Jordan Petersen vs Camille Paglia

[DrZoidberg]

I don't sweep it away. I see how she draws conclusions and can clearly see she is irrational.

She says things like people's minds were destroyed by LSD. Something that is factually wrong.

She didn't. You misheard. It's already been pointed out by several people. Yet, you cling to your delusion. Please stop.

What planet are you living on? Postmodernism became the dominant school of thought in the 70'ies to the 00'ies.

Fads are all irrational.

Tell me what is important about this idea "Postmodernism"?

Something most people never heard of and have no need of.

Ehe...what? That's the primary target of the talk. When you heard LSD. What they actually said was postmodernist thought destroyed the minds of a generation. If you don't even know what they're criticising, then perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion? How about that?

Also, amusing how you refer to trends of thought as a fad. Have you heard about the fad, democracy and political freedoms? Too bad it's just a fad and therefore nonsense. Can't wait for us to get monarchy again.

 

[untermensche]

She didn't. You misheard. It's already been pointed out by several people. Yet, you cling to your delusion. Please stop.

The quote was:

"The actual "radicals" of the 1960's (defined as people who like Buffalo) either dropped out of college and went off to create communes or they were taking acid and destroyed their brains." (as opposed to all those people drinking alcohol)

Here's more of her rambling:

"When... it became known that I was going to Yale I was confronted by a leader of the "radicals"... in broad daylight... who denounced me for... 'Graduate school is not worth happening. You don't do that. If you have to go to graduate school you should go to Buffalo'."

This is such insane rambling where do you begin?

How did it became "known" she was going to Yale?

How is graduate school not worth happening.....unless you go to Buffalo?

Go ahead listen to this crazy person. That is your prerogative.

I know I agree with her on some things but her thinking is not right. She arrives at conclusions in an irrational manner.

 

[DrZoidberg]

She didn't. You misheard. It's already been pointed out by several people. Yet, you cling to your delusion. Please stop.

The quote was:

"The actual "radicals" of the 1960's (defined as people who like Buffalo) either dropped out of college and went off to create communes or they were taking acid and destroyed their brains." (as opposed to all those people drinking alcohol)

Here's more of her rambling:

"When... it became known that I was going to Yale I was confronted by a leader of the "radicals"... in broad daylight... who denounced me for... 'Graduate school is not worth happening. You don't do that. If you have to go to graduate school you should go to Buffalo'."

This is such insane rambling where do you begin?

How did it became "known" she was going to Yale?

How is graduate school not worth happening.....unless you go to Buffalo?

Go ahead listen to this crazy person. That is your prerogative.

I know I agree with her on some things but her thinking is not right. She arrives at conclusions in an irrational manner.

Obviously a prestigious university is better to study at, because the lecturers are better. Smart people are attracted to other smart people like flies to shit. She was told by more "class conscious" people of her day that she has nothing to gain by attending an elite university. That she'd only get filled with the narrative of the oppressors. As if facts are class conscious. I was only a child back then, but I remember this kind of argumentation. It was common. I'm very grateful its gone today.

I don't understand what your problem with her is? Is it that you are using her examples as universal statements? They're just examples.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously a prestigious university is better to study at, because the lecturers are better. Smart people are attracted to other smart people like flies to shit. She was told by more "class conscious" people of her day that she has nothing to gain by attending an elite university. That she'd only get filled with the narrative of the oppressors. As if facts are class conscious. I was only a child back then, but I remember this kind of argumentation. It was common. I'm very grateful its gone today.

She says they told her if she has to go to grad school she should go to Buffalo.

How is there nothing to gain unless you go to Buffalo?

It is not a rational thought.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Obviously a prestigious university is better to study at, because the lecturers are better. Smart people are attracted to other smart people like flies to shit. She was told by more "class conscious" people of her day that she has nothing to gain by attending an elite university. That she'd only get filled with the narrative of the oppressors. As if facts are class conscious. I was only a child back then, but I remember this kind of argumentation. It was common. I'm very grateful its gone today.

She says they told her if she has to go to grad school she should go to Buffalo.

How is there nothing to gain unless you go to Buffalo?

It is not a rational thought.

I don't know for a fact what she meant. But I still think it was pretty obvious what she meant. Buffalo is not an Ivy league university. Buffalo was a university for the working class, the class conscious. Only ideas that come from the oppressed classes have value to the majority. Buffalo represented an non-elite/working class university. And that's why they wanted her to go there. It's a kind of thinking that was prevalent in the 70'ies.

I'm pretty sure that's what she meant. I have no problems following the logic of what she is saying. I think it makes perfect sense.

 

[untermensche]

She says they told her if she has to go to grad school she should go to Buffalo.

How is there nothing to gain unless you go to Buffalo?

It is not a rational thought.

I don't know for a fact what she meant. But I still think it was pretty obvious what she meant. Buffalo is not an Ivy league university. Buffalo was a university for the working class, the class conscious. Only ideas that come from the oppressed classes have value to the majority. Buffalo represented an non-elite/working class university. And that's why they wanted her to go there. It's a kind of thinking that was prevalent in the 70'ies.

I'm pretty sure that's what she meant. I have no problems following the logic of what she is saying. I think it makes perfect sense.

She also said people's brains were destroyed by LSD.

She also does not know fact from fantasy.

I think Derrida and his so-called methods are incoherent nonsense too.

But just because somebody agrees with me on some point does not mean I agree with their ways of thinking and deciding things.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't know for a fact what she meant. But I still think it was pretty obvious what she meant. Buffalo is not an Ivy league university. Buffalo was a university for the working class, the class conscious. Only ideas that come from the oppressed classes have value to the majority. Buffalo represented an non-elite/working class university. And that's why they wanted her to go there. It's a kind of thinking that was prevalent in the 70'ies.

I'm pretty sure that's what she meant. I have no problems following the logic of what she is saying. I think it makes perfect sense.

She also said people's brains were destroyed by LSD.

No, she didn't. That's one interpretation. But it doesn't fit the rest of the discussion. I think what she meant was that postmodern philosophy, leftist ideology and drug use destroyed people's thinking. I have a hard time believing that a child of the 60'ies working and talking with people experimenting heavily with LSD would think it destroys brains. No, LSD doesn't destroy the brain. But it is associated with a hippie, tune-in-turn-on-drop-out lifestyle that is not conducive to academic excellence. I'm sure that's what she means.

I think Derrida and his so-called methods are incoherent nonsense too.

Yes, she did say that. It's quite harsh. But that's her opinion. It doesn't make her crazy. I like Derrida and I think his work is interesting. But it is hard to apply to anything. It's pretty fucking far from rigorous philosophy. Ok, so let's explore what people aren't saying. Too bad that other stuff has infinite possibilities. You need to make a hell of a lot of assumptions to apply Derrida's litterary criticism technique. Well, can't you just make a bunch of assumptions right off the bat in that case? Why use philosophy? It's a problem with Derrida. I don't agree with her that he's bunk. But I do think she has a point.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, she did say that. It's quite harsh. But that's her opinion. It doesn't make her crazy. I like Derrida and I think his work is interesting. But it is hard to apply to anything. It's pretty fucking far from rigorous philosophy. Ok, so let's explore what people aren't saying. Too bad that other stuff has infinite possibilities. You need to make a hell of a lot of assumptions to apply Derrida's litterary criticism technique. Well, can't you just make a bunch of assumptions right off the bat in that case? Why use philosophy? It's a problem with Derrida. I don't agree with her that he's bunk. But I do think she has a point.

I heard Chomsky once talk about Derrida.

He said he could not understand anything he was talking about.

I have that same experience and if Chomsky can't understand it there is no way I will.