Reply With Quote
Are you 6 years old? Use it however the you want. You don't need permission from me. I'm telling you how you are perceived by me and others that way.
Incels use the term for themselves.
What would you rather have me call them?
Are you 6 years old? Use it however the you want. You don't need permission from me. I'm telling you how you are perceived by me and others that way.
I didn't say I would definitely follow your suggestion. I'm asking you what you would rather have me call them so you won't go on these tangents.
@ 11:20 he explains the lobsters AaronY
In your diluted world someone responding how you sound is a tangent. Like anyone believes you would be accommodating. More posting from chump.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/...rdan-peterson/
The Federalist
Browse The Federalist
The Left And The Right Aren’t Hearing The Same Jordan Peterson
PHILOSOPHY
The Left And The Right Aren’t Hearing The Same Jordan Peterson
A New York Times Magazine hit piece says more about the mainstream media than it says about Jordan Peterson.
By David Marcus
Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has enjoyed a surge into fame over the past year, has become a bit like the Yanny and Laurel audio meme. People listen to what he has to say but disagree wildly about what they are hearing.
Some hear a man with important ideas that can help people live a more fulfilling life, others hear a dangerous misogynist who wants to set back the cause of liberated women, trans people, and the rest of the cast(e) of oppression. In a feature for The New York Times Magazine this weekend, Nellie Bowles clearly came down on the latter side.
The first paragraph makes this obvious: “Look back to the 1950’s he says.” It’s not clear from the article if this is a quote from Peterson. In any event, this interpretation has an essential mistake. When Peterson talks about changes in gender, sexuality, family, and work, he is exposing central contradictions, both evolutionary and social, that he believes are making people unhappy.
He is not suggesting that all women should aspire to be a 1950s Donna Reed housewife, but that on many levels some women do want something closer to that lifestyle. Part of the evidence for this is that since the sexual revolution the question of whether women can “have it all” has been so often on our tongues and pages. Peterson suggests the answer, in many cases, is no.
He isn’t telling women not to strive for whatever they want, or to be forced into anything. But that’s the progressive narrative against him, one that the Times reinforced. A perfect example of this is Bowles’ mischaracterization of Peterson’s argument that societies are better off with “enforced monogamy.”
The Times Got It Wrong
The Times article makes it appear that Peterson means somehow women will be forced into sex they don’t want to have, calling his ideas about “enforced monogamy” absurd. The reaction to that line has been swift and damning. But that’s not what he is talking about at all. He is talking about societal norms that value monogamy and work to enforce it. He addressed this on Twitter this weekend.
He also addressed it on his blog: “My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings.” The important thing here is that Peterson assumed his interviewer was up on anthropological terms of art. That’s never a good bet for journalists. We are mostly known for not paying for lunch.
Peterson blames Bowles for not being familiar with the relevant literature, but “enforced monogamy,” is not a well-known term of art, and it does sound menacing. Bowles probably should have asked for clarification before presenting it as absurd, but Peterson also has to know and anticipate that these kinds of attacks are going to be leveled at him by people who may be ill-informed in anthropology, but nonetheless well-intentioned.
Some of the confusion over just what Peterson means to propose is that most of his content is delivered verbally, either in lectures or interviews. Indeed, as in this case, once presented with someone’s confusion Peterson will often go to his blog to effectively explain the position.
In writing and especially editing one thing an author does is actively anticipate misunderstanding and try to get ahead of it. This is much harder to do when talking off the cuff, especially if you are talking to people who agree with you. It allows you brush past ideas you and the audience take for granted that others might not. This unfortunately is a central theme of Peterson’s style. It leaves him open to fair attacks.
What Is Our Medium?
Bowles derides Peterson as a YouTube philosopher. Okay, cutting and demeaning, but so what? What important philosopher who scribbles with a quill is he being compared to? What scary things does he say? That marriage and monogamy are good for society? If you think that is nonsense, okay, #TindrTill90, or whatever. Have sex with whomever you want, be whatever gender you want, be no gender, be all genders, be the fulcrum of humanity the moment it changes. I get that appeal.
