Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[Falsedawn]

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.

Yeah, but here's the thing.

Society ALREADY enforces that via tax benefits, religious pressure, promotion of "traditional values", etc... Hell, the vast majority of the US is christian, and christianity absolutely enforces monogamy. Yet here we are.

You're honestly more spot on pointing at the internet as the reason we have such a casual sex culture these days, but he's pointing at the culture itself and the women involved. That's fucking stupid. And i'm not seeing how you're going to all of a sudden make women go for bums without forcing them to do it.

 

[Franc Mittelo]

Angry people follow men like Peterson and Shapiro. These two are very hateful people with no solutions for all the social problems in the world today. That is why they are feeding on so many many young men who are struggling to fit in society.

 

[Concrete]

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.

It's hard to say what he said society should do.

“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.”

Is this actually a call for legislation? She implies that herself buy doesn't quote him on it.

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.

Everything else I've seen of the guy says he would use the Kevin Nash approach, people need to sort themselves out.

onestly, 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.

Yes, that's the point of the article. She makes him sound like a shuffling, socially retarded freak. There's plenty of footage of him not being that.

 

[phoenixikki]

So if we had less sluts incels could get laid? Doesn't make sense to me.
Decriminalize prostitution
Problem solved

 

[jamesmiller14]

I like Jordan Peterson.

I think what he said here was idiotic.

 

[Falsedawn]

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.

if I say "You have a disease, and this is the cure", i'm pointing to one specific thing as the cure. I'm not pointing out this one specific thing and 100 other things, i'm pointing out and advocating that one specific thing.

Peterson did that. That's not really avoidable.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

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?

How is this bullshit article different from the countless other bullshit articles written about Peterson? It is this kind of ridiculous "journalism" that has made Peterson so popular in the first place.

 

[Falsedawn]

It's hard to say what he said society should do.



Is this actually a call for legislation? She implies that herself buy doesn't quote him on it.



Everything else I've seen of the guy says he would use the Kevin Nash approach, people need to sort themselves out.



Yes, that's the point of the article. She makes him sound like a shuffling, socially retarded freak. There's plenty of footage of him not being that.

See previous post about the disease and the cure.

The Landmark Forum reference wasn't because of him, it was because of the behavior of his adherents. Cult leaders aren't slack jawed mouthbreathers, they're often the most gregarious and put together people you might know. You're not going to get anyone to follow you if you can't sell the system.

Read that article about the Landmark Forum and it might reshape how you view cults in general. Nobody ever thinks the shit they're engaging in is culty, yet people end up in cults all the time. There's a method to the madness.

 

[Concrete]

if I say "You have a disease, and this is the cure", i'm pointing to one specific thing as the cure. I'm not pointing out this one specific thing and 100 other things, i'm pointing out and advocating that one specific thing.

Peterson did that. That's not really avoidable.

I'd agree with you if this was an unedited Youtube video of their conversation. I think you're really giving the journalist too much credit. Doesn't the whole tone of the article suggest it's a carefully crafted hitpiece? It's not even hiding it.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'd agree with you if this was an unedited Youtube video of their conversation. I think you're really giving the journalist too much credit. Doesn't the whole tone of the article suggest it's a carefully crafted hitpiece? It's not even hiding it.

I think even if it is a hitpiece, the part directly attributed to him via quote should be directly attributed to him. What context would you add that makes a statement of that nature acceptable? I'm not even seeing hypothetical leading questions here that paint him even better.

 

[TheGreatA]

if I say "You have a disease, and this is the cure", i'm pointing to one specific thing as the cure. I'm not pointing out this one specific thing and 100 other things, i'm pointing out and advocating that one specific thing.

Peterson did that. That's not really avoidable.

I don't know about that.

His whole shtick is about acknowledging that totalitarian methods are often the "answer" to our modern-day problems. Yet he insists that we must fight against the urge to resort to those methods. Because in the long-term, they will be even more detrimental to our condition.

He has often challenged people's morality by presenting them with choices that are totalitarian, but found effective.

I'd have to see the proper context before making any leaps of judgment, based on Peterson's previous work.

 

[Concrete]

I think even if it is a hitpiece, the part directly attributed to him via quote should be directly attributed to him. What context would you add that makes a statement of that nature acceptable? I'm not even seeing hypothetical leading questions here that paint him even better.

The meaning of 'enforced monogamy' for one. I don't see a definition from either of them in the article. She talks about 'forced sexual redistribution' in the paragraph above, but no sign that it's not a non sequitur she added to the article later.

