Reply With Quote
Pretty confused about what any of the above exchange has to do with lobsters.
But what does he actually say?
In your words.
Pretty confused about what any of the above exchange has to do with lobsters.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Also I've posted his tweets in the other Peterson thread regarding the science/studies behind the benefits of the system of monogamy.
What aspects of the status quo, specifically, and what are the positives observed?
So what does he want to happen to get the omegas married?
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 gets while being a coddled get yourself
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 .
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".
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.
But what does he want to be done to get more potentially violent men married?
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.
There isn’t a meaningful difference between the two. You also missed the point entirely.
What is Peterson talking about then?
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.
Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?
No, but what is he actually advocating?Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?
What do you think the guy is saying?Are there still people who think JP is advocating for govt mandated assignment of females to every incel?
Seems to be about it. Woo for self-indulgent twits, IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions