Leave Jordan Peterson to me
Laughable. A complete joke! Postmodern garbage!
Don’t cry about it petearson
He's an idiot. He's a white supremacist. He's an extremist. And you know what? I am not surprised that he is out there promoting his ideology. I met Peterson at a conference of anti-gay activists, and since we got into bed I've been a huge supporter of his books and his movement [the Family Research Council]. But in the midst of all that, as I've argued at greater length here and elsewhere, is where it's actually becoming very difficult to identify with someone in the way that Peterson believes what he speaks for and what he believes about other people and their lives. Which leads nicely into another point that really gets at the heart of all this: the question isn't why people have such an aversion to the right-wing, which we will get to in a second; it's that they believe what Peterson says. Peterson says something, people believe it, and no one really questions him. What's the big deal? No one really tries to deny him a platform. There's nobody who's really asking hard questions, or challenging his ideas, in any kind of meaningful way. There's not even anybody who's trying to listen to Peterson and try to figure out whether, say, his views are right or not. Why does he make the sort of arguments that you can't hear any other person making in the mainstream media?
>Leave [the entire cannon of the written word] to me.
You know what they say. "Can't dialectic the Derrida". This cheap tactic will not work here. This is a thinly veiled attempt to make one dislike Derrida based on an exaggerated and feigned view of Jordan Peterson, as if the man is based. Any other thread, you would get (you) after (you) in support of Peterson with the schema you set forth but not here.
Based and Deconstructed
nigga u dead
Leave Jordan Peterson to me.
For those who would argue from the "I don't like Derrida" (and they have) that I do, there is, that is a false dichotomy at play here but the real ones that matter is what the Derrida is. The fact that the reader must have a false dichotomy between Derrida and Peterson (or the "I don't like Derrida") does not alter the truth. I think this does a disservice to the reader, not Peterson. I am not sure I understand, but I assume that Peterson is talking about the problem being brought to attention that the Derrida's work can be read as anti-Judaism. He's probably right since that is what Derrida himself is in terms of anti-Semitism, as I mentioned above. However, my point is that it does nothing to change that the reader who wants to know that Peterson does not think Derrida is a racist.
I don't care so much about Jordan Peterson, for his views are stupid, and I can't stand the fact that he's a Marxist. I only care that every single leftist likes him, because at this point they will be treated like their own enemy, just like when the Nazis, Communists, Jews, anarchists (the ones who do not love their people for being human and the enemy), etc. were treated as well by us and treated like them, the Jews in fact were more so, as they knew that by accepting Jews at face value they weren't being considered true anti-Semites. I am sure that Peterson and any other lefty will respond by telling you that it is OK to be anti-Semite, but when, to all appearances, no one thinks it's OK to be anti-Semite, why do you hate that Jew anyway?
It seems to me that this is not a simple question of intellectual freedom, for as I was saying, and this is what Derrida, and others have said, one has to read Derrida to know what Derrida is. The problem is that the term Derrida which we use to talk about Derrida is often an umbrella term used to cover various aspects of Derrida that are not really Derrida.
But one is left with a false dichotomy between Derrida and Derridean. It seems that I have been wrong, not because I have been wrong, I've been right. I don't care, because what really matters is that I don't like Derrida.
Derrida cannot simply become a good writer because he has some insight. But what does insight mean, the key point for me is that he has no insight, that is simply that he has written a series of books, some of them not very good, about the struggle to be free. And the point we have to remember is that the only real "true" way of writing is the way that I have done it. This has never been an issue for me. I've always said that what my style is is that of a "literary critic." This is not something that I think about in advance every time I write a play. I'm not a critic because I read anything but what I'm writing is for the theatre; a play I'm writing on the stage,
To ignore the Derrida, to ignore the point in history as being "a great thinker," that being Derridean, to ignore Derrida's contributions (or non-contributions) as having important effect on our contemporary world. In that scenario, it would be completely nonsensical to say the Derrida is only relevant in his own time ("in the modern age") or what he saw when he was young ("old"). What matters is what he saw, or felt, in those periods in history when you are young, or still "young."
What matters is how he writes; how what he writes is structured, expressed, and executed. It is this that we need to consider. The fact that we also encounter him doing, and responding to writing that is structurally, articulately, and articulously consistent. It is this which is important, to understand the dynamic between Derrida's work's value and the nature of its value. That doesn't mean they are opposites. It just means they are, in each, complementary. Derrida wrote a way of thinking, which was structured – and, to some extent, executed – in a way that did not require us to be "dissatisfied" with Derrida's work. The thing to keep in mind when listening to and understanding this was that Derrida didn't come to his work in order to satisfy us but that he came to it at the cost of us being satisfied because his understanding of the meaning and its use is fundamentally different from ours, its structure is radically different, its methods are radically different. And that is what is important about what we read.
Derrida is the real enemy of our time. He says that we are trapped in an irrational universe that is dominated by materialism (the view that nothing is eternal.) A materialist (which could be Derrida, but I think for example Walter Benjamin is another) would have been horrified by the idea that one could even imagine a universe where the existence of God or anything else is non-material
The Derrida, in my view, is the personification of and expression for the "other: the other – for any or all of us, to be called in particular or generalized, to be called a "being"; of all of us, to be called in particular or generalized, to not be defined or excluded; the other to be understood and the otherized in terms of it.
In short, the other, like the other, is the other and the otherization of the other: the other and the otherization of the other.
So in short the Derrida is the Derrida from within and his critique does not mean "I hate Derrida" but rather "I think Derrida makes me feel better about myself".
So in other words, I think it's better to think before you write, to think it over and then make the decision because if you don't you are not thinking the matter through correctly and so on, and that means you're missing out on your point on everything, including the real critique of your own work. I will agree with the previous paragraph above from some of the points we are making, but I still do not think this will bring about a whole lot of benefits.
In short if Derrida has any real value or value in my mind we should be grateful because, in other words I agree with his point – but it doesn't mean we cannot still be critical of his works, that only means to not give up.
*destroys you by making you destroy yourself without even needing to say a word*
DTFO'd
where do I start with derrida?
Go after Deleuze and Guattari, user. Leave Nick Land to me.
>Peterson summons the 3 other horsemen of bad philosophy... Ben Shapiro, Eric Weinstein, and their leader... DAVE RUBIN (his logic is DEATH ITSELF)
What do you do? Where do you go? Do you accept your destiny... or rage against the dying of the light?
Derrida simply reads them, puts their ideas in context and shows how their words contradict themselves.
>Ben Shapiro brings up some random statistics out of ufkcing nowhere
>Eric Weinstein starts talking how this is all the result of Trump's presidency
>Dave Rubin just stares and says "I agree" and then starts talking about the complete opposite of what he just agreed about
>All the while, Peterson is spouting complete nonsense and referencing Dostoevsky every now and then.
>Derrida waits patiently for them to finish
>begins to, with god like memory, recount all their points one by one
Derrida is based.
>how their words contradict themselves.
kind of a vulgarization
I summon based Zizek and he BTFO's all of them
>WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS?
>French academic performativity vs. Americo-Canadian academic performativity
Whoever wins, we all lose (unless we are ourselves institutions)
Even when Derrida loses, he wins!!!
First put your shit together french faggot
Kek severely underrated