Wank Dad 2: Electric Wankaloo

[Crash Dummy]

haven't watched yet but can't wait, my twitter is fuego this morning
https://twitter.com/ironicrep/status/1119453681093681153

[agrajag]

From what I hear Peterson went to the Manifesto because he thought it was the definitive Marxist document which goes to show what an intellectual scrub he is

he also decided to go with that cause it was the shortest

Did he get the audiobook version? 

[Nintex]

I've yet to watch all of it but Peterson got wrecked to a point that I fear even the YouTube algorithm will abandon him. 

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/Xenos_RIFS/status/1119441113255825408

[Crash Dummy]

on the other hand https://twitter.com/whotwotewho/status/1119420678376230912

[shosta]

When Zizek points out Marx's explicit rejection of egalitarianism in Critique of the Gotha Program

[team filler]

(Image removed from quote.)

[BisMarckie]

When you have read Marx's ethnological notebooks, you realize that he was a complete hack.

[Oblivion]

My favorite part was probably when Zizek pointed out to him how stupid his whole "clean your room before you change the world" advice really is.

[shosta]

I'll have to watch when I'm back in the country but I'm sure JoPe got owned even if Zizek is an incoherent hack

haven't watched yet but can't wait

I'm at 2:23:00 and it still sucks, just don't watch if you respect your time.

[BisMarckie]

I'm at 2:23:00 and it still sucks, just don't watch if you respect your time.

Hang on. Do people here really watch amateur philosophers 'debate' for hours?


I though the whole wank dad thing is just getting funny soundbites and tweets.

[team filler]

[agrajag]

Zizek really is disgusting 

[shosta]

Hang on. Do people here really watch amateur philosophers 'debate' for hours?


I though the whole wank dad thing is just getting funny soundbites and tweets.

I'll watch hours of zizek videos just to find that one ten second dirty joke

[agrajag]

pretty sure they get paid for their wankery breh

[BisMarckie]

pretty sure they get paid for their wankery breh

Stoicists like Seneca would say that a true wise man and philosopher would never take money for their philosophical teachings.

Therefore amateurs.

[agrajag]

Seneca can suck my hog!

[BisMarckie]

Seneca can suck my hog!

That's what Nero said.

[team filler]

[agrajag]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jordan-peterson-the-intellectual-we-deserve.30669/post-20026797

 

[BisMarckie]

Hagel.

[jakefromstatefarm]

I booted this shit up at 1:30 last night, skipped to when Peterson started reacting to historical materialism with: “well golly guys, I dunno, seems kinda out there,” then skimmed to where zizek keeps circling around the same four sentences to ask Peterson one question.

So i guess it all went according to keikaku?

[agrajag]

if they edited out all the parts of Zizek sniffling and rubbing his face, the video would be 45 minutes

[shosta]

[shosta]

His infinite ticks are one of the many reasons he's personable and he has an amazing sense of humor. That movie I linked to gets boring fast but the first scene actually made me lol. Great way to start.

[Crash Dummy]

I'll have to watch when I'm back in the country but I'm sure JoPe got owned even if Zizek is an incoherent hack

haven't watched yet but can't wait

I'm at 2:23:00 and it still sucks, just don't watch if you respect your time.

watching at work now and just got through jp's opening statement - dude hasn't done any of the reading you would have assumed one would do not just to prepare for this debate but to have a base level of credibility as a public dank web intellectual, so instead does some weird attempted psychological reading of marx and engels before lapsing into his usual talking points? wtf? zizek should be able run rings around this clown

[Crash Dummy]

pretty sure they get paid for their wankery breh

i think zizek said that he's going to donate his share from ticket sales to charity

[benjipwns]

Even I can't stand watching this whole thing, but I love that Zizek actually took this seriously while Peterson totally blew it off and figured he could just handle it on the fly.

also talk about spoilers in the title, we already know "Capitalism" is winning the debate simply by the fact that they're selling tickets to Zizek rambling and mocking Peterson and whatever other random topics come into his head for two hours

correct

Zizek won't debate or stay on topic anyway, he's fundamentally incapable of it. This is why Peterson's obsession with him is so great. He thinks Zizek is the postmodern Marxist dragon that if he can just somehow battle it he can forever end totalitarianism by besting it in debate. When Zizek can't commit to anything that's not currently attracting his attention by being shiny.

