Not trying to shill DW but I support their mission and both JP and BS are interesting characters.

Looks like the title got cut off.

The series is on Exodus. JP has already does a series on the psychological significance of Genius that was interesting. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat

I find him interesting since he became, I believe, christian especially, but at the same time he's just a bit too laborious to listen to, for me. He seems to respect science as something requiring training/discipline to study, but believes in his own intellect as entirely self sufficient to analyze the Bible/religion/doctrine/dogma/history of the Church/judeo-Christianity.

It is probably partially at least just me, but he does talk for a long time on a given topic, with few references to others/source analyses.

Triggered!

Cynic said:

---

Triggered!

---

Nah. He's just become a caricature of himself.

nortex97 said:

---

I find him interesting since he became, I believe, christian especially, but at the same time he's just a bit too laborious to listen to, for me. He seems to respect science as something requiring training/discipline to study, but believes in his own intellect as entirely self sufficient to analyze the Bible/religion/doctrine/dogma/history of the Church/judeo-Christianity.

It is probably partially at least just me, but he does talk for a long time on a given topic, with few references to others/source analyses.

---

He can be difficult to listen to because he's used an academic vocabulary. It took me a while to get used to that. I did go see him speak recently and I was kind of shocked. He didn't seem in the best is health and he kept going down these rabbit holes and it was a journey for him to make the point. He may have lost track of the point he was making a few times.

He had some interesting insights into archetypes but at the end of the day he takes the same empiricist route that everyone in the west took. That will effect the way he analyzes any book in the Bible and God will remain just an idea and not a Divine Person.

Yes I think he rambles on without structure too often. He is a bright guy who probably would be well serviced to at least stick to a written outline of his topic(s).

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great. He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great. He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

You know, one thing I've noticed (not specific to you, Wolfe) is that when someone has an eloquent accent, such as a british accent, there is a tendency to automatically attribute a notch or two level of 'smarter' by folks. I'm sure I've been guilty of this, too.

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

Seems like that could be applied to Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder as well

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

With the exception of poststructuralism (which he is not really trained in or he just completely misunderstands), he used to admit the limits of his training. Seems he's dropped even that over the last few years. I'll admit I've never liked Jungian archetypes as a structural framework, so I've never been a fan of his intellectual work (regardless of politics), but he came across as an earnest if overly reductive academic at first. Now it's just another NAME with followers on the right. A different flavor of the same arguments.

icrymyselftosleep said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

Seems like that could be applied to Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder as well

---

Yep

Zizek? Really? You think he embarrassed JP?

Ok then.

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

Seems like you merely have confirmed your preconceived notions. You admitted a while ago that it was JPs fan base that you despised. Now he is suddenly "failing" when talking to "real intellectuals."

I've seen many such discussions with "real intellectualls" and I find your conclusions ridiculously transparent. They are generally thoughtful, respectful exchanges of ideas. Things we use to value in our society before wrong think became anethema.

He eloquently articulates conservative values which makes him an enemy of the neomarxists. He's also white and male, which basically makes him Hitler.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

Seems like you merely have confirmed your preconceived notions. You admitted a while ago that it was JPs fan base that you despised. Now he is suddenly "failing" when talking to "real intellectuals."

I've seen many such discussions with "real intellectualls" and I find your conclusions ridiculously transparent. They are generally thoughtful, respectful exchanges of ideas. Things we use to value in our society before wrong think became anethema.

He eloquently articulates conservative values which makes him an enemy of the neomarxists. He's also white and male, which basically makes him Hitler.

---

How to insure that no one takes you seriously

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Wolfe said:

---

To be fair, his lectures, interviews and other speaches are great.He is on point and knows what he's talking about. Very much enjoy listening to him. But my experience seeing him live was that he was not well. His health has been an issue for a few years now.

---

Does he really?

I'm sure he's very knowledgeable in his field of training and teaching, but when he gets 'out of his lane', so to speak, he's really not very knowledgable at all. In fact, he's embarrassed himself quite a bit.

For example, he loves to talk about Marx, a lot, but when he spoke with someone that knows what the hell they are talking about, Zizek, he was flat out embarrassed.

He's become an internet hero because he's taken down unprepared reporters and similarly prepared college kids, but when he's stepped up to real intellectuals, he fails.