 

[sangreporsangre]

There's a cottage industry of hit-pieces against the guy. Just a bunch of talentless hacks trying to build their brand off of his high profile. Of course this isn't gonna "wreck" him lmao.

 

[lfd0311]

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?

I mean, seeing as many of his positions are based on the idea that dudes are essentially predators by nature I don't see this as anything out of the ordinary.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Tried to read the NY piece but it was hard to understand what it was saying.

Angry people follow men like Peterson and Shapiro. These two are very hateful people with no solutions for all the social problems in the world today. That is why they are feeding on so many many young men who are struggling to fit in society.

Never seen anything that suggest they are hateful, these "public intellectuals" have always been a thing but most of them had more liberal ideologies, seems the world has had its quota of liberals and are going back into more conservative ideas.

Above all these people were never about solution making, they are looking for problems and to point them to the audience.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

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.

Liberal propaganda outlets didn't create Jordan Peterson's popularity.

Therefore, they cannot destroy it.

 

[Falsedawn]

The meaning of 'enforced monogamy' for one. I don't see a definition from either of them in the article. She talks about 'forced sexual redistribution' in the paragraph above, but no sign that it's not a non sequitur she added to the article later.

Enforced monogamy isn't a new concept, we see it all the time. Mate guarding is a form of monogamy enforcement, for one. I assumed that concept when I heard the term. If he's talking about something else, he really needs to clarify.

 

[emax]

How is this bullshit article different from the countless other bullshit articles written about Peterson? It is this kind of ridiculous "journalism" that has made Peterson so popular in the first place.

I'd agree with you if this was an unedited Youtube video of their conversation. I think you're really giving the journalist too much credit. Doesn't the whole tone of the article suggest it's a carefully crafted hitpiece? It's not even hiding it.

I see where you are coming from. The issue is lack of understanding at what the words "enforced monogamy" mean. It gives the impression Peterson believes the gov't should force women to marry men they don't want to arraigned marriage style or strong arm them to marry an incel. In theory, enforced could mean societally supported but there is a fear of sorts over whether or not he was thinking out loud or if he is an arraigned marriage supporter.

One thing I am having a hard time understanding is his agreement to be interviewed by a NYT activist (who isn't Bari Weiss) at all. It seems he may have not been anywhere near media savvy enough, being a psychologist professor, to tell he was being lured with angelic bait into a trap. Or maybe he thought that the hysteria would somehow to make him even bigger once they saw how he was operating and how ti was not really about being pro rape.

 

[Concrete]

Enforced monogamy isn't a new concept, we see it all the time. Mate guarding is a form of monogamy enforcement, for one. I assumed that concept when I heard the term. If he's talking about something else, he really needs to clarify.

I agree. Maybe he was more clear, but he should definitely clarify now. It could mean anything from a society saying 'marriage is generally a good idea' to a Handmaid's Tale dystopia. I've seen the Handmaid's thing on Twitter already.

 

[TheGreatA]

I see where you are coming from. The issue is lack of understanding at what the words "enforced monogamy" mean. It gives the impression Peterson believes the gov't should force women to marry men they don't want to arraigned marriage style or strong arm them to marry an incel. In theory, enforced could mean societally supported but there is a fear of sorts over whether or not he was thinking out loud or if he is an arraigned marriage supporter.

One thing I am having a hard time understanding is his agreement to be interviewed by a NYT activist (who isn't Bari Weiss) at all. It seems he may have not been anywhere near media savvy enough, being a psychologist professor, to tell he was being lured with angelic bait into a trap. Or maybe he thought that the hysteria would somehow to make him even bigger once they saw how he was operating and how ti was not really about being pro rape.

I think he makes these sorts of "controversial" claims quite intentionally, at this point.

He's no fool. He knows that he's there because somebody wants to "catch him" saying something stupid.

To me, it just looks like he's playing with these people. Whether people want to admit it or not, he's a man who has studied people's minds, regardless of how academically credible he is at his profession, or not, in some people's eyes anyway. This is another big-time article that he got on a prominent newspaper. If it had been a "boring interview", with Peterson staying tight-lipped about any controversial subjects, it wouldn't have gotten any play.

Peterson has said many times that it's really his "ideological opposition" that continues to keep him in the public eye. Because they willfully try to misunderstand him and spin everything that he says, to bear the worst implications. So he just gives them a little something as bait, and it works like a charm everytime. It's never anything that he cannot explain as having a rational and factual basis.