But we are not that. At least, we don’t have to be. The central message Peterson sends is to reject postmodernism and the Marxism it embraces. I’m on board with that, with one small reservation. Postmodernism itself was a denial that science could tell us all. Philosophers like Fredric Jameson urged us to take ancient narratives more seriously. This is a central plank of Peterson’s program, and one that we don’t hear enough about in popular accounts of his oeuvre.
In fact, much of Peterson’s insistence that we listen to, and understand, our ancient myths, legends, and stories is not because they tell us how we should be, but because they tell us how we have been. These old narratives give us insight into what our ancestors thought about being human, where humanity had been, where humanity wanted to go. This is an essential tool for understanding western thought and ideas — assuming we still wish to be human.
Why polygamy breeds civil war
When large numbers of men are doomed to bachelorhood, they get desperate
https://www.economist.com/the-econom...eeds-civil-war
You didn't answer my question. More posting from you.
Apart from Utah, is polygamy a big problem in the US?
It caused the US Civil War, dude.
There was a whole thing on PBS.
Blaming polygamy for a lack of success with women is really a new (and stunning) achievement in victimhood.
file incels, etc in the category of misogynist White Male Supremacy
Another ty aspect of (north) America that Trash has "flushed" out, emboldened
So at 11:20 this is how his heirarchy has manifested itself in humans... His words not in your YouTube:
If nature had its way all women would have children with the most attractive males and most males would die childless”
So extraordinarily wrong.... This is just flat out spectacularly stupid. Did he miss biology class?
Try this:
If nature had its way, women would have children with men most likely to help take care of a child or children and raise them well enough that they would live long enough to reproduce themselves.
When wrong concerning biology, he is just magnificently wrong.
From another/or later in a thread.
Chris has a way of leaving the insane stuff out. Peterson is also perfectly correct in stating male dominated captilastic societies did not cause hierarchical structures. So he says something obviously correct, and then feeds the reader/listener crap.
This is how he works.
12 Rules of Life...
A snowflake beta book for autistic males.
Bunch of shut in dweebs that never had a sister and or never go outside on their own.
Take themselves way too seriously and don’t trust that life will find them due to their totally awkward nature.
Grow the f up... Have enough confidence to make fun of yourself and try to laugh on occasion.
Get out of the house and quit reinforcing your perceived pitiful position by blaming women.
spurstalk posters, you know who you are....
LOBSTERS! WOMEN DON'T LIKE ME BECAUSE LOBSTERS!
You should get on the youtubes and go to debates since you know more than Jordan Peterson.
Lmfao wtf is this
^ hopefully fake news
Oh I do concerning evolution. There is no doubt whatsoever.
You can pick all the little clips out where he is perfectly correct and arguing with a talk show host who does not get it.
You personally would never find a clip of me destroying his stupid argument concerning females picking males. They won’t put these up on your little Reddit 4chan grottos of sniveling pimple faced males crying because girls don’t like them.
Bunch of Frkn shut in wimpy babies that can’t communicate face to face.
The consequences of people not believing in God are totalitarianism and then nihilism.Lmfao wtf is this
These things have occurred quite well within the major faiths brother man.
This guy is a piece of work. He needs a pipe to click against his teeth so he can pretend he is saying something important here.
It's a self-gratifyingly pedantic way of saying, "If you believe in God, you're open-minded. If you don't, you're closed-minded."
It's the most fundamentally ty argument possible because you could completely reverse the statement and a good number of people would agree with that version.
it's a fundamentally lucrative argument. pandering works.
Liberal academia has long favored atheism, or at least agnosticism, where allegiance to Christianity is cause for ridicule or su ion, because Christianity is falsely regarded as justifying oppression (colonialism, eurocentrism, exploitation). This is the great betrayal of the intellectual-class, who have built solid careers by championing hostility to the West.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions