Jordan pedersen interview

[sickdsm]

https://youtu.be/iEJ1QHu-KEQ


Gotcha moment from beginning to 1:25. Old news I know but I had to find out what all the memes we're about

[koriwhat]

peterson is of sound mind. love listening to his lectures and small clips when he puts sjw's in their place.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cls8ZURQRK4

[boutons_deux]

For all you ST Repug incels and assorted bubbas, shitkickers, losers, gun fellators, obese slobs, etc who can't laid

Jordan Peterson advocates for 'enforced monogamy,' defends the existence of witches and dragons
(http://theweek.com/speedreads/774024/jordan-peterson-advocates-enforced-monogamy-defends-existence-witches-dragons)
blames violent attacks by men on the fact that they do not have wives,

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this.

Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution.

Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/774024/jordan-peterson-advocates-enforced-monogamy-defends-existence-witches-dragons

[Chris]

I was going to make an official Jordan Peterson thread to commemorate the man, but this will do. I will post some youtubes later today.

[Nathan89]

I was going to make an official Jordan Peterson thread to commemorate the man, but this will do. I will post some youtubes later today.

No, create your own thread. No reason to use a thread with basically no comments and a shit title.

[RandomGuy]

https://youtu.be/iEJ1QHu-KEQ


Gotcha moment from beginning to 1:25. Old news I know but I had to find out what all the memes we're about

Meh. Another whiney ass conservative POS with a sense of entitlement and persecution complex.

These fuckers need to constantly play their victim card using all the manufactured outrage they can.

[RandomGuy]

The First Rule Of Jordan Peterson Club Is No One Is Allowed To Criticize Jordan Peterson


You know how when you were a kid at slumber parties, you’d all gather in a dark bathroom to say “Bloody Mary” three times in a mirror? And yet, somehow, Bloody Mary never showed up? Not so for Jordan Peterson supporters! If you say Jordan Peterson on Twitter even once, you will be met immediately with a barrage of angry men demanding to know if you have read and listened to every word that has ever come out of his mouth, and why you hate critical thinking and logic so much. If you quote him (instead of reciting one of his two hour lectures verbatim), you will be accused of “twisting” his words. So expect things to get real weird in the comments section today.

Because they are devoted. Like, reaaaaaalllllly devoted.

They’re like, Sam Harris fans times Taylor Swift fans times 1,000.

But why? Well, as my mother says, “people will love you for the way you make them feel about themselves.” Young men love Jordan Peterson, and desperately so, because he makes them feel ecstatically good about themselves. He tells them that while others may see them — straight white cis men — as a group, specifically a group that has benefited from the oppression of other groups, he sees them all as unique, special individuals. Oh, and that the entire narrative of oppression of other groups is not even real. He tells them that they can think critically, that they are rational, that they are logical. More or less, he blows smoke up their asses while putting on the persona of substitute dad. He tells them the things they want to hear, the things they believe in their bones to be true, and he makes it sound smart. Ish.

What certain men — specifically men who feel left behind — want right now is to be told that, rather than being kind of backwards, they are logical, rational, critical thinkers. These are traits they imagine they hold over women, who are, of course, emotional and irrational.

The thing is, a small amount of the things he says are totally reasonable, if not just regular, normal self-help type things — things like “clean your room” and “stand up straight” — and this is what people will generally accuse you of being mad at when you disagree with other things he has to say.


Read more at https://wonkette.com/633856/wonksplainer-who-is-jordan-peterson-and-why-is-he-the-worst#cX9RoClpQHJlBbEQ.99

[Chris]

No, create your own thread. No reason to use a thread with basically no comments and a shit title.

He deserves better, you're right.

[Winehole23]

Redistribution good now.

Incels need concubines.

Liberty loving IDWs think women should be passed around -- forcibly, by the government -- to keep incels contented and docile.

[Winehole23]

Lol compulsory monogamy for women, to prevent assortative mating.

Affirmative action for incels, tbh.

[Winehole23]

according to Jordan Peterson, it's a public safety issue that trumps liberty for half of humanity,

[Winehole23]

can't get some?

nanny state to the rescue.

[TSA]

Meh. Another whiney ass conservative POS with a sense of entitlement and persecution complex.

These fuckers need to constantly play their victim card using all the manufactured outrage they can.

immediately posts a whiny wonkette article :lmao

[Nathan89]

"This is plainly dishonest reportage. First off, Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.

So, here’s what Peterson is not arguing: that women should be forced to marry men to cure the insecurity of incels. But that's what Bowles says he's saying, and then calls it "absurd." Because she's a very objective reporter, don't you see.

Here’s what Peterson is arguing: socially-enforced monogamy results in more pairings, and fewer situations in which multiple women choose one man, leaving other men without partners. This is statistically unassailable. Removing socially-enforced monogamy results in a hierarchy in which women choose the most desirable men, since many women can now have sex with one man. Peterson argues that this leads to a counterintuitive result as well: desirable men are less likely to settle down with one woman, making women less satisfied with their relationships with men as well."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30825/new-york-times-runs-comprehensive-hit-piece-jordan-ben-shapiro?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Winehole23]

that's not what Peterson said. that's pure spin.

[Nathan89]

Certainly is a nice hit piece by the New York Times though.:lol

[Winehole23]

in the interview he acknowledged the contradiction.

Peterson stood by his point; you're too pussy to.

[Nathan89]

that's not what Peterson said. that's pure spin.

I've never seen any video of him saying anything to that nature. Just a biased piece by nyt. I

[Winehole23]

did you read it?

did you notice what he said, or are you just parroting someone else's gloss?

[Winehole23]

equalitarian distribution of sexual opportunity was discussed, who's gonna enforce that?

[Winehole23]

are you pining for it now?

[Winehole23]

Do you believe there should be equalitarian distribution of pussy, Nathan?

[Nathan89]

"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. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

It's not a mandate by law to marry unwanted people. It's a society values monogamy and perhaps the value in the current legal structure.

[Winehole23]

Jordan Peterson does.

For the common good.

[Winehole23]

What does compulsory mean, Nathan?

[Nathan89]

Do you believe there should be equalitarian distribution of pussy, Nathan?

I think it's most likely better for society if we encourage monogamy.

[Winehole23]

That's not what Jordan Peterson said. He said it should be compulsory.

For reasons of public safety.

[Winehole23]

To prevent low status males from getting violent.

[Winehole23]

Do you agree or disagree with Jordan Peterson on this?

His own stance is crystal clear.

[Nathan89]

That's not what Jordan Peterson said. He said it should be compulsory.

For reasons of public safety.

Quote what he says.

[Nathan89]

"Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships."

Why didn't she write Peterson instead of some?

[pgardn]

https://youtu.be/iEJ1QHu-KEQ


Gotcha moment from beginning to 1:25. Old news I know but I had to find out what all the memes we're about

What frkkn con man.

His Lobster stuff, 5-7 min is utter BS. He is another clueless debater who comes in with behavioral evolution and biochemical systems and completely gets it wrong. Hierarchical systems in animals vary wildly depending on their life history. What would he say about a deep sea anglerfish that is mostly solitary females with the male sex practically non existent about the size of a kidney bean that just grows into the large female? What about lizard species that are parthenogenetic females. He is clueless on heirarchy and sexual reproduction. And then the claim of this deep evolutionary commonness with lobsters? He is on fckn crack. This guy is a charlitan. Getting evolution massively WRONG to back up his patriarchal tendencies.

He totally screwed himself.

Glad this was bumped.

[ElNono]

What frkkn con man.

His Lobster stuff, 5-7 min is utter BS. He is another clueless debater who comes in with behavioral evolution and biochemical systems and completely gets it wrong. Hierarchical systems in animals vary wildly depending on their life history. What would he say about a deep sea anglerfish that is mostly solitary females with the male sex practically non existent about the size of a kidney bean that just grows into the large female? What about lizard species that are parthenogenetic females. He is clueless on heirarchy and sexual reproduction. And then the claim of this deep evolutionary commonness with lobsters? He is on fckn crack. This guy is a charlitan. Getting evolution massively WRONG to back up his patriarchal tendencies.

He totally screwed himself.

Glad this was bumped.

Ignoramus swallow it whole though. Twice as interesting since they're largely the same people that waive off any science that doesn't agree with them.

[Nathan89]

What frkkn con man.

