Yeah, everyone knows you're not allowed in their club if you're over 5 foot 5.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
what is the difference between alt-right and traditional conservative?
as far as I can discern the alt-right like trolling more and that's about it
Shapiro sounded a lot saner on Rogan than previous times I've listened to him, which granted hasn't been much other than the odd clip. Maybe he's matured a bit, or maybe just found better ways to spin his bullshit
as far as I can discern the alt-right like trolling more and that's about it
Shapiro sounded a lot saner on Rogan than previous times I've listened to him, which granted hasn't been much other than the odd clip. Maybe he's matured a bit, or maybe just found better ways to spin his bullshit
I think he is a regular conservative who toes the GOP line more than anything else.
His book is a good guide to both his beliefs, and as I later learnt, the beliefs of old people who watch Fox News:
1. WMDs were real and were hidden in Syria and Iran; Obama suppressed the publication of this knowledge.
2. Black Lives Matter are thugs who pay protesters - his book goes further and suggests back communities pay kids to get shot by cops.
3. Cruz as the ideal principled conservative, Trump as the dirty effective leader.
4. Universal healthcare is slavery for doctors.
5. Islam is an existential threat.
6. Obama deliberately allowed terrorists and others to enter through the Mexican border.
7. Transgender people should be referred to only by their sex at birth; it is a delusion.
8. Gay marriage is wrong
9. Climate change is a left-wing conspiracy.
10. Universities promote the homosexual agenda; homosexuality is a sin.
He was an editor at Breitbart, which had a separate section called "black crime" while he was around (and is notoriously slanted and short on facts in general), and there are a few tweets showing his racism towards Arabs. Both point to alt-right beliefs. However, he personally got oven memes on twitter and fired back, so his background stops him from truly becoming accepted as one of them.
I think he's a gateway to people like Molyneux, he's personally a more openly racist version of the mainstream GOP.
Edit - to be clear, because of the 9th point alone, the death tolls from mainstream conservatism, the alt-right, and Ben Shapiro's utopia will all be very comparable and in the hundreds of millions. So it is useful to classify them if we're trying to fight them, but in terms of the harm they do, they are close to each other.
i hate it when people discount me as a voice of reason
My impression was that the alt-right make a conscious, explicit link between "the West" (as in, the civilization) and being white.
the actual definition of alt right is nebulous and not universally agreed upon but i think him being a white supremacist who worked for breitbart is enough for me to slot him in there. he is blatantly a racist and traffics in the same language as those on the alt right. id be curious for those who are so offended by him being labeled alt right to explain what they think the major difference of opinion are between shaprio and the alt right.
He deleted this a few days later, and said:
the last 3 in particular make it blindingly obvious
1: "western civilization is code for judeo-christian"
2: "multiculturalism as opposed to western civilization"
3: "white people founded western civilization"
1: "western civilization is code for judeo-christian"
2: "multiculturalism as opposed to western civilization"
3: "white people founded western civilization"
I'd say only number 3 there makes an explicit link between being Western and being white, and even there it doesn't seem to be in the sense that I'd associate with the term "alt-right". I'd also be interested to know the context of that tweet, what he's responding to. But of course, I could have this whole alt-right thing wrong.
Frankly I thought the alt right term was basically coined for him and Milo Yanacantspellhisname
I thought it was Richard Spencer who came up with it.
Conservatism is pretty fecked then.
For those of us who are late to the thread, who are the others referred to in the thread title (the etc) aside from Ben Shapiro?
And more importantly then, could any of you provide a summation of what it is you find find so disagreeable about Harris, Peterson & Co? What are the main points of contention?
I personally find the 'controversial' status of Peterson bizarre, but what say you?
And more importantly then, could any of you provide a summation of what it is you find find so disagreeable about Harris, Peterson & Co? What are the main points of contention?
I personally find the 'controversial' status of Peterson bizarre, but what say you?
You're probably right. I guess i started hearing about it around the time they were being talked about a lot and just associated the two myself.
Pretty much anyone i think? Any public intellectual / philosopher type. Christopher Hitchens came up at some point i think?
Harris I dont think people have as much issue with as others. The islamaphobia comes up a fair bit. Peterson ... well thats pretty wide ranging. I find him pretty boring and often absurd mostly these days. Hes become a bit of a poster boy for a group that at times are repellent and i think he plays into that quite a lot. I found his lectures and views on social psychology interesting and everything that popped up after that not.
Last edited:
Very difficult to synthesize 75 pages worth of discourse and opinion. Land on any one page and you'll get a good sense of peoples' thoughts on the men in question.
As for Peterson, he's recently tended towards a more aggressive, self-important and paranoid demeanour. Maybe it's his all beef diet. Who knows. But you can find point-by-point dissection of his stances in this thread.
Rogan and Harris seem well accepted here, for the most part.
I'm not expecting a thesis or anything, a paragraph will do.
Anyway...the other reason I asked is that I did read through a number of pages and a lot of the contributions are just ad hominem attacks. So I thought the thread could do with a reset.
I imagine it's grating to find yourself repeating the same things over and over and having to contend with fairly consistent misrepresentation in the media; all of which would contribute to a paranoid, world-weary demeanour. In any case I think he's getting over-exposed now.
