Either way, even if you think he is talking nonsense, it is highly unlikely it is some kind of dog whistling to Nazis. I'm not sure if that is the angle you are coming at it by linking that stuff, but I doubt that is what he is doing. That in itself is kind conspiratorial thinking. VIDEO diversity creates more division than inclusivity. And again, he is so frustrated, and just can't understand why post-modernists have made the canonical distinctions they've made: Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity. These dimensions across which the post-modern neo-marxists have defined people are too narrow. The post-modern need to separate, label and categorise people into these separate groups, this constant search for; and institutionalization, of diversity through initiatives like affirmative action, simply creates more division and tribalism. Individualism is the only answer.whataboutism in the past. Where do you stop taking marginalisation based on difference into account? historical time (yes he explains: you live now and not 100 years ago), attractiveness, youth, health, sex (as in having it); women have advantages, men have advantages, maybe one has more than the other - it's not self evident! women live about 8 years longer than men, they're multi-orgasmic (you sly-dog peterson), athleticism, wealth, family-structure, friendship (how many friends you have. sad), and education. WHY NOT THOSE OTHER DIMENSIONS?" Peterson finally asks, exasperated. The other dimensions being the "post-modernist" defined, Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity. This is over two hours long so I don't have time. Based on your summary though there are certain things I would probably agree with.
To paraphrase Peterson here, and this is getting into his conclusion; there are more differences within the defined groups than between them, and the diversity creates more division than inclusivity. This here I think I probably agree with. Maajid Nawaz for instance often speaks about the 'minority within the minority'. This is in the context of the Muslim community. Within the Muslim community there are liberal Muslims, gay Muslims, Muslim feminists, ex-Muslims, Muslim reformers, and so on. The problem with identity politics is, the minorities within the minority often don't get heard. Yet these are actually the most vulnerable. These are the people who are often oppressed within their own community. Surely these are people the Left should speaking out for the most, but they don't because it is construed as attacking the group as a whole. And so what happens is they end up elevating voices that ironically hold views that are opposite to the values the Left supposedly holds, and demonises the voices they should be supporting. It's nuts.
The video is titled as 'Marxism' yet I actually wish the Left still held similar views that actual more classical Marxists did in the 60s and 70s. These ideas are actually actively pushed back on by the Left now. Marxism was universalist. It didn't concern itself with race, sexuality, or any other identity people organise around. At least not in the same way they do now. Marxism seeked to form solidarity around a shared common humanity. And of course why wouldn't they? If you're looking to form a large group strong enough to overthrow a government, you have to be able to rally people under a common cause. Indentiy politics is counter-productive.
The other thing is, Marxists would never push a victimhood mentality and notions of vulnerability in the way the Left does now. This is exactly what the Left has done by introducing safe spaces, micro-agressions, trigger waarnings and so on. Left-wing students regularly talk about how their entire existence is threatened simply by someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum speaking. That mere words are devastating enough that whole groups of people need to be protected from it or else they will not be able to function. Again, this is the exact opposite of Marxism. Whaat use are people like that? Marxist believed that humans had a shared capacity for self-governance and autonomy. It championed and encouraged the idea that we should be strong, robust, and able to engage in the public sphere. A victim is not able to engage within the public sphere. A victim cannot be an actor, they're people acted upon. What use is that to the cause?
That said, I don't get the hate for Peterson. You people act as if there is nothing to what he says. He's not on to nothing. Sure, you caan be critical of specific views, and disaagree with some of the things he says, but I don't think he is wrong about everything. In fact very rarely is someone right about everything.