His Lobster stuff, 5-7 min is utter BS. He is another clueless debater who comes in with behavioral evolution and biochemical systems and completely gets it wrong. Hierarchical systems in animals vary wildly depending on their life history. What would he say about a deep sea anglerfish that is mostly solitary females with the male sex practically non existent about the size of a kidney bean that just grows into the large female? What about lizard species that are parthenogenetic females. He is clueless on heirarchy and sexual reproduction. And then the claim of this deep evolutionary commonness with lobsters? He is on fckn crack. This guy is a charlitan. Getting evolution massively WRONG to back up his patriarchal tendencies.

He totally screwed himself.

Glad this was bumped.

Did you write this after 2min section of video and think you had a great grasp of his perspective?

[pgardn]

Did you write this after 2min section of video and think you had a great grasp of his perspective?

Why would you completely screw ANY argument with something so utterly wrong?
Why?

[Nathan89]

997561276619517952

[Nathan89]

Why would you completely screw ANY argument with something so utterly wrong?
Why?

“That is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters’ evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.”

How do do your dominant female examples refute this?

[pgardn]

“That is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters’ evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.”

How do do your dominant female examples refute this?

Thats wrong as well.

Denying that sociocultural construction has nothing to do with evolutionary induced hierarchical structures is complete BS as well. It shows a complete lack of attention to the sexual biology of a species.


Just keep going.

[pgardn]

So this guy would say the patriarchal structure of so many human societies has nothing to do with the male being larger and stronger? And now would you like to discuss why males being larger and stronger is the exception in the vast majority of animal species since you think you understand this guy?

Go ahead. Discuss.

[sickdsm]

Im no animal scientist but his lobster chapter does drive home the fact about don't be a bitch or you'll continue to do bitch stuff very well. Using it to relate to human tendencies makes it with much better.

[Isitjustme?]

Ignoramus swallow it whole though. Twice as interesting since they're largely the same people that waive off any science that doesn't agree with them.

Dude, if you wanna call Nathan out just use his name. Dont be a coward

[pgardn]

Im no animal scientist but his lobster chapter does drive home the fact about don't be a bitch or you'll continue to do bitch stuff very well. Using it to relate to human tendencies makes it with much better.

In fairness I have not read the book obviously.

So why in the interview does he say I use the lobster as an example BECAUSE they have a hierarchical system? This does not fit your take above.

The interviewer obviously chose this to discuss because others found it strange and just wrong. But she does not know enough to question his blabbering properly imo.. Then he goes on about seratonin and levels in higher status animals to ok reflexive mood... so bad. In fact* I totally agree with him then stating that hierarchical systems are absolutely NOT consequence of capitalistic patriarchy. In fact this is very dangerous imo and sounds Leninesque imo. (Btw, which lefties NOW state this? Link or something) This makes perfect sense. It may provide a structure to reinforce capitalistic patriarchy NOW, but no way did a patriarchy led hierarchical system arise because of a societal construct involving capitalism.

This is what I’m getting:

He states quite a bit of legit stuff, possibly even straw men to easily knockdown (see my* above). Then he throws a wild haymaker sucker punch now that he convinces with reasonable legit stuff. Of course the “lefty” interviewer is there to knoock him down. So now he has credibility because he mentions some interesting stuff about a Why he is being interviewed? This is again the shallow transparent tactic I see going on from both extremes. I’m legit, now I can say something wildly off target...

Conclusion:

There are some males that cannot stand the fact that they are being pelted with their own Western gem of thinking, the sanctity of the individual. Females correctly pointing out their burden of having to walk on egg-shells (in dress, in not being a bitch by voicing an opinion, on and on) in our patriarchy is now being thrown back at males. (You can’t just stare me down because of my dress, you can’t just hassle me because I’m alone at a movie) There are males that have completely lost touch of what females go thru. They are frustrated because they can’t just grab and fck like on the porn sites they endlessly watch. We got these awkward males on reddit banning together crying because they are not loved and can’t find a mate. “Well dammit, it’s my right, I’m a a male in a male dominated society”

Tough luck losers. Learn to work within a society that is drug into the understanding that females are not your sex slaves or less intelligent than you are. Be more resourceful with your autistic tendencies like other males and females not overloaded with testosterone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This stuff is almost as cool as the solar burp and all the judeo-christian creationist nonsense. We should be monogamous just like the bible says because lobsters!

[AaronY]

Derp.

[sickdsm]

This stuff is almost as cool as the solar burp and all the judeo-christian creationist nonsense. We should be monogamous just like the bible says because lobsters!

