broschmo
Member
Why are you ad hominem attacking me?I too can lie that I have read all the books whose titles I know, but if I take from them content, that directly opposite to what is written, as we found in your argument about responsibility ... then this is not reading, but dementia or Mrxist-Leninist demagogy... or its the same?
This dialogue can last forever, but there was a questions, sir.
Would you answer them? otherwise, it's not a dialogue but two monologues.
Should I also send my ID here? ))
P.s. not Ayn Rand , please.=)
P.P.S. and yes, let's remove this conversation somewhere, but I'm really interested in your answers
Why would I lie about reading 12 Rules for Life?
I bought about 3 years ago when JP had all the hype and I forced myself to read more than half of it (if I recall correctly it has around 400 something pages).
I dont need your ID. As well as you don't need mine. I can tell you that I am politically involved in a communist party, that I strive to organize people in the workplace and help solving labour relations crisis with the exploitative relation between employer and employee.
You're confusing what I mean about taking responsibility.
Peterson advocates for individual responsibility detached from a sense of social responsibility and collective action. He's an idealist.
You cannot change systematic international issues through individual action. International cooperation and regulation is needed.
When I say that he provides a scapegoat I mean that is argument for individual accountability, when faced with the uselessness or ineffectiveness of individual action, creates a scapegoat for people since they are doing what they can individually but they don't see any meaningful change so they fall back on "society/cultural marxism" as a scapegoat.
It's the strawman that is easiest to attack, instead of confronting your own inability to enact change through collective action because aiming for something collectively is "cOmmUnIsM".
It's been 3h since I posted my reply, I doubt you had time to see and digest the debate I sent you.
I think you'll be able to hold much more nuance in your views after that.
I just finished re-listening to it at work.
You can't even define what marxism-leninism is so please avoid going into topics without clear cut definitions set. Participating in arguments in which people can't agree about the definition of what is being argued is pointless.
Again, not the place. Not the time.
I already waste a lot of energy in real life dealing with these questions and trying to enact short-term change. These "debates" just drain me and add nothing of valuable to me personally.
Don't take it as an attack on you but I do have to pick my fights inteligentelly or else I'll burn out.
EDIT:
Just to finish. I don't disagree with everything JP says, never said I did. There's always nuance and you can probably find some points were to agree on with your opposition. You can clearly see that in the debate I showed you.
My problem with JP thinking is when it gets politicized. I can kinda see the value of his thinking if you keep it strictly as a self-help guru/writer kind of thing.
However, when he starts to extrapolate things into the political sphere - he loses all his reasoning and he just exposes himself.
He's very ignorant in regards to social science and political science, so he should stick to the incel self-help niche.
Last edited: