Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

Is Jordan Peterson a genius?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 24.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 41.5%
  • I think he's a genius is in his field and in key areas but I object to views he has outside it

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • I think he's a genius and right on most issues I care about and can overlook imperfections.

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • He's an idiot in every area, even in psychology, and clearly was not deserving of being his position

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I think he's intellectually capable and is problematic because of what he does with his capabilities

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • There are select issues I vehemently disagree on but he's of very high intellect in most arenas

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • He has no scholarly/intellectual capabilities and only appears to have any if you're jsut stupid

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • He's just a man going through life the best he can, but he often has no idea what he's talking about

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • He's genuinely smart but not truly a genius

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

emax

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,703
Reaction score
0
So for all the attacks on Jordan Peterson, there is one in the NYT that now has many detractors saying this is gonna ruin him and show he is a murderous mysogynist. In particular, the fact that he uses the words "enforced monogamy" and appears to thin Incels are totally justified in what they do could ruin him. It as follows:



@Anung Un Rama
@Bullitt68
@PrinceOfPain
@TheGreatA
@Kafir-kun
@RubberGuard5
@MikeMcMann
@Metusalemi

New YorkTimes said:
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”

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.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html




Do you think this time it's now the beginning of the end as far as his influence goes?
 
Last edited:
I doubt it will be the end of him, because the people who care about him, won't care to read these articles. Hell, I can't even read the article because I'd have to pay for it. And I'd rather buy a roll of toiler paper than to subscribe to New York Times.

Every man that gets a sudden influx of publicity, particularly through non-traditional channels, has these sorts of "gotcha" exposes written about them. It's just business.

Peterson's momentum will only truly end when these sorts of articles are no longer written about him. Then you'll know that he's done as a public figure.
 
Would you prefer genetic monogamy?

Genetic monogamy is when genes, not social and behavioral norms, dictate the practice of monogamy. Dr. Emlan, an expert from Cornell University on evolution, believes that only two species are genetically monogamous: the marmoset and the tamarin. Because humans can and do mate outside of relationships, they are not genetically monogamous.

These smear pieces tell more about the writers than about Peterson.
 
This just spreads people further apart. Of course he isn't advocating for the government to force women to marry incels against their will. Or marry anyone against their will. But this will be added to the list of things that never happened, that he doesn't believe, that are used to dismiss him out of hand. The list is getting pretty long at this point. Society gets just a tiny bit more divided (he is just one man after all).

I do think it's really foolish for him to keep agreeing to do interviews with people who so obviously despise him, without recording his own video of the whole thing. At this point it seems just stubborn. The NY Times has lied about Hamas, MS-13 and JP all in one week. How could he keep walking into these traps?
 
Anyone care to copy paste from OP?
 
This just spreads people further apart. Of course he isn't advocating for the government to force women to marry incels against their will. Or marry anyone against their will. But this will be added to the list of things that never happened, that he doesn't believe, that are used to dismiss him out of hand. The list is getting pretty long at this point. Society gets just a tiny bit more divided (he is just one man after all).

I do think it's really foolish for him to keep agreeing to do interviews with people who so obviously despise him, without recording his own video of the whole thing. At this point it seems just stubborn. The NY Times has lied about Hamas, MS-13 and JP all in one week. How could he keep walking into these traps?

If he's not advocating for forcing marriage for incels, his little "enforced monogamy" spiel sure was a shitty way of showing it.

How exactly do you plan to "enforce" monogamy without infringing on free choice? I gotta hear this, especially when people go on about racial preferences being totally legitimate and all that. Why doesn't status preference come into play?
 
So for all the attacks on Jordan Peterson, there is one in the NYT that now has many detractors saying this is gonna ruin him and show he is a murderous mysogynist. In particular, the fact that he uses the words "enforced monogamy" and appears to thin Incels are totally justified in what they do could ruin him. It as follows:



@Anung Un Rama
@Bullitt68
@PrinceOfPain
@TheGreatA
@Kafir-kun
@RubberGuard5
@MikeMcMann
@Metusalemi


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

Do you think this time it's now the beginning of the end as far as his influence goes?

As long as we have lots of lonely virgins on the internet his spot will be safe
 
Anyone care to copy paste from OP?
I went ahead and added the most contentious part.

As long as we have lots of lonely virgins on the internet his spot will be safe

Not true because his rise was largely based on being a sort of figure for raising intellectual discussions. If his sole source of appeal was to internet virgins who felt that they were entitled to sex and love simply for existing, and with no improvement on their part, it would be very bad. That would essentialy make him Milo 2.0 and his appeal was based in some ways on the opposite of that.
 
If he's not advocating for forcing marriage for incels, his little "enforced monogamy" spiel sure was a shitty way of showing it.

How exactly do you plan to "enforce" monogamy without infringing on free choice? I gotta hear this, especially when people go on about racial preferences being totally legitimate and all that. Why doesn't status preference come into play?

Cultural/societal norms as opposed to genetic monogamy. Like polygamy being illegal as an example. It's difficult to know because he's not quoted much, it's mostly her telling us what his beliefs and motivations are. It's possible (probable) they both knew they were talking on this level, not forcing anyone to do anything, but this context was removed for the article.

I do think he should come out and outright say what he meant on some platform now. He gives these journalists far too much credit.

Also if he does want people forced to get married, I strongly disagree with him. But I have no reason to believe that's what he meant.
 
What in there is wreckable? Of the myriad "takedown" pieces or what have you that've come out in the last 6-12 months, that one's pretty low on the list both in terms of vitriol and depth of argument. It just seems like a woman who doesn't really like Peterson publishing a diary of her experience with a few snipes peppered in. Nothing much to see there.

The only noteworthy part is obviously the "enforced monogamy" thing, which will probably end up being the "sequel" to that VICE line. Once again, Peterson is thinking out loud. A dangerous thing to do when there are so many hungry hyenas waiting to tear your flesh from the bone, but I respect the fact that he just goes about his business trying to genuinely think his way through shit and lets the knuckleheads yap at his heels.

(For the record, I consider the thought ludicrous, and I agree that it contradicts Peterson's other anti-equality of outcome arguments. And I think that's the point, viz. the "What do we do about this?" question and how there aren't easy solutions to difficult problems).
 
If he's not advocating for forcing marriage for incels, his little "enforced monogamy" spiel sure was a shitty way of showing it.

How exactly do you plan to "enforce" monogamy without infringing on free choice? I gotta hear this, especially when people go on about racial preferences being totally legitimate and all that. Why doesn't status preference come into play?

The same way we enforce a lot of good habits. Culturally, socially, through traditions and norms. It's not like we leave people to their own devices when it comes to deciding what's right or wrong.

We quietly enforce people to not choose a path of crime, by making movies where the gangsters get killed at the end, and by denouncing acts of crime. Obviously, there are also laws that directly enforce people to avoid doing crime. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to quietly enforce people to get married and stay faithful to their wife or husband. But in case of marriage, laws are not necessarily needed to enforce that.

Or we could just do it like the Chinese, for whom their marriage partner is largely hand-picked. Not much freedom in that, but they're certainly keeping nearly 1,5 billion people quite stable in a society where there are much more men than women.

Not the path I'd choose, but it's something worth having a conversation about, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
If he's not advocating for forcing marriage for incels, his little "enforced monogamy" spiel sure was a shitty way of showing it.

How exactly do you plan to "enforce" monogamy without infringing on free choice? I gotta hear this, especially when people go on about racial preferences being totally legitimate and all that. Why doesn't status preference come into play?

Yeah, he is not advocating for it. He is saying this is one thing that COULD reduce the spree shooting no gamers. He is not saying this SHOULD be the answer.

So for all the attacks on Jordan Peterson, there is one in the NYT that now has many detractors saying this is gonna ruin him and show he is a murderous mysogynist. In particular, the fact that he uses the words "enforced monogamy" and appears to thin Incels are totally justified in what they do could ruin him. It as follows:



@Anung Un Rama
@Bullitt68
@PrinceOfPain
@TheGreatA
@Kafir-kun
@RubberGuard5
@MikeMcMann
@Metusalemi





https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html




Do you think this time it's now the beginning of the end as far as his influence goes?

Only if you are an idiot who does not know what context means and the difference between "should" and "could"

So the leftsts will still hate him and reasonable humans will still like him.

/endpatheticthread
 
So for all the attacks on Jordan Peterson, there is one in the NYT that now has many detractors saying this is gonna ruin him and show he is a murderous mysogynist. In particular, the fact that he uses the words "enforced monogamy" and appears to thin Incels are totally justified in what they do could ruin him. It as follows:



@Anung Un Rama
@Bullitt68
@PrinceOfPain
@TheGreatA
@Kafir-kun
@RubberGuard5
@MikeMcMann
@Metusalemi





https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html




Do you think this time it's now the beginning of the end as far as his influence goes?

Oh Jordan.

You jumped the shark a BIT too soon.......

Shame.
 