Huh? That chapter wasn't about monogamy specifically. It was more about a dominant personality. The mind set about being defeated or being a winner invokes more of the same. Everyone already knows this (or should).


TBH I had a free audiobook from Google so I used it on him. After chapter two I had a hard time driving and concentrating so I gave up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Huh? That chapter wasn't about monogamy specifically. It was more about a dominant personality. The mind set about being defeated or being a winner invokes more of the same. Everyone already knows this (or should).


TBH I had a free audiobook from Google so I used it on him. After chapter two I had a hard time driving and concentrating so I gave up.

You think the lobster is a valid proxy for human behavior? :lol Because serotonin?

Apparently if you give SSRI's to a slug they avoid parasites. We should use antidepressants to treat parasites obviously!

[sickdsm]

You think the lobster is a valid proxy for human behavior? :lol Because serotonin?

Apparently if you give SSRI's to a slug they avoid parasites. We should use antidepressants to treat parasites obviously!
You were the one claiming monogamy =lobster. The lobster chapter is called Stand up straight with your shoulders back. It does not talk about monogamy. It talks about acting confident and not being a beta. Nice way to deflect that you don't know what your commenting on.


He did a damn good job of getting that point across in that chapter.

[pgardn]

You were the one claiming monogamy =lobster. The lobster chapter is called Stand up straight with your shoulders back. It does not talk about monogamy. It talks about acting confident and not being a beta. Nice way to deflect that you don't know what your commenting on.


He did a damn good job of getting that point across in that chapter.

He did not present the lobster that way in the interview except with the seratonin example. And even with that it’s not clear. But again you read the book I did not. Like I stated in post 43 he made did make a point that one has to agree with, but he went further in the interview. And the interviewer chose to bring up more about lobsters which is telling. They wanted to pick on this.

Also this alpha/beta thing is a strange fascination. Leaders and dominant personalities can come in a variety of forms. The mere act of making the pretense of needing to show leadership “shoulders back” could be considered an eye-roll a group would give a beta.

I would still like to know which lefties have claimed that patriarchal capitalistic systems created hierarchical social structures?

[ElNono]

Dude, if you wanna call Nathan out just use his name. Dont be a coward

Actually, it wasn't targeted at anybody in particular, but a group of people.

[sickdsm]

He did not present the lobster that way in the interview except with the seratonin example. And even with that it’s not clear. But again you read the book I did not. Like I stated in post 43 he made did make a point that one has to agree with, but he went further in the interview. And the interviewer chose to bring up more about lobsters which is telling. They wanted to pick on this.

Also this alpha/beta thing is a strange fascination. Leaders and dominant personalities can come in a variety of forms. The mere act of making the pretense of needing to show leadership “shoulders back” could be considered an eye-roll a group would give a beta.

I would still like to know which lefties have claimed that patriarchal capitalistic systems created hierarchical social structures?

What a load of shit. Stand up straight, keep your head up is something all parents have been saying since the dawn of time. It's about giving confidence. Confidence breeds confidence. Everyone knows that. There is nothing new written in any self help book. It's how it's worded.


Mandatory monogamy? No. But the theory behind that? Fuck yeah. Go look up these high school shooter bios and let me know about all the poontang they were getting.

[Pavlov]

What a load of shit. Stand up straight, keep your head up is something all parents have been saying since the dawn of time. It's about giving confidence. Confidence breeds confidence. Everyone knows that. There is nothing new written in any self help book. It's how it's worded.


Mandatory monogamy? No. But the theory behind that? Fuck yeah. Go look up these high school shooter bios and let me know about all the poontang they were getting.That's more of an argument for legalizing prostitution.

[pgardn]

What a load of shit. Stand up straight, keep your head up is something all parents have been saying since the dawn of time. It's about giving confidence. Confidence breeds confidence. Everyone knows that. There is nothing new written in any self help book. It's how it's worded.


Mandatory monogamy? No. But the theory behind that? Fuck yeah. Go look up these high school shooter bios and let me know about all the poontang they were getting.

Parents telling kids?... wtf does this have to do with anything? You think a virgin male teenager turns into some sort of killing machine? They are already outcasts. Therefore more likely to not be found attractive. You think paying for a whore that tells them how good they are will turn the trick? Really? Cause and effect.
You can come into a room with your shoulders pinned back against each other and it does not mean shit if you act like a damn fool. We are not some rooster cockatoo species fluffing their feathers strutting about. Communicate, yes sir, no sir, look in the eye, yes of course. But then act the damn part out, we communicate further than body language. What is thisHorse shit? Behave like a human being. This lying strutting Trump shit is out of control. Is this were we are? We got a bunch of shut in males that need this explained?