---

Seems like you merely have confirmed your preconceived notions. You admitted a while ago that it was JPs fan base that you despised. Now he is suddenly "failing" when talking to "real intellectuals."

I've seen many such discussions with "real intellectualls" and I find your conclusions ridiculously transparent. They are generally thoughtful, respectful exchanges of ideas. Things we use to value in our society before wrong think became anethema.

He eloquently articulates conservative values which makes him an enemy of the neomarxists. He's also white and male, which basically makes him Hitler.

---

First of all, despised is a really strong word.

Second, I don't consider Shapiro a real intellectual.

Next, Yes, the conversation with Zizek was thoughtful and respectful. Isn't it interesting how these conversations are different when these supposed right leaning pundits are actually having discussions with folks on the other side that are their equivalent and are prepared to have a real conversation. Unlike when they can be snarky and dismissive to unprepared reporters or college students.

You last point, he's not really that eloquent when his words are really parsed. And he is way out of his league when he starts slapping labels on things like neomarxist. For someone that loves to use Marx as his repeated whipping boy, he shows very little actual knowledge of Marx and his work.

Quote:

---

How to insure that no one takes you seriously

---

What's your contention, here? That neomarxist don't actually exist?

You can deny reality at your own peril. I can choose not to take cancer seriously, that's certainly not going to keep it from existing.

Quote:

---

Unlike when they can be snarky and dismissive to unprepared reporters or college students.

---

You say this as a critique of "right leaning pundits" when it's more accurately a tendency of people. Everywhere. Left, right, or otherwise.

So, your point, exactly, escapes me.

Quote:

---

Marx

---

I think he very clearly elucidated how the modern social justice warriors are rebranded Marxists. Please elaborate how you think this shows him to not know what he's talking about.

You're making a lot of statements without actually backing anything up.

Eta: Specifically, with specific examples, cite evidence to justify your position that JP doesn't understand Marx.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

How to insure that no one takes you seriously

---

What's your contention, here? That neomarxist don't actually exist?

You can deny reality at your own peril. I can choose not to take cancer seriously, that's certainly not going to keep it from existing.

---

Are there marxist in the world? Sure.

Do they have any power of note within the American political environment? No not really.

I could be wrong so please, in your own words describe
1) what neomarxist believe/try to establish
2) what aspects of neomarxism you believe are being implemented by the established left in the count(with examples)

And just so I know how to respond, do you believe modern day Israel is a neo-marxist state ?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

Unlike when they can be snarky and dismissive to unprepared reporters or college students.

---

You say this as a critique of "right leaning pundits" when it's more accurately a tendency of people. Everywhere. Left, right, or otherwise.

So, your point, exactly, escapes me.

Quote:

---

Marx

---

I think he very clearly elucidated how the modern social justice warriors are rebranded Marxists. Please elaborate how you think this shows him to not know what he's talking about.

You're making a lot of statements without actually backing anything up.

Eta: Specifically, with specific examples, cite evidence to justify your position that JP doesn't understand Marx.

---

Well, he he did say in the Zizek debate that he "hadn't read much more than the Communist Manifesto in recent years".

Here's a couple of good articles.

https://jacobin.com/2020/08/conservatives-karl-marx-jordan-peterson-ben-shapiro

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

https://hbr.org/2011/09/was-marx-right


The overwhelming problem here is that Marx is treated as some boogyman with superficial caricature reference to his work. Virtually no one will publicly admit that many of his critiques were dead on, to this day. The problem lies, rightly so, in his presciptions for those issues he identifed.

Mac's links are a great place to start. Nathan Robinson is a rabid neomarxist, as is anyone writing for Jacobin.

Now, granted, they don't generally call themselves that. Not in public, at any rate. The prefer terms like anti-capitalists. But anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe know what they mean.

I do love this site sometimes. Duncan "there's no such thing as neomarxism" followed by you extolling the values of Marx.

Wow.

Yeah, Marx laid the groundwork for exploiting capitalism's short comings that every modern neomarxist today utilizes for their own personal agendas.

Capitalism isn't perfect. No human endeavor will be. But it's a lot better then returning to feudalism, which is essentially what every derivation of Marxism strives to do, though they normally don't realize it. Sure, this time we "vote" for our ruling class. Because that makes it "better."