I'm still amazed that he's deemed 'controversial' though. But then we do live in age where common sense seems increasingly esoteric.
I think there a few differences: generally I'd say the alt-right are a lot more sceptical as to typically valued conservative institutions such as religion and marriage etc, which they'll perhaps regard as absurd to a certain extent, while at the same time lamenting the decay of them at the same time.
Although I do think there's a lot of overlap. Traditional conservatives, for example, may make overtures to racial equality, for example, unlike the alt-right who'll often be a lot more openly racists, but then those same traditional conservatives will still typically implement damaging policy towards racial minorities when it suits them. Similarly even if they're less disparaging to the women than the alt-right, they'll probably still implement fairly regressive policies if they can when it comes to abortion.
So, yeah, for the most part I think the mode of engagement and the rhetoric is the biggest divide. And while the alt-right may break from conservatives on certain matters, I also reckon they'll happily renege on a lot of their own ideas if they've got a conservative like Trump in office who's doing 90% of what they want. Protection of white dominance/white supremacy or something to that effect strikes me as their primary goal above all else.
I think it was @berbatrick who highlighted a good book wherein Trump and the alt-right types are shown to be a lot closer to traditional conservatism than traditional conservatives would like to admit, with the ultimate goal (especially in the US) all aiming towards the protection of hierarchy. The rules have changed, as has the approach, but the goals haven't necessarily altered all that much.
Peterson is less controversial. Hes still a weirdo and a bigot just not on the level of Shapiro. The thing with him is that he became famous for a pretty bad misinterpretation of a law and then sold a book of utter pablum to a bunch of incels. Its bizarre because at least Shapiro can turn a phrase, Peterson is so unremarkable to have a personality cult.
It’s more deeply reflective of a bigger problem in society, which is that the birth-control pill has enabled women to compete with men on a fairly equal footing.
ffs
ffs
He pushes the same buttons as any other self-help charlatan. Clean your room. Get up early. Organize your life. Fear the chaos dragon of western feminism.
Peterson does more than that though. He plays into the hands who basically equate feminism with white genocide. You know, white women don't want to have 5 children anymore because they want a career and that's why white people die out. Even if Petereson doesn't explicitly say that he touts into the same horn as those white supremacists and alt-right idiots who propagate this idea on all social media channels but he does it in a way that is very appealing to the centrists because he comes across as a very rational person. The real danger though comes from people who are not willing to dismantle his ideas but instead start screaming at him. In the eyes of most centrist you have lost the argument at this point by default. So no matter how horrible of a person Peterson and Shapiro are if you just scream at them you are playing right into their hands.
In addition to him clealry being a bit of a misogynist, Peterson also misrepresents facts, and lies a lot. He's every bit as intellectually dishonest as Ben Shapiro, it just comes in more respectable looking, less racist package.
He's a hypocrite, who came to prominence for championing free speech (with some transphobia sprinkled on top), before then coming up with a plan to shut down departments he didn't agree with.
Then there's the fact that he very much believes that culrural Marxism is a thing and that leftists are trying to destroy Western society by subverting Judeo-Christian values.
He's a hypocrite, who came to prominence for championing free speech (with some transphobia sprinkled on top), before then coming up with a plan to shut down departments he didn't agree with.
Then there's the fact that he very much believes that culrural Marxism is a thing and that leftists are trying to destroy Western society by subverting Judeo-Christian values.
where my race science at yo
Would it surprise you to know that, based on my experience in academia, most academics either don't know who Peterson is, or think that he's a massive, fecking bellend?
Rubin is the dumbest motherfecker around by quite some distance.
Also, when did "leftists hate videogames" become a thing?
about the same time gamergate started sending death threats to women who talk about them
What all these guys show is that if you really really really want to believe in something, you will believe it, no matter how untrue that thing obviously is for everyone else. They realized it and make a living from it.
A bit like penalties in football but with real life effects.
A bit like penalties in football but with real life effects.
Figures. Hating regressive, misogynistic, racist chucklefecks who harass and send death threats to women is clearly the same as hating videogames.
A couple of years ago leftists loved videogames because supposedly leftists don't like to work or something.
"kids these days" is still a thing for conservatives,
since someone brought it up earlier - the major difference between normal conservatives and the alt right is that the alt right is 20 and 30something year old who are conservatives but also like to scream the n word on psn
um excuse me sir birth control is responsible for the fall of western civilisation you need to watch 7000 hours of peterson or you wouldn't be making such wild mischaracterisations
women be shoppin
imagine believing a man who can't handle cider is going to punch a motherfecker
youre a campus lefty bubble.
@me when you're quoting and replying to my post.
Academics agree with him on climate change? Philosophy has debated ethics for millennia, they agree with him that true atheists would kill people?
And he did not say that "we don't know the full ramifications of birth control on society yet". He explicitly called it a "fundamental problem" which has "enabled women to compete equally", in a discussion about women and sexual harassment in the workplace. Academics generally agree that "insane women can't be handled because they can't be beaten"? THat last line is a line from a standup comic not an academic.
shock horror as man who misunderstood human right protections for trans people has also never read HR leaflet
so fecking nuanced, drizzle that nuance all over me baby