Autism is apparently alive and well after reading the above. There is much more to parenting that gives confidence before the pinning your shoulders back shit. A kid is gonna feel totally weird doing any of this if parents have not instilled much more important sense of self before standing up straight... cmon now... get real.

[pgardn]

This just reeks of male insecurity.
snowflakey.

The guy has some good points I think.
But the focus on maleness just smells of inferiority.

You are bigger and stronger than the vast majority of females gentlemen.
Now Flex.
Then break the wrist and walk away.

[Isitjustme?]

Actually, it wasn't targeted at anybody in particular, but a group of people.

pussy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You were the one claiming monogamy =lobster. The lobster chapter is called Stand up straight with your shoulders back. It does not talk about monogamy. It talks about acting confident and not being a beta. Nice way to deflect that you don't know what your commenting on.


He did a damn good job of getting that point across in that chapter.

So I made a mistake. Describing human behavior on the basis of lobsters having serotonin is compelling only to the idiotic nonetheless.

And it is cute that you talk about avoidance, hypocrite.

[DarrinS]

This just reeks of male insecurity.
snowflakey.

The guy has some good points I think.
But the focus on maleness just smells of inferiority.

You are bigger and stronger than the vast majority of females gentlemen.
Now Flex.
Then break the wrist and walk away.


:lol

[pgardn]

:lol

I love that movie.

[DarrinS]

I love that movie.

Do you think anybody thinks I’m a failure because I go home to Starla at night? :lol

[pgardn]

Do you think anybody thinks I’m a failure because I go home to Starla at night? :lol


I love how Rex KwanDo keeps slapping Napoleon’s brother upside the head.

Ive seen that movie way too many times.

Then he beat Napolean’s Uncle up when he appeared to make a move on Staria during a sale.
The steak fling to the head and Pablo keeps bicycling on... good stuff.

[DarrinS]

I love how Rex KwanDo keeps slapping Napoleon’s brother upside the head.

Ive seen that movie way too many times.

Then he beat Napolean’s Uncle up when he appeared to make a move on Staria during a sale.
The steak fling to the head and Pablo keeps bicycling on... good stuff.

The first time I saw that steak fling, I spit my drink. :lol

[Nathan89]

Do you agree or disagree with Jordan Peterson on this?

His own stance is crystal clear.

998088964719464449

"crystal clear":lol

[boutons_deux]

if blatantly clear "enforced monogamy" is the best articulation and vocabulary that Peterson can manage for whatever totally different concept he wanted to express, he's a shitty Nutty Professor and writer.

[Winehole23]

Jordan Peterson laments the demise of patriarchy. Pining for its return is equipollent to promoting the subjugation of women, legally and culturally.

No wonder IDW epigones love him so much.

Free women scare them.

[boutons_deux]

Jordan Peterson laments the demise of patriarchy. Pining for its return is equipollent to promoting the subjugation of women, legally and culturally.

No wonder IDW epigones love him so much.

Free women scare them.

Peterson's idea of masculinity is puerile, at best adolescent, and is defective personhood.

white male supremacists are misogynists, so they support Peterson's white male supremacy and misogyny

his central idea of "enforced monogamy" has so many misunderstanding (he thinks) the phrase, says that he's an inarticulate phrase maker, a second-rate, at best, thinker, just like his fans.

[Nathan89]

if blatantly clear "enforced monogamy" is the best articulation and vocabulary that Peterson can manage for whatever totally different concept he wanted to express, he's a shitty Nutty Professor and writer.

I explained it to winehole and he persisted. Even after I explained it, he still thought it was "crystal clear". Perhaps be a little more open and not all in on a hit piece from NYT.

[Winehole23]

Because I do not agree with your interpretation does not mean that I have not heard, or that I do not understand. I disagree, is all.

Free women scare and disgust Peterson, your attempts to sugarcoat it totally notwithstanding.

