Current Events > Liking Jordan Peterson isn't cool anymore

(+) Yeah! (+)

Antifar posted...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. Thats actually why monogamy emerges.

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

---

BignutzisBack posted...

It is absolutely fascinating to see how much Jordan Peterson triggers liberals in this topic. How can you get that angry over the guy

---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Antifar posted...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. Thats actually why monogamy emerges.

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

It could be like that movie The Lobster

Lobsters are the animal he loves

It all makes sense

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Antifar posted...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. Thats actually why monogamy emerges.

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

This topic made me read this article out of curiosity. I honestly don't see how anyone could take anything in that article seriously. It truly is a "hit piece". It's made obvious from the start. Something that opens with: Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy: He says theres a crisis in masculinity. Why wont women all these wives and witches just behave? is obviously going to be about as far from objective as is humanly possible. I'm hardly his biggest fan but damn that article was unfair. My favorite part was:

He tucks his legs under him as he talks, curled in a dark leather seat. He has been padding around softly in socks. He looks down while he talks and makes fleeting, suspicious eye contact.

I just burst out laughing at that. They really did everything they could to make him seem like a monster.

Thankfully what I quoted is not the result of a spin (though I'm sure someone is about to try for a positive one any minute now).
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Thankfully what I quoted is not the result of a spin (though I'm sure someone is about to try for a positive one any minute now).

It is absolutely the result of spin. When he mentioned "enforced monogamy", he was almost certainly referring to socially enforced monogamy and not government enforced monogamy(which is how the article paints it). Which is to say, he thinks society should promote marriage and teach young people that they should get married because it's a good thing. I don't agree with that personally. I think marriage is dumb but just because I don't agree with his stance doesn't mean I'm going to pretend like he's some sort of lunatic. I have zero doubt that he was not saying that the government should come in and force women to marry men.

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little. Again, I don't agree with his point myself but I'm going to pretend like it's the craziest thing I've ever heard. From what I've seen from him, he's always been a big proponent of marriage. This is pretty normal for him I think and there are plenty of people that think like that. Not really that extreme of a stance to take.

**** Jordan Peterson, his fan base consists of deplorables and potentially future mass shooters
---

Grischnak posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Antifar posted...

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. Thats actually why monogamy emerges.

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

enforced monogamy

This topic made me read this article out of curiosity. I honestly don't see how anyone could take anything in that article seriously. It truly is a "hit piece". It's made obvious from the start. Something that opens with: Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy: He says theres a crisis in masculinity. Why wont women all these wives and witches just behave? is obviously going to be about as far from objective as is humanly possible. I'm hardly his biggest fan but damn that article was unfair. My favorite part was:

He tucks his legs under him as he talks, curled in a dark leather seat. He has been padding around softly in socks. He looks down while he talks and makes fleeting, suspicious eye contact.

I just burst out laughing at that. They really did everything they could to make him seem like a monster.

Par for the course when it comes to JP.
---

Grischnak posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little.

As a proposed solution to halting school shootings, let alone more general violence, I do.
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Grischnak posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little.

As a proposed solution to halting school shootings, let alone more general violence, I do.

not sure if I'm reading this right, so correct me if I'm not:

you think that

the government
forcing women to marry incels
would stop school shootings and/or more general violence?
---

I am saying that that is a dumb idea, and replacing "government" with "society" makes it no less dumb.
---

After listening to him speak for roughly forty hours, I admire him as a therapist and teacher, a competent storyteller with good rhetorical skills, and a practical person. He can be funny and at least presents a lot of varying viewpoints before making his (sometimes questionable) conclusions.

The things that bug me are his tenuous connections he makes, blind spots with his criticism of atheism and postmodernism (and making huge leaps in attributing to them really destructive or stupid traits), and general narrow-mindedness in basically writing off valid objections to his views.

So, I like to view him as a passionate older guy who has reached success in a very specific way which can explain a lot of his blind spots. I can see why uneducated youngish people could idolize him and he himself realizes the danger of that but also isn't about to turn away the millions he's making off of it.
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Grischnak posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

An equally hot take because an increased societal focus on marriage would not lead to the unpopular getting dates sooner.