It's like the ultimate endgame of Peterson's whole mile wide, centimeter deep adventure.

shockingly incorrect

Peterson should just debate an actual raccoon instead.

still most correct

[benjipwns]

Then again, reading only The Communist Manifesto the night before you plan to debate a "Marxist" professor is quite the alpha lobster move though.

When you have read Marx's ethnological notebooks, you realize that he was a complete hack.

I think this is actually close to Zizek's usual position on Marx and why he doesn't like to call himself a Marxist. He likes the critique but thinks the rest is distracting nonsense. Notice in the clip Esch posted, he doesn't mention Capital, only the articles from a certain period. IIRC, this is closer to his actual position than defending it all, which he probably realized early on he thankfully didn't have to do thanks to Peterson being an epic loser complete chad alpha.

[shosta]

that fact is the reason there's an entire fifteen segment where JP makes the tucker carlson face and repeatedly asks why Zizek chooses to "associate himself" with marx, to which Zizek has to explain he does not primarily identify as a marxist.

[benjipwns]

I was kinda hoping that the debate would illustrate exactly why Peterson has chosen to shadowbox Zizek for like two years and why he decided he was the great Marxist foe, but I'm now wondering if he even bothered to look up the guy on wikipedia

hell, at this point I'm not even sure that Peterson has looked up Marx on wikipedia

now I'm kinda curious how his full fledged fans are taking this, but I don't exactly know where to go to find Peterson fans, reddit I guess? the "I like Peterson cuz he hates people I do" circles I sometimes visit seem to be agreeing with more left and other places that he mostly embarrassed himself for no real advantage outside of the money

[agrajag]

I wish Assy was here to tell us austys how Daddy P really won the debate without having watched the debate.

[benjipwns]

i guess etoliate secretly was giving us a preview of Peterson's whole gameplan before he was unjustly banned by the corrupt mods

"why do you support Marxist crimes like the Holodomor?"
"but i don't"
"but why don't you? checkmate "

[Mandark]

iirc part of what set him off was curly pointing out that he only referenced the manifesto and asking if he'd read any of the other stuff.

It's like poetry, it rhymes.

[team filler]

 

[Himu]

AHAHAHAHAHA

apparently wank daddy just read his first piece of marxist lit like three-four days ago after years of railing against marxists and marxism. He doesn't even know the basics of his opponents arguments and he acts like he's some fucking philosopher lmao

[benjipwns]

I always thought attacking just The Manifesto was something like only Fox News hosts did because their audience doesn't really care about it, but then the last two years have disabused me of this notion, regarding people of all kinds of different levels of sympathy towards "socialist" ideas

[Himu]

Assy truly picked the right hero lmao

[Himu]

I always thought attacking just The Manifesto was something like only Fox News hosts did because their audience doesn't really care about it, but then the last two years have disabused me of this notion, regarding people of all kinds of different levels of sympathy towards "socialist" ideas

At the very least be familiar with the Manifesto, but also Das Kapital, and Why Socialism by Einstein. Much of this shit is free! And this was a tenured professor.

[toku]

now I'm kinda curious how his full fledged fans are taking this, but I don't exactly know where to go to find Peterson fans, reddit I guess? the "I like Peterson cuz he hates people I do" circles I sometimes visit seem to be agreeing with more left and other places that he mostly embarrassed himself for no real advantage outside of the money

I casually browsed the jp subreddit after the debate and it's hard  to get a real read on what ''''''they'''''' think because it's getting brigaded by chapotraphouse fans engaging in the Protracted Poster's War and counter flooded with by the regulars with memes about gulags.

There was some acknowledgement of JP being unprepared. And also weird weird people imitating JPs entire mythic affect responding to irony poisoned ancom types with "BEGONE FOUL DEMON" gandalfspeak.

Edit: and honestly, a lot of them played up how nice and civil it was and the things they agree on like political correctness, claiming that it was a "great discussion" etc etc. Which is what it is since Zizek didn't press him at all.