[Nathan89]

Your interpretation is nonsense and not probable given who he is. Of course you think he's bad so your entire reality is off base. The article also mentions "some people" and states your view that you placed on Peterson. The writer could have just placed Peterson in that sentence if that was his view. Really that was just part of the slanted hit piece. I also posted a rebuttal that explained "enforced monogamy". So nothing was "crystal clear" unless you are completely biased and want to smear Peterson.

[Spurminator]

Your interpretation is nonsense and not probable given who he is. Of course you think he's bad so your entire reality is off base. The article also mentions "some people" and states your view that you placed on Peterson. The writer could have just placed Peterson in that sentence if that was his view. Really that was just part of the slanted hit piece. I also posted a rebuttal that explained "enforced monogamy". So nothing was "crystal clear" unless you are completely biased and want to smear Peterson.

Explain it then.

[Nathan89]

Explain it then.

That was regarding the article. Not the lobster. I've explained the article.

[Spurminator]

That was regarding the article. Not the lobster. I've explained the article.

I've seen maybe one sentence of your own words explaining it. Everything else you've posted is either someone else's words or an article/tweet.

Give us a detailed explanation of the theory including specific steps that society should take to make its benefits a reality.

[Pavlov]

How is monogamy not "socially enforced" now?

[vy65]

Does anyone have the full quote? All I’ve been able to find is the one sentence quip from the NYT article.

[Nathan89]

How is monogamy not "socially enforced" now?

Like I said before his statement was basically a status quo statement.

[Nathan89]

Does anyone have the full quote? All I’ve been able to find is the one sentence quip from the NYT article.

All you'll be able to find is what is in that NYT article.

[Pavlov]

Like I said before his statement was basically a status quo statement.So what's the big deal about this guy?

He keeps calling for society to do what it's already doing.

[Spurminator]

It sounds to me like he's advocating for women to lower their standards but not asking men to lower theirs.

Not really sure, though, his staunchest defenders in here don't seem to be able to summarize the philosophy in their own words so I could be off the mark.

[vy65]

Anyone (ie WH) who thinks this guy is calling for the outright subjugation of women is retarded.

That said, the notion that we need society to boost men’s egos is a pretty fucking beta mentality.

He’s a self help guru at heart. If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him

[vy65]

I mean, isn’t it possible that the guy is espousing a particularly effete philosophy which is also a breeding ground for gross mischaracterizations and rampant idiocy on the SJWs part? Seems to me both are wrong here.

[Nathan89]

So what's the big deal about this guy?

He keeps calling for society to do what it's already doing.

Well he often recognizes the value of what is happening or has happened. Some people want to dismantle without recognizing the value.

[Winehole23]

Anyone (ie WH) who thinks this guy is calling for the outright subjugation of women is retarded.If you think he isn't, you're obtuse.

lol Gamergaters for gender equality now.

[vy65]

Boy oh boy that’s a lot of names and assumptions you’re throwing out there ...

[Pavlov]

Well he often recognizes the value of what is happening or has happened. Some people want to dismantle without recognizing the value.So what's the big deal about this guy if he's saying people are already doing what he wants?

[Winehole23]

Boy oh boy that’s a lot of names and assumptions you’re throwing out there ...you were one of the biggest ones on this board at the time...

[vy65]

you were one of the biggest ones on this board at the time...

Not really, but regardless, your point is made. People can’t evolve opinions over time.

[Winehole23]

sure they can. have you changed your mind about being such a big proponent of gamergate?

[Nathan89]

So what's the big deal about this guy if he's saying people are already doing what he wants?

That's not the entirety of what he says.

[vy65]

sure they can. have you changed your mind about being such a big proponent of gamergate?

Never was one. Why are you so stuck on gamer gate? Don’t you have the big bad university professor to attack?

[vy65]

Whataboutism making a strong showing itt

[Winehole23]

who?

[vy65]

*whatabboutism mixed with incorrect recollections. That alcoholic haze must be something

[Spurminator]

That's not the entirety of what he says.

What does he say? (In your words)

[Winehole23]

I meant, what university professor?

[vy65]

Now who’s being obtuse?

[Pavlov]

That's not the entirety of what he says.What does he say then?

What is he calling for?

What does he say? (In your words)
Yes, please.

[Winehole23]

oh, Peterson. sorry about the confusion, he's better known as a counselor and motivational speaker for downtrodden beta males and aggrieved white conservatives.

[vy65]

I agree more than I disagree with that characterization fwiw

[Nathan89]

What does he say? (In your words)

He says many things. You seem to be mixing everything with the lobster topic.