I really don't consider that "equally hot" to the government forcing women to marry incels. Like...not even a little.

As a proposed solution to halting school shootings, let alone more general violence, I do.

The likeliness of it to work isn't the issue. I don't think it would work either. But, basically, turning women into the sex slaves of men via government mandate is obviously more evil then wanting society to encourage marriage. Which is why the article is so manipulative. It's not saying "Peterson thinks society promoting marriage would lead to less violence, isn't that dumb?" it's saying "Peterson thinks the government forcing women to become sex slaves of losers would lead to less violence, isn't he a misogynist monster?".

I've been seeing people saying that the "enforced monogamy" this is meant to be a socially enforced monogamy. But... We as a society already put a big stigma on infedelity and polyamourus relationships. So I'm not sure his point is
---

emblem boy posted...

I've been seeing people saying that the "enforced monogamy" this is meant to be a socially enforced monogamy. But... We as a society already put a big stigma against infidelity and polyamourus relationships. So I'm not sure his point is

well he also became famous in the first place for falsely claiming that free speech was being threatened by a bill to protect transgender people from hate crimes, and later, by protestors interrupting him. so maybe the conclusion should be that people shouldn't talk about stuff if they don't know jack shit about it
---

"Enforced Monogamy" is an actual term. It means incentivizing monogamy, in this case through things like tax breaks and daycare programs. In nature it more traditionally refers to a female of a species' efforts to prevent the male from seeking out other mates. It's an awful choice of words to use to someone who doesn't know what he's actually saying, but anyone claiming he's calling for forced marriages or something is just looking for excuses to write him off.
---

So from what I'm gathering from the right is

"These creepy guys are committing mass murder and ladies, it's all YOUR FAULT!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7JDn9TLFZU" data-time="
---

https://twitter.com/baileys/status/997646354414522368
---

emblem boy posted...

I've been seeing people saying that the "enforced monogamy" this is meant to be a socially enforced monogamy. But... We as a society already put a big stigma against infidelity and polyamourus relationships. So I'm not sure his point is

No. Back in the day if you were not married past a certain age you were basically an outcast. If you were a man people treated you as if you weren't truly a man and had no responsibilities, like a grown child. You were made to feel as a complete and utter failure as a woman for not having a husband and a family.

My father told me that when he was young you wouldn't be hired as a man past a certain age if you didn't have a wife or kids to support, not when there were men who needed that same job to support a family applying.

We absolutely dont have that social stigma on being grown and single these days. I have friends that are 36 and just being childish bachelors and they get no shit about it from literally anyone.
---

Omega Hunter posted...

emblem boy posted...

I've been seeing people saying that the "enforced monogamy" this is meant to be a socially enforced monogamy. But... We as a society already put a big stigma against infidelity and polyamourus relationships. So I'm not sure his point is

No. Back in the day if you were not married past a certain age you were basically an outcast. If you were a man people treated you as if you weren't truly a man and had no responsibilities, like a grown child. You were made to feel as a complete and utter failure as a woman for not having a husband and a family.

My father told me that when he was young you wouldn't be hired as a man past a certain age if you didn't have a wife or kids to support, not when there were men who needed that same job to support a family applying.

We absolutely dont have that social stigma on being grown and single these days. I have friends that are 36 and just being childish bachelors and they get no shit about it from literally anyone.

You surely can l can't be saying you'd prefer that level of negative stigmatism.

s0nicfan posted...

"Enforced Monogamy" is an actual term. It means incentivizing monogamy, in this case through things like tax breaks and daycare programs. In nature it more traditionally refers to a female of a species' efforts to prevent the male from seeking out other mates. It's an awful choice of words to use to someone who doesn't know what he's actually saying, but anyone claiming he's calling for forced marriages or something is just looking for excuses to write him off.

I mean, we do have tax breaks for people with kids and married couples. If he's saying there should be more, I doubt he'd get much disagreement from people.
---

emblem boy posted...

Omega Hunter posted...

emblem boy posted...

I've been seeing people saying that the "enforced monogamy" this is meant to be a socially enforced monogamy. But... We as a society already put a big stigma against infidelity and polyamourus relationships. So I'm not sure his point is

No. Back in the day if you were not married past a certain age you were basically an outcast. If you were a man people treated you as if you weren't truly a man and had no responsibilities, like a grown child. You were made to feel as a complete and utter failure as a woman for not having a husband and a family.