Did you see that bit last week where the chapo sub was in a tizzy because the chapo dudes told somebody it was actually okay to have kids despite climate change?

[benjipwns]

One thing I noticed in watching this is that JoPe didn't seem to have any awareness of different interpretations or schools of Marxism or his intellectual successors.

Usually a good sign for that is when a person seems to want to blame Marx, personally, for everything. When the real world criminals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. all did their own accurate discovery of the scientific principles of TRUE Marxism. If you can't even recognize this difference with huge figures of history, you'll never get to the internecine academic Marxist wars...

Even if Peterson had bothered to read the very good historiography that's attached to Penguin Books' version of The Manifesto he would have realized that Engels rewrote tons of stuff including translations of The Manifesto in Marx's name after he was long dead. I have to imagine from the fact that Peterson is a tenured and apparently once respected PhD, this would have set off alarm bells no matter how far away from his field he's going. Even if he was being too lazy to read anything else but The Manifesto. Or even apparently wiki The Manifesto. (So perhaps I am being fantastical in imaging him reading a book.)

One thing I personally like to emphasize when teaching The Manifesto is how it was written in response to political events, namely the wave of 1848 Revolutions. Both Marx and Engels wanted to get it out and read, they would finesse any details or theory later. It's almost irresponsible* to treat the work as standing alone and disconnected from these events.

*in the historian/academic parlance of "not actually important" except to nerds

[shosta]

One thing I personally like to emphasize when teaching The Manifesto

in what context do you teach the manifesto, aren't you primarily american history

[benjipwns]

Other than an extended sub period I have not been part of a history department in like five years or so. I'm almost always in poli sci officially.

There's a valid non-benji reason for this. I only have a masters, history is far far more PhD dominated. Poli sci almost lets any moron with a masters in power.

I personally teach tons more history in any version of a poli sci course I do except methods. Ten times as much or more depending on how deficient the others are at this. At a former place, neither of the other Intro to American Politics instructors taught any form of history in the course except Presidential elections back to 1960 or so, and a brief day on the Constitution debates.

Most Intro to Poli Sci aka 100/101 teaches a brief section on ideologies/similar, covering liberalism (John Stuart Mill/John Locke liberalism), communism, etc.

[benjipwns]

Teaching anything about Communism/Marxism in a way that seems not negative is how you expose the College Republicans. It's the one thing you're always taught in Graduate School Political Science.

oops, wasn't supposed to reveal that

I do cheat, for Communism, the recommended reading is something like The Communist Manifesto (they just ask why if you don't include it), Critique of the Gotha Program and The Conquest of Bread/Mutual Aid

[shosta]

Ah, ok, I was a little confused because of that time you went into detail about jumpstarting a proper historiography course at your campus, my mistake. Dossier has been updated.

[benjipwns]

Because I have both, I often get dragged welcomed into fights enlightening discussions between the two departments fighting over the same humanities resources.

I think Poli Sci needs historiography courses worse sometimes because at least history departments actually have them. That article I linked in the Lassiez Faire thread and told nobody to read gets into some of that. Also another thing that poli sci is starting to talk about similarly is how entire topics are just flat out ignored. From that book I mentioned in the book thread, I learned and confirmed that The American Political Science Review has only published one article on intelligence. Of any kind, policy, process or other. Ever. In 113 years. It's also never published an article about climate change and a whole bunch of other technology related fields that are similar to climate change policy direction/discussion.

edit: here's that article so anyone else who might be interested doesn't have to dig it up: https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Political-Science-Became/245777/

According to a Teaching, Research & International Policy Project survey, a regular poll of international-­relations scholars, very few believe they should not contribute to policy making in some way. Yet a majority also recognize that the state-of-the-art approaches of academic social science are precisely those approaches that policy makers find least helpful. A related poll of senior national-security decision-makers confirmed that, for the most part, academic social science is not giving them what they want.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that scholars increasingly privilege rigor over relevance. That has become strikingly apparent in the subfield of international security (the part of political science that once most successfully balanced those tensions), and has now fully permeated political science as a whole. This skewed set of intellectual priorities — and the field’s transition into a cult of the irrelevant — is the unintended result of disciplinary professionalization.