[Spurminator]

He says many things. You seem to be mixing everything with the lobster topic.

I have no idea what the lobster topic is.

I've asked repeatedly for you to elaborate on his enforced monogamy opinion. You seem unable to articulate it for yourself, which is surprising since you seem so determined to defend its validity.

[Winehole23]

Peterson is defending an anodyne status quo according to Nathan.

Enforced monogamy = pretty much what we have right now

[Pavlov]

He says many things. You seem to be mixing everything with the lobster topic.But what does he actually say?

In your words.

[Spurminator]

his central idea of "enforced monogamy" has so many misunderstanding (he thinks) the phrase, says that he's an inarticulate phrase maker, a second-rate, at best, thinker, just like his fans.


I explained it to winehole and he persisted. Even after I explained it, he still thought it was "crystal clear". Perhaps be a little more open and not all in on a hit piece from NYT.


Because I do not agree with your interpretation does not mean that I have not heard, or that I do not understand. I disagree, is all.

Free women scare and disgust Peterson, your attempts to sugarcoat it totally notwithstanding.


Your interpretation is nonsense and not probable given who he is. Of course you think he's bad so your entire reality is off base. The article also mentions "some people" and states your view that you placed on Peterson. The writer could have just placed Peterson in that sentence if that was his view. Really that was just part of the slanted hit piece. I also posted a rebuttal that explained "enforced monogamy". So nothing was "crystal clear" unless you are completely biased and want to smear Peterson.


Explain it then.

Pretty confused about what any of the above exchange has to do with lobsters.

[vy65]

Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.

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. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

[vy65]

In context, kinda hard to see how this means anything other than sexual redistribution of wealth. Maybe someone can clarify?

[Spurminator]

In context, kinda hard to see how this means anything other than sexual redistribution of wealth. Maybe someone can clarify?

Seems that way, except the onus for the redistribution seems to fall entirely on the women.

Maybe Nathan can explain.

[Winehole23]

wrt lobsters:


"I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters’ evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.”

[Winehole23]

it's about hierarchy being biologically hard-coded, plus self-esteem mumbo jumbo.

it's important that men feel good about themselves. feminism is bad because it hurts men's feelings -- damages their self-esteem.

[Nathan89]

I have no idea what the lobster topic is.

I've asked repeatedly for you to elaborate on his enforced monogamy opinion. You seem unable to articulate it for yourself, which is surprising since you seem so determined to defend its validity.

His enforce monogamy opinion is basically recognition of the positives/value of the status quo system. Some people twisted it to mean he wanted to delegate women to low status men. That was never the case. He has since said that is not the case.

[Nathan89]

Also I've posted his tweets in the other Peterson thread regarding the science/studies behind the benefits of the system of monogamy.

[Spurminator]

His enforce monogamy opinion is basically recognition of the positives/value of the status quo system.

What aspects of the status quo, specifically, and what are the positives observed?

[Pavlov]

His enforce monogamy opinion is basically recognition of the positives/value of the status quo system. Some people twisted it to mean he wanted to delegate women to low status men. That was never the case. He has since said that is not the case.So what does he want to happen to get the omegas married?

[vy65]

Except Minasian was a product of the status quo.

If a dude isn’t pulling good pussy and goes on a murderous rampage, why are women at fault?

Why isn’t it on the dude to get better?

You can’t attack SJW for being coddled faggets while being a coddled fagget yourself

[Nathan89]

it's about hierarchy being biologically hard-coded, plus self-esteem mumbo jumbo.

it's important that men feel good about themselves. feminism is bad because it hurts men's feelings -- damages their self-esteem.

Feminism should probably stop pushing divisive material on the masses if they don't want to be viewed as bad. Starting with their go to pay gap myth that seems to be the most significant front of mind issue when feminism/equality is discussed. Then you have toxic masculinity, manspreading, mansplaining, viewing the world under the umbrella of patriarchy, etc. That simple patriarchal view that male= privilege is what led to dumbasses thinking that black men have it better off than black women. Feminism is viewed as bad because it's overwhelmingly shit.

[Nathan89]

What aspects of the status quo, specifically, and what are the positives observed?

Well polygamy is illegal, it's not really socially acceptable to have multiple wives, etc. Did you read the tweets in the other thread?

