrethesnack said:
I'd say the most normal/prominent ones are deconstructionism of eatablished "truths" based in tradition (in a loose sense, not strictly what Derrida specifically wrote on) and the zero sum thinking that is often extrapolated from Marxism, rightly or wrongly so.
Click to expand...

So, do you really believe it's impossible to have contradicting views of that sort? I mean, since you saw it fit to mock my earlier post stating that.

It's nothing only lefties do of course, it's human nature.
 
pierrethesnack said:
I'd say the most normal/prominent ones are deconstructionism of eatablished "truths" based in tradition (in a loose sense, not strictly what Derrida specifically wrote on) and the zero sum thinking that is often extrapolated from Marxism, rightly or wrongly so.
Click to expand...
"deconstructionism of eatablished "truths" based in tradition" is such a board concept that it could be applied to almost anything. Liberalism was at one time a deconstructist view of established "truths, Christianity as well(Does that make Peterson a postmodernist!!!) So I'm not sure why this should be used to link postmodernism and Marxism.

Also you're going to have to expand on the zero sum thinking of Marxism thing.

pierrethesnack said:
So, do you really believe it's impossible to have contradicting views of that sort? I mean, since you saw it fit to mock my earlier post stating that.
Click to expand...
People can have contradicting views on all sorts of things but that alone isn't enough to say "postmodern Marxism" is a real thing. Maybe you can answer the question Peterson couldn't which is where are these postmodern Marxists ? Just name a couple.

Also I mocked you in my post because after someone gave you a good answer back up by some historical context to you're baseless claim you simply dismissed it and carried on. Debating is pointless when someone is more than happy to brush aside any evidence that goes against the fiction they've made up in their heads. But then again it's in the conservative nature to think like this!
 
Last edited:
nimic said:
Oh boy, have I got a treat for you guys. I've been shilling for the Behind the Bastards podcast a few times on the Caf (it's great). They needed a break from the usual depressing stuff, so they're currently three episodes into a partial live read of Ben Shapiro's thriller novel (IT'S REAL IT REALLY EXISTS). I think it's genuinely possible that he's the worst writer on the planet.

1: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...e/what-we-learned-from-ben-shapiros-61013395/

2: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...inued-reading-ben-shapiros-terrible-62435640/

3: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...ben-shapiros-terrible-book-the-saga-68752308/

Disclaimer: it's possible I've talked about this before, but they put out a new episode this week which reminded me about it.
Click to expand...
Is this the spiritual spin off to the my dad wrote a porno podcast?
 
LuisNaniencia said:
He probably is reasonably smart and no doubt he's good at debating ill-prepared people.

However he's a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He knows a little bit about a wide range of subjects and that gives him a misguided confidence. Put him up against an expert and he's quickly made to look like a moron.

The same can be said about the Jordan Peterson who infamously claimed to be an evolutionary biologist with no credentials to show for it. Watch a response to his lobster theory from an actual evolutionary biologist and hes quickly made to look a fraud.
Click to expand...

That whole group of people that seemed to have formed a club are all as smart as they are dumb.

“How tall are you?”
‘6ft’
“You look 5ft8in”
‘I’m 6ft’
“I’ll measure you with this tape”
‘Ok’
“Stop tiptoeing”
‘No’
“But I need to measure you”
‘So do it’
“I can’t if you’re on tiptoes”
‘The actual height of a human is when they’re at their full height. So that should be when they’re on tiptoes’
“Ohhhh... so you’re 5ft 8inches, but 6ft on Tiptoes”
‘Yes I’m 6ft’

That absolute insanity of wrapping up a false truth with some broken logic, packaged as being right. They’re all at it.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
Personally I wouldn't discount anything he says to do with clinical psychology as he is demonstrably an expert in the field.

I do think though that his followers should be aware he claims to be an expert in fields where he isn't, and that he uses this deception to promote an ideology despite claiming he isn't an ideologue.
Click to expand...

Agree that Peterson is a massive ideologue though I don't think he can bring himself to admit it. To himself. Actually I see everything that is beyond his narrow field of true expertize, his theorizing about pretty much everything mumbo jumbo, as him vomiting his neuroses upon the world under many different pretenses from self-help to valiantly fighting the culture war against cultural marxists. He dresses this up in science and logic but its deeply skewed as you say. Ultimately I just see a guy that is very unhappy, well in truth he is clinically depressed, and its his way of trying to deal with this and other deep rooted frustrations. There is a lot of insecurity and bigotry in there, the same such bigotry he says he is fighting against, though he has at times admitted that he knows deep down he is not a good guy. I think he thinks himself very brave for a) admitting this, and b) fighting against himself. When really in actuality I believe he just repackages his bigotry and fear into something that doesn't betray his self determined moral compass, using "studies" and Jungian woowoo as his whipping boys.

Oh yeah and Ben Shapiro is a twat. Pseudo intellectual dishonest authoritarian right winger. Individual liberty to people like him means a desperate lusting for state power to enforce his beliefs.
 
e.cantona said:
All people who don't think like me are stupid?
Click to expand...
Of course not. KirkDuyt's post was obviously facetious, although playing on a serious theme, and I agree with much of what he wrote later on.

As for Shapiro and Peterson, each one appeals to identitarianism in his own way. The kind that processes challenges to the power it identifies with as an offense against nature, and an impending breakdown of (Western) civilisation. I see that as the basis of their current success. The resulting attitudes and politics contribute to making the world even more miserable than it is anyway, so I naturally can't bring up much tolerance towards them beyond civilized basics.

I can still discuss individual talking points, but it depends on circumstances.
Suv666 said:
Postmodernism is against grand narratives, and Marxism is based on the grandest narrative ever.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a pretty postmodern characterization of Marx' materialism?
 
Last edited:
Suv666 said:
Can you please explain what actually are postmodern marxists and cultural marxism? Cause it seems to me like typical right wing bullshit of creating loose labels and shoving in everyone you dont agree with into it. Also there are loads of videos on Youtube if you are really want to know where and why Peterson's theories are wrong.










Bonus video on Ben Shapiro if you're interested

Click to expand...


Its a load of bollox really from a very misguided man.

He is a self proclaimed expert on Nazism/Facism yet seems to totally ignore the very real existential threat posed by Neo-Facists around the world, instead working himself into a lather about trans people and avo lattes. I mean Marine Le Pen came within a whisker of becoming President of France. There there is him crying on stage with Orban. We have Bolsonaro, Trump etc etc.

Peterson is small town. And he is deluded.
 
Synco said:
Of course not. KirkDuyt's post was obviously facetious, although playing on a serious theme, and I agree with much of what he wrote later on.

As for Shapiro and Peterson, each one appeals to identitarianism in his own way. The kind that processes challenges to the power it identifies with as an offense against nature, and an impending breakdown of (Western) civilisation. I see that as the basis of their current success. The resulting attitudes and politics contribute to making the world even more miserable than it is anyway, so I naturally can't bring up much tolerance towards them beyond civilized basics.

I can still discuss individual talking points, but it depends on circumstances.

Isn't that a rather postmodern characterization of Marx' materialism?
Click to expand...

Very very nicely put.
 
Synco said:
Of course not. KirkDuyt's post was obviously facetious, although playing on a serious theme, and I agree with much of what he wrote later on.
Click to expand...

Agree. After the fact
 
Hopefully he has to have his Larynx removed at some point in the near future, maybe by his wife(she's a doctor).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.