Based shi gang

Brain breaking map

April 1st came early

Omg😱. Round of applause for Mr. Superior here!!!

What makes Kelvin absolute, and why is Celsius “wobbly”?

I failed physics in high school

It’s an ad hoc argument. You can’t argue against any ad hoc arguments with logic

Well i guess you’re right. I just wanted to point out an observation. Guess i just got ignoratio elenchied

Peterson’s gripes with postmodernism mainly stem from his hatred for Marxism and Neo-Marxism, whatever that means to him. He falsely equates the two by claiming that the Neo-Marxists attempt to the shroud their ideology in the form of “oppressionism” which is a staple of postmodernism. This is obviously wrong for a number of reasons but mainly because; 1) Marxism is rooted in scientific praxis by way of dialectical materialism which postmodernism opposes. 2) Marxism presents clear cut structures and systems for how society operates. Postmodernism says that systems are oppressive in nature and therefore should be opposed.

Now, i mentioned all this not because I’m a Marxist, but because i disagree with the two characteristics of postmodernism i outlined. Firstly, i don’t think it is in the best interest of any discipline to disagree with scientific reasoning simply because of how it has proven time and time again to be efficient. Science is the absolute and it should rather be science dismantling other modes of thinking than the other way around. Secondly, I disagree with the proposition that systems are oppressive therefore should be abandoned. Society, politics, etc CAN and SHOULD be explained in clear cut systems once again simply because of how accurate they are. It may not be the conflict theory, but there are other theories out there that explain society and accurately predict the actions of those in it e.g rational choice theory, feminist theory, etc.

I can’t claim to have read Foucault or Derrida or any other postmodernist literature, but this is my understanding of some of its claims.

Also, i have thought about Peterson potentially being a postmodernist (or at least incorporating some elements of postmodernist thought into his own ideologies) especially if you watched his recent discussion with Richard Dawkins. The way he tried to reconcile both points of view and say that they are actually two sides of the same coin seemed a bit postmodern to me. Although, what do i know.

Woah woah woah, I’m not a Marxist, but you’re going to have to back up your claims on how “political theory has moved on” and why that ties into Marxism not being based on dialectical materialism.

Fair enough argument. I do wonder who, in your opinion, is someone who can justifiably have authority on a topic if not a topic expert? Who is reasonable to be educated by?

Like i said, if an authority on a subject (an academic or an experienced individual) is only stating a priori or a posteriori facts about a topic, then it’s all well and good. However, if they’re discussing a topic for which there is no commonly agreed opinion or for which the answer exists but they are not privy to, it would be wrong for them to use that authority to claim correctness over another, say an interlocutor.

I have a PhD in ‘x’ related field, so even though I’m not too sure, I must be right

This does not however mean that their opinion isn’t worth listening to. We would be better off listening to category 3 authority figures than anyone else on subject specific matters.

On the topic of your book, i completely agree with the premise of politicians and their efforts in trying “dumb down” the populace. Something which, in America at least, will only be exacerbated by a Trump presidency and his most likely implementation of the Project 2025 manifesto. I think many of these things are due to the conservative party aiming to transform America into a Christian theocracy which would practically make it an authoritarian state.

I also think it’s worth noting the public’s own influence in undermining scientific praxis through the rise of anti-intellectualism in the form of flat earthism, climate change denialism and Christian theocrats. There are many people who are being given a platform who do not deserve one e.g Terrence Howard and his pseudoscience. The public seemingly has a fascination with engaging with these absurd opinions from category 1 authorities which contributes to the rise of anti-intellectualism. There’s also the demonization of university by especially Gen Z and the downplay of scientific reasoning in favour of “freedom of thought” a.k.a wokeism. I use this term in the form it’s used today which is excessive political correctness, cancel culture, or an overemphasis on perceived victimhood. There are many liberals here who will not be pleased by my use of the term, but i think it’s worth not only condemning conservatives, but also the ideologies of many radical liberals (my opinion on this is however not steady, so i am open to change).

There are so many more factors at play here, such as postmodernism (which is thankfully unpopular now), populist anti-elitism, and the pursuit of knowledge only when it has material benefit, but this is already long as it is

Bro, what point are you actually arguing against? The person you replied to never made a point about research bureaucracy.

Google ignoratio elenchi

No i hate him because post-modernism is trash. Peterson doesn’t understand post-modernism, but he is right that it’s trash

I’ll also have to respectfully disagree with you on this. If I’m listening to someone speak on a topic who is by your 3rd definition an authority on it, that is not a yardstick for them to claim correctness. Yes, i might probably be better off listening to them than a lay person, but it still doesn’t give them the right to claim correctness nor does it grant me the right to rehash these claims and say that i should be listened to since I’m regurgitating the words of an expert. All assertions should be backed up by verifiable sources.

I’m interested to hear about that book though

Fuck Foucault

It’s almost like they didn’t get your point

Assuming this meme is some form of Marxist propaganda, it would be a self-defeating meme, since Marxism is rooted in dialectical materialism which is itself a scientific process. At least according to Marx.

I guess authority bias is most absurd when one tries to use it as a crutch to validate an argument.

You should believe me simply because ‘x’ researcher said this about the topic

Oh we’re talking about an artist?

In all seriousness though, that is literally the most accurate description I’ve ever heard lmao. It’s crazy how popular she’s gotten considering how new she is to the orbcore/digital hardcore scene.

Pedanticness is a noun that is considered obsolete and was only used in the mid-1600s.

Erm, what can i say. I’m a connoisseur of the archaic.

I am only giving you a hard time because* (1) it’s funny, all the more so because (2) you are the police of these matters! :-D

You don’t wanna get on my bad side pal👮😎🔫

Get off my ass. It’s a word.