What in there is wreckable? Of the myriad "takedown" pieces or what have you that've come out in the last 6-12 months, that one's pretty low on the list both in terms of vitriol and depth of argument. It just seems like a woman who doesn't really like Peterson publishing a diary of her experience with a few snipes peppered in. Nothing much to see there.

The only noteworthy part is obviously the "enforced monogamy" thing, which will probably end up being the "sequel" to that VICE line. Once again, Peterson is thinking out loud. A dangerous thing to do when there are so many hungry hyenas waiting to tear your flesh from the bone, but I respect the fact that he just goes about his business trying to genuinely think his way through shit and lets the knuckleheads yap at his heels.

(For the record, I consider the thought ludicrous, and I agree that it contradicts Peterson's other anti-equality of outcome arguments. And I think that's the point, viz. the "What do we do about this?" question and how there aren't easy solutions to difficult problems).
I guess this phenomenon has just gotten me thinking about what it says about America and on some level modern culture as a whole. It does seem that Peterson is trying to do what psychologists often do, look at sources of modern ills and try to pick it apart from every angle possible.

To my understanding, psychologists need to be able to stay objective in a lot of ways so if Peterson thinks societal promoted monogamy as a solution to so called incels has any validity or if it's obscene after he's thought it over, most likely we're not gonna know either way. Given that the piece is entitled "Custodian of the Patriarchy" he may have thought that it wouldn't matter if he thought out loud since the writer was gonna distort anything he said anyway. I do think he may have to drop the thinking out loud like a psychologist conduct if he wants to keep this phenomenon manageable.
 
Cultural/societal norms as opposed to genetic monogamy. Like polygamy being illegal as an example. It's difficult to know because he's not quoted much, it's mostly her telling us what his beliefs and motivations are. It's possible (probable) they both knew they were talking on this level, not forcing anyone to do anything, but this context was removed for the article.

I do think he should come out and outright say what he meant on some platform now. He gives these journalists far too much credit.

Also if he does want people forced to get married, I strongly disagree with him. But I have no reason to believe that's what he meant.

He said society should take an active role in enforcing monogamy and making sure incels "win" so they don't go postal. Keep in mind that he says in another breath about how much he hates equality of outcome and that liberals are wrong for trying to "force" equality on people. Literally a direct contradiction.

If liberals are wrong, then Incels need to take a shower, hit the weights, and get a clue. If liberals aren't wrong, then this is a phenomenon with some validity that we should look into. But you can't have it both ways. Those opinions are literally mutually exclusive.

Honestly, from the way his whole operation is described, it sounds like a cult. And I mean that 100% seriously. It sounds like the Landmark Forum on steroids.
 
Yeah, he is not advocating for it. He is saying this is one thing that COULD reduce the spree shooting no gamers. He is not saying this SHOULD be the answer.

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.”

<puh-lease75>
 
Why is this "incel" thing a problem? Get a job. Some woman will want to marry you. End of essay.

Every man I know with a half decent job is married.

Just thinking about my friends growing up: fire fighter, cop, physical therapist, doctor, teacher, factor worker, town worker, social worker, electrician... It doesn't matter... I know literally zero gainfully employed males who have been unable to find a mate.
 
Last edited:
He said society should take an active role in enforcing monogamy and making sure incels "win" so they don't go postal. Keep in mind that he says in another breath about how much he hates equality of outcome and that liberals are wrong for trying to "force" equality on people. Literally a direct contradiction.

If liberals are wrong, then Incels need to take a shower, hit the weights, and get a clue. If liberals aren't wrong, then this is a phenomenon with some validity that we should look into. But you can't have it both ways. Those opinions are literally mutually exclusive.

Honestly, from the way his whole operation is described, it sounds like a cult. And I mean that 100% seriously. It sounds like the Landmark Forum on steroids.

Did he say that?

Or did he just say that enforced monogamy is a solution? We can see that in places like China, etc. It is a solution. We cannot argue against that.

That doesn't mean that he actually wants that solution to be used. He might just be acknowledging that it's a problem that unfortunately occurs in a "free market" society such as ours, and that there is no way to actually solve the problem.

Freedom has a price. And that price is often the danger and risk involved with making people responsible for their own actions, and giving them freedom to choose. Not all people can afford to be responsible, nor are they going to make the right choices. And we will just have to live with that. We can try to prevent some of the damage, but we will never "solve" the problem. Because solving the problem means adopting totalitarian methods, and giving up freedom of choice.

That's something that the men who made the American constitution acknowledged, and it's something that we best keep in our minds, even today. This is the path that has been chosen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top