The problem is that hit piece by NYT primed the viewers with "some people want a governing body to intervene"(or something like that) and then followed up with his views. Well if that was his view they would've wrote Peterson instead of "some people".

[Spurminator]

Well polygamy is illegal, it's not really socially acceptable to have multiple wives, etc. Did you read the tweets in the other thread?

I was asking for your explanation, not other people's tweets. Is there some growing movement towards polygamy that Peterson believes is causing an increase in violent crime among men? Is there a concern that below average men are having trouble finding companions because women are choosing to become sister wives?

I haven't read the NYT article either, so my opinion is not skewed by that or anything else. I want to hear about it from people who know his intent.

[Pavlov]

Well polygamy is illegal, it's not really socially acceptable to have multiple wives, etc. Did you read the tweets in the other thread?

The problem is that hit piece by NYT primed the viewers with "some people want a governing body to intervene"(or something like that) and then followed up with his views. Well if that was his view they would've wrote Peterson instead of "some people".But what does he want to be done to get more potentially violent men married?

[vy65]

How impotent do you have to be to feel threatened by tumblr feminists ranting on about toxic masculinity to hide behind the veil of forced marriage?

[Nathan89]

How impotent do you have to be to feel threatened by tumblr feminists ranting on about toxic masculinity to hide behind the veil of forced marriage?

Nobody is talking about force marriage.

[vy65]

There isn’t a meaningful difference between the two. You also missed the point entirely.

[Pavlov]

Nobody is talking about force marriage.What is Peterson talking about then?

[vy65]

When did it become a rule that you have to defend everything a thinker/academic/ideologue/guru says? It's such stupid and facile partisanship.

It's ok to say Peterson is wrong on some things and right on some things. Nuance isn't a bad thing.

[DarrinS]

Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?

:lmao

[Pavlov]

Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?

:lmaoNo, but what is he actually advocating?

[RandomGuy]

Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?

:lmao

What do you think the guy is saying?

[RandomGuy]

it's about hierarchy being biologically hard-coded, plus self-esteem mumbo jumbo.

it's important that men feel good about themselves. feminism is bad because it hurts men's feelings -- damages their self-esteem.

Seems to be about it. Woo for self-indulgent twits, IMO.

[sickdsm]

That's more of an argument for legalizing prostitution.

Whatever happened to my body, my choice?



Prostitution is legal. Put a camera up and you get the chance to be the star in your very own porno!

[DarrinS]

Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?

:lmao


What do you think the guy is saying?


Read for yourself

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

[spurraider21]

Whatever happened to my body, my choice?



Prostitution is legal. Put a camera up and you get the chance to be the star in your very own porno!
do you think jordan pedersen's idea of enforced monogamy is really just code for his battle to legalize prostitution?

[sickdsm]

Parents telling kids?... wtf does this have to do with anything? You think a virgin male teenager turns into some sort of killing machine? They are already outcasts. Therefore more likely to not be found attractive. You think paying for a whore that tells them how good they are will turn the trick? Really? Cause and effect.
You can come into a room with your shoulders pinned back against each other and it does not mean shit if you act like a damn fool. We are not some rooster cockatoo species fluffing their feathers strutting about. Communicate, yes sir, no sir, look in the eye, yes of course. But then act the damn part out, we communicate further than body language. What is thisHorse shit? Behave like a human being. This lying strutting Trump shit is out of control. Is this were we are? We got a bunch of shut in males that need this explained?

Autism is apparently alive and well after reading the above. There is much more to parenting that gives confidence before the pinning your shoulders back shit. A kid is gonna feel totally weird doing any of this if parents have not instilled much more important sense of self before standing up straight... cmon now... get real.

If the majority of A =B that doesn't mean B=A


You are the idiot here.

School shooters are likely to be socially outcast sexually deprived "weirdos"


That doesn't mean that socially outcast, sexually deprived weirdos are going to shoot up a school.

I hope that you didn't waste $1 on college tuition or you need to ask your mommy to get you a refund.


Never said anything about paying for a whore to stop a school shooter. Where do you come up with this?

[sickdsm]

do you think jordan pedersen's idea of enforced monogamy is really just code for his battle to legalize prostitution?

I have no idea of enforced monogamy. I've denounced that twice, three times now. Prostitution should be states rights. Just like legalized marijuana.

[Spurminator]

Read for yourself

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Why don't you tell us in your words.