Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web

20 thoughts on “Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web”

1. Please Gillepsie don't be so a useful fool

2. Nick is a bizarre guy, he brings up his liberal arts grad-school experience as if it's some sort of cultural touch-stone. Romanticizes his own youth to the point that he wants to believe his experiences were universal.

3. great vid

4. modern?😃

5. 8:02 😂😂😂

6. Best question: Does Postmodernism and productive dialogue compatible? Nick's answer…unimpressive. More study of Hayek desperately needed.

7. How about asking Thaddeus Russell?

8. Most definitions of post modernism are exactly as Jordan Peterson says. A critique of the enlightenment. So no, the enlightenment and post modernism is not compatible. This guy has his own definition of post modernism and doesn’t actually understand what people mean when they say that.

9. first off, fuck every single libertarian. their petulant, entitled, ignorant, regurgitated garbage is beyond inane and outright cancerous. libertarians are the most ignorant, self assured, entitled morons I have ever come across in life. all they ever do is repeat what they saw on the internet, as if repeating bullshit makes it true. their whole self centered ideology exists in a fucking vacuum for piss sake. these inept twats have no perception outside of that which they want to perceive. they dont live in reality. all they know is if they keep parroting the snake oil salesman on youtube or wherever the fuck they get their garbage, that theyll feel convinced about their "intellectual superiority" over others. LMAO. "tHe fRee mArkET wiLL reGuLaTE iTseLF!!!" absolute fucking morons. then you look at them and hear them talk and you can see their grotesquely overfed ego oozing out of every pore, ignorant self assurance assaulting the air around them. never have i met a dumber set of people who believe themselves to be the most knowledgeable and intelligent people in attendance. fuuuuuuck these morons and fuck anyone who supports their inane, petulant bullshit.

10. Hilarious, Dawkins is showing why after listening to him, even atheists want to worship Jesus, lol.

11. I'm glad I came across this. I've listened to JP and James Lindsay for years now and I disagree with little of what they say yet I always suspected they were getting something very wrong about postmodernism. I'm a gay man who's not much younger than Michel Foucault. It's nearly impossible to explain how different society was towards gay people in the 1970s to people who didn't live through those times. Nothing short of a total deconstruction of collective belief on the topic could have helped to move forward. It's not a victimhood narrative imo, it's simply the truth, society was overwhelmingly deranged, we were seen as no different than pedophiles by huge swaths of the population. Today, that's a minority I think. Similar to the way women were viewed, a complete distortion of reality, but we were defined as sex criminals and treated as such. More tolerant people defined us as mentally ill. Surely, Foucault's work had value in such a rigid society. JP and Lindsay give him no credit, he's scapegoated for all that's wrong with the Woke worldview today.

    However, I don't think JP and Lindsay are wrong on much. All of the postmodern social 'sciences' have devolved into something that resembles Marxism more than the postmodernism of the 1970s. It's a matter of degree or an issue of extremism. The people who have adopted CRT, gender and queer studies and 4th Wave Feminism do not tolerate even the most minor critique of their beliefs. They and they alone know what is true. It is like religion and like Marxism.

    Beliefs that are so removed from reality at times that it's almost comical. They are both postmodernists and cultural Marxists (a problematic term but it's important to distinguish them from communists.) The 1619 Project for example, is clearly a postmodern work. The author may be open to debate but the larger Woke society has adopted it as part of their religion without question imo. Anyone who tries to critique it is shamed as a racist, a heretic basically. I think that social media is playing a very big part in this ideology sweeping through the culture. Every theoretical article that makes it to the internet is circulated like mad online and quickly becomes the latest Woke talking point. 'Babies show signs of racism at 3 months old.' It becomes the latest 'fact' within months of being published. Like Evangelical Christians throwing out Bible quotes to shut down any dissenting opinion.

    I think this interview is addressing the valid roots of postmodernism but not acknowledging the totalitarian nature of the end product that has infected society. I understand that the Woke are not true postmodernists because postmodernism teaches that there isn't one truth, that doesn't change the fact that these academic disciplines evolved with much influence from Foucault and the rest. Anyway, great insights in this interview.

12. These two timestamps are funny when you juxtapose them: 13:18, 31:54

13. Love the Dawkins comment, much respect for Gillespie on that point. My biggest objection to Pincker in his book Better Angels of our Nature, refuses to acknowledge the intellectual heritage that rational Christian theology and theologians (particularly Aquinas). Pretending the Enlightenment was something which spontaneously happened in spite of Christianity is an idea so perfectly stupid and dishonest, it’s difficult to express my contempt for such an assertion.

14. I'm way more left leaning compared to this channel, but I really enjoyed this video. Postmodernism has become a buzzword for sophists to fling around without ever making any attempts to figure out what they're making a stance against. Perhaps the most frustrating thing is the sheer transparency of the straw man they built up. Often calling postmodern thinkers "deprived", or "evil, and using sentences like "sleight of hand". Viewers that hear these kinds of words and not immediately have twenty alarm bells go off in their heads should take a firm look at how they engage with information and the world in general. Regardless of my political disagreements, I simply can't deny that this is one of the better defences of postmodernism I've seen on the internet so far. Nick has a talent for clear speaking and his responses are incredibly precise.

15. Sorry to all you JP fans, as someone who has fell down the rabbit hole of both the extreme left and right, while he has many great points on free-speech, the dude is an authoritarian due to his values, he makes it blatantly obvious as the sun on a summer day. I personally like Jordan and respect some of what he says, but I do oppose him highly on social issues. I appreciate everything I have learned from so many people irl and on YouTube about politics as someone who wants to get into debate, and possibly studying philosophy and psychology as my major/minor in college.

16. Bizarre. Gillespie stuck in some kind of 60s battle against The Man. Nowhere does JP ever say one can’t criticize your own society, in fact JP is often fiercely critical. Outcomes Nick w a strawman parade.

    Dumb”, says Nick? Yes, he is.

17. 1) 6 .30 "That´s the great achievement of Western Civlization: That we can disagree and still live PEACEFULLY SIDE BY SIDE" Hahaha !!!!! 2) You want to apply ECONOMIC principles (were people are forced to collaborate in order to win) to SOCIAL issues (were people tend to impose their views in order to have their way).. By the say, isn´t that the Scientism you critizise? Your hole argument just went to the GARBAGE..

18. From what Nick said it seems like he has some appreciation of post modernism in regards to its use in critiquing literary grand narratives. I got the sense though that Nick misses the forest for the trees when it comes to post-modernism. Post modernists even reject reason (as in the name of Nick's magazine) as inherently destructive and oppressive because of how it was used in the past to destroy and oppress others. We have post modernism to thank for concepts like gender being a social construct.

19. I wonder if Nick has read the phony paper 'The conceptual penis as a social construct' by Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle (James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian). They submitted this ridiculous farce of a paper to a post modern publisher (Cogent Social Sciences) that gladly accepted it. They submitted other ridiculous papers that were accepted by post modern publishers to show how absurd and anti-intellectual they are. One of their other accepted papers was essentially Hitler's Mein Kampf with minor changes here and there to slightly disguise it.
    'Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women
    
    also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.
    
    Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate
    
    change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that
    
    penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting
    
    role as a type of masculine performance.'

20. I'm willing to give this a chance. If a Libertarian video has an almost even like to dislike ration, I'm interested.

Comments are closed.