My father told me that when he was young you wouldn't be hired as a man past a certain age if you didn't have a wife or kids to support, not when there were men who needed that same job to support a family applying.

We absolutely dont have that social stigma on being grown and single these days. I have friends that are 36 and just being childish bachelors and they get no shit about it from literally anyone.

You surely can l can't be saying you'd prefer that level of negative stigmatism.

Apparently making these outcast people feel like even bigger pariahs and outcasts is going to make them want to go on murder sprees even less.....
---

emblem boy posted...

I mean, we do have tax breaks for people with kids and married couples. If he's saying there should be more, I doubt he'd get much disagreement from people.

I think that's exactly what he's saying, he just chose academically accurate but colloquially awful words to say it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

emblem boy posted...

I mean, we do have tax breaks for people with kids and married couples. If he's saying there should be more, I doubt he'd get much disagreement from people.

I think that's exactly what he's saying, he just chose academically accurate but colloquially awful words to say it.

He should really stop doing interviews.
---

so has this been posted
https://imgur.com/bEOrM15
---

emblem boy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

emblem boy posted...

I mean, we do have tax breaks for people with kids and married couples. If he's saying there should be more, I doubt he'd get much disagreement from people.

I think that's exactly what he's saying, he just chose academically accurate but colloquially awful words to say it.

He should really stop doing interviews.

I agree just because the media will cherry pick certain parts of the interview to make the story more controversial (more hits). And his exploratory style of debate gives the media a lot of ammo.
---

Balrog0 posted...

so has this been posted
https://imgur.com/bEOrM15

We have to dive into what he means by casual sex. BRB, gonna go watch a few dozen hours of his videos so I get a better idea and don't misinterpret him
---

^ I think what you mean is something more like:

"he was just asking a question!"
---

It's truly fascinating to me that almost all anti-Peterson arguments remind me of arguing on GameFAQs. Which is to say, if you disagree with someone most people will generally try and counter your whole post but every now and then you'll come across one guy that will randomly take 5 words that you say and argue that while completely ignoring everything else in your post. Context does matter. As the "enforced monogamy" thing clearly shows. This is changing the goalpost. It's like "Oh look! Here's a random out of context thing that Peterson said, isn't he evil?" and when that gets challenged it gets changed to "Oh look! Here's another random out of context thing that Peterson said, isn't he evil?". I mean...come on. Just say "I don't like the guy and don't agree with most of what he says". There's no reason to go to such effort to make a false narrative that he's the devil.

The people who don't like him are the people who are also uncapable of understanding him because of leftist brainwashing
---

Grischnak posted...

Just say "I don't like the guy and don't agree with most of what he says". There's no reason to go to such effort to make a false narrative that he's the devil.

I did.

Also, though, doesn't that tweet show that he is considering things to a degree you said you knew he wouldnt be?
---

Balrog0 posted...

so has this been posted
https://imgur.com/bEOrM15

I think this take can be generalized beyond Williamson to figures like Peterson: https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/988140991864487936
---

Balrog0 posted...

Grischnak posted...

Just say "I don't like the guy and don't agree with most of what he says". There's no reason to go to such effort to make a false narrative that he's the devil.

I did.

Also, though, doesn't that tweet show that he is considering things to a degree you said you knew he wouldnt be?

That tweet doesn't show anything. Why? Because it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Every time I see a supposed evil thing Peterson has said and I've looked into it, it ends up being a manipulation on the part of people that hate him. Every. Time. It's constant and never ending. Given that, why should I take anything like that seriously? To put it another way, if that quote was in context and literal...why haven't I seen it before? His detractors do everything they can to hunt down info they can use to destroy him and that post is old as hell. If it was truly something that could be used against him, I would have seen someone use it against him before. Yet I haven't. Which says to me that it's another manipulation in one way or another.

Grischnak posted...

That tweet doesn't show anything. Why? Because it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Every time I see a supposed evil thing Peterson has said and I've looked into it, it ends up being a manipulation on the part of people that hate him. Every. Time. It's constant and never ending.

that's exactly how I always feel when someone tells me to watch one or many of his videos in order to figure out what he really means. it is never worth it, nor is the supposedly deeper meaning ever apparent

I guess thats why people have a tough time communicating with each other when they dsiagree
---

Grischnak posted...

To put it another way, if that quote was in context and literal...why haven't I seen it before?

Because you weren't paying attention to his Twitter in December 2016
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810165492522455040
---

I like Jordan Peterson. I've seen/heard him say some wacky things that I disagree with (opposing a gay marriage bill because it's driven by "neo-marxists"), but if I disliked everyone I disagreed with I would dislike everybody. He's an extremely profound and wise thinker.

I mean, the full context doesn't show that he is advocating for state tyranny but that isn't the point... The point is that it is weird to automatically assume he isn't talking about that when he clearly does consider that option

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdtTYiCUwAIC7An.jpg:large

in fact, though this discussion is centered on men and their relationship to state tyranny when they renege on their cultural or societal expectations, he doesn't come close to saying its bad and if anything implies it is necessary

so to me this clearly shows that when he says 'forced monogamy' he does indeed include state levers of power towards making that a reality, whether or not he considers it ideal

it seems perfectly consistent to me that he would extend this sort of argument towards women and their responsibilities with regards to sex, which he explicitly considers different from men and their responsibilities with regards to sex
---

Balrog0 posted...

that's exactly how I always feel when someone tells me to watch one or many of his videos in order to figure out what he really means. it is never worth it, nor is the supposedly deeper meaning ever apparent

I guess thats why people have a tough time communicating with each other when they dsiagree

I'm not a Peterson fanboy. I don't care about the "deeper" meaning in what he says. What I care about, and truly annoys me to be blunt, is people trying to manipulate me into believing bullshit that isn't true. Let me tell you how this topic went for me.

1) I enter topic and lurk for a bit
2) I see the enforced monogamy stuff
3) I think "Whoa. He actually thinks that? I gotta go check it out..."
4) I go to the New York Times article and what do I find? Do I find a fair story about how Peterson is far more radical then I thought he was? ...No. I find a article so absurdly one sided that it doesn't even pretend to be objective on a superficial level. Might as well have called the article "I've met pure evil and his name is Jordan Peterson".

It's fucking tiresome man. I didn't enter this topic wanting to waste my time defending Peterson but it's all just so fucking hard when people are trying to manipulated me into being their little ideological pawn. Whatever. I give up. I'm gonna go do something more productive.

yeah, I don't hate him any more than you love him, I don't make it a mission to dismantle his words or sayings or ideas, either. in this case the plain meaning of his words seems much more compelling to me than this supposedly widely used anthropological meaning (that I never came across in my anthropology classes *shrug*) that anaesthetizes him from the criticism leveled at him

not sure if you think otherwise but the level of effort this has entailed from me has been pretty minimal personally
---

Grischnak posted...

Balrog0 posted...

that's exactly how I always feel when someone tells me to watch one or many of his videos in order to figure out what he really means. it is never worth it, nor is the supposedly deeper meaning ever apparent

I guess thats why people have a tough time communicating with each other when they dsiagree

I'm not a Peterson fanboy. I don't care about the "deeper" meaning in what he says. What I care about, and truly annoys me to be blunt, is people trying to manipulate me into believing bullshit that isn't true. Let me tell you how this topic went for me.

1) I enter topic and lurk for a bit
2) I see the enforced monogamy stuff
3) I think "Whoa. He actually thinks that? I gotta go check it out..."
4) I go to the New York Times article and what do I find? Do I find a fair story about how Peterson is far more radical then I thought he was? ...No. I find a article so absurdly one sided that it doesn't even pretend to be objective on a superficial level. Might as well have called the article "I've met pure evil and his name is Jordan Peterson".

It's fucking tiresome man. I didn't enter this topic wanting to waste my time defending Peterson but it's all just so fucking hard when people are trying to manipulated me into being their little ideological pawn. Whatever. I give up. I'm gonna go do something more productive.

As long as some people are this rational there is hope left.
---

@COVxy interviewing Jordan Peterson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54" data-time="