I didn't say they don't exist. I said they don't have any power. I also asked you for examples of what they are trying to implement as neomarxists.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Mac's links are a great place to start. Nathan Robinson is a rabid neomarxist, as is anyone writing for Jacobin.

Now, granted, they don't generally call themselves that. Not in public, at any rate. The prefer terms like anti-capitalists. But anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe know what they mean.

---

Folks who like Marx's analysis will admit it. Believe it or not, most folks on the far left aren't concerned about whether conservatives "know what they mean." You have to accept that not everyone is looking for your approval.

I am curious what you've read from or about Marx.

I also don't understand how "anti-capitalist" is supposed to be any softer than "marxist"

Had he said "democratic socialist" he might have a point.

But I'd really like to know his feelings on the modern state of Israel since (setting aside the war crimes and apartheid) it is about as close to progressive lefts dream for America as any modern state gets.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

I also don't understand how "anti-capitalist" is supposed to be any softer than "marxist"

Had he said "democratic socialist" he might have a point.

But I'd really like to know his feelings on the modern state of Israel since (setting aside the war crimes and apartheid) it is about as close to progressive lefts dream for America as any modern state gets.

---

It seems a lot of people can't divorce The Communist Manifesto from the volumes and volumes of things written by Marx. So, Marx bad. Marx never say good thing. Anything Marx is bad. You wind up with these attacks on Marxian theories by using sources and figures Marx himself used and addressed directly.

Marx's theories of labor and the relationship between capital and labor, or capital and culture, are extremely important and have driven a lot of the economic theories on the right and left for the last 150 years. But instead of acknowledging that and disagreeing with where Marx thought history was heading, we get stupidity in the form of polemics and insults.

Remember that time Marx wrote a fan letter to the leader of the Republican party and hoped he would be successful in defeding labor against the armed forces of capitalism?

That was a good read.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Remember that time Marx wrote a fan letter to the leader of the Republican party and hoped he would be successful in defeding labor against the armed forces of capitalism?

That was a good read.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

---

I love how y'all act as if Lincoln's Republican Party is anything like your's

You might want to consult someone's spreadsheet.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

You might want to consult someone's spreadsheet.

---

You're right, plus the Dune name should've been a dead giveaway

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

How to insure that no one takes you seriously

---

What's your contention, here? That neomarxist don't actually exist?

You can deny reality at your own peril. I can choose not to take cancer seriously, that's certainly not going to keep it from existing.

---

Are there marxist in the world? Sure.

Do they have any power of note within the American political environment? No not really.

I could be wrong so please, in your own words describe
1) what neomarxist believe/try to establish
2) what aspects of neomarxism you believe are being implemented by the established left in the count(with examples)

And just so I know how to respond, do you believe modern day Israel is a neo-marxist state ?

---

There absolutely are very influential neo-marxists. Some of them, like the founders of the BLM organization, are openly marxists. There are intellectual forces in postmodernism (from which critical theories, including race critical theories, arose) that move it toward Marxism. The most striking is the division of the world into two camps: oppressed and oppressors.

(If you're going to deny that the BLM organization is influential, then I'm going to start wondering what planet you live on.)

Quote:

---

critical theories, including race critical theories, arose

---

Are you saying that society and the legal system shouldn't be criticallyy review in light of the impact of race relations throughout American history?

fat girlfriend said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

How to insure that no one takes you seriously

---

What's your contention, here? That neomarxist don't actually exist?

You can deny reality at your own peril. I can choose not to take cancer seriously, that's certainly not going to keep it from existing.

---

Are there marxist in the world? Sure.

Do they have any power of note within the American political environment? No not really.

I could be wrong so please, in your own words describe
1) what neomarxist believe/try to establish
2) what aspects of neomarxism you believe are being implemented by the established left in the count(with examples)

And just so I know how to respond, do you believe modern day Israel is a neo-marxist state ?

---

There absolutely are very influential neo-marxists. Some of them, like the founders of the BLM organization, are openly marxists. There are intellectual forces in postmodernism (from which critical theories, including race critical theories, arose) that move it toward Marxism. The most striking is the division of the world into two camps: oppressed and oppressors.

(If you're going to deny that the BLM organization is influential, then I'm going to start wondering what planet you live on.)

---

You realize Marxism is avowedly structuralist and positivist, right? Because that would seem to put it at odds with POSTstructuralist theory…