That increasing tendency to embrace methods and models for their own sake rather than because they can help us answer substantively important questions is, I believe, a misstep for the field. This trend is in part the result of the otherwise normal and productive workings of science, but it is also reinforced by less legitimate motives, particularly organizational self-interest and the particularities of our intellectual culture.

While the use of statistics and formal models is not by definition irrelevant, their edging out of qualitative approaches has over time made the discipline less relevant to policy makers. Many pressing policy questions are not readily amenable to the preferred methodological tools of political scientists. Qualitative case studies most often produce the research that policy makers need, and yet the field is moving away from them.

In addition to the growing dogma among many political scientists that scholars can achieve rigor only by using a narrow set of techniques, other factors compound today’s cult of the irrelevant. For instance, many social scientists eschew policy relevance on the grounds that it is incompatible with scientific objectivity. Objectivity, for them, means that social-science research has to be "value-free," concerning itself only with establishing and analyzing the facts about what "is" and avoiding any discussion of what "ought" to be. A social-scientific consensus has emerged: Objectivity precludes policy engagement because the latter is inextricably linked with questions of value.

I was surprised at how positive this article was received in the field, even with all the usual caveats

[VomKriege]

To be fair "Marxism" is super intimidating so I can see why most peons like me would just stay at the most basic level of the Manifesto and some famous other bits but then again I don't make a career denouncing "Cultural Marxism".

Wank Dad cancelled, now Aron is my new Clausewitzian Daddy.

[Joe Molotov]

Swamp witches stay cackling in their swamps.

[BisMarckie]

Teaching anything about Communism/Marxism in a way that seems not negative is how you expose the College Republicans. It's the one thing you're always taught in Graduate School Political Science.

oops, wasn't supposed to reveal that

I do cheat, for Communism, the recommended reading is something like The Communist Manifesto (they just ask why if you don't include it), Critique of the Gotha Program and The Conquest of Bread/Mutual Aid

Recommended reading is a great way to troll students who never attend. Like only listing the Latin untranslated edition of Cicero's De Legibus in the syllabus.

[Nintex]

Zizek and Daddy P liked eachother. They'll get their own Netflix show for sure.

[Crash Dummy]

Zizek and Daddy P liked eachother. They'll get their own Netflix show for sure.

i think daddy p was more enamored by zizek than the other way around; i listened/watched in the background and noticed some subtle (pointing out orthodoxy is also a very short book)/not so subtle jabs by zizek ("i'm not saying you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about" and asking for names of any pomo neo marxists)

[Oblivion]

After reading about this debate, I'm now convinced Daddy P did not intentionally misrepresent the "compelled speech" law and make a new career out of it, but he actually likely didn't read the bill at all (and most assuredly still hasn't) and just assumed that's what it said because he heard it somewhere. He's truly exposed as a hack fraud who lucked into this life and has been winging it ever since.

Well, that wouldn't be surprising since the guy literally wasn't aware that the bill included anything other than pronoun tyranny (the main goal of the bill was to protect trans people from getting fired/not being able to get housing/including them in hate crimes if they get murdered/etc.).

[Brehvolution]

After reading about this debate, I'm now convinced Daddy P did not intentionally misrepresent the "compelled speech" law and make a new career out of it, but he actually likely didn't read the bill at all (and most assuredly still hasn't) and just assumed that's what it said because he heard it somewhere. He's truly exposed as a hack fraud who lucked into this life and has been winging it ever since.

The only credentials needed to be a hero of the alt right.

[BisMarckie]

Tbf that is true for all culture warriors. Be it contrapoints raking in the patreon money for intellectually lazy videos or Ben Shapiro doing Ben Shapiro things.

[Great Rumbler]

Complain about the intelligentsia while stanning for a college professor who prepped for a debate by cramming the night before.

[Rufus]

JP's fans love to bring up his credentials, as though a PhD in psychology makes him the sole arbiter on the human condition. That's what makes him at best skimming the material he claims to have valuable insights on especially delicious.

[shosta]

[BisMarckie]

[shosta]

One thing I never understood was how the "skeptic community" became a part of the new right. I don't understand the link.

[agrajag]

what skeptic community? Sam Harris and.... ?