https://www.indy100.com/article/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogomy-violent-crimes-new-york-times-incels-men-8359431
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
Peterson's blog post after this blew up
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
i swear, any time i read any words written by jordan peterson or any of those other hard incels (caamib), it feels like I'm reading a lot of the most vaguely worded social commentary that doesn't really attempt to solidify a point for anybody other than the people who would already understand these ideas. Even after reading the entirety of his blog post i'm no more or less certain of what he means by "enforced monogamy" other than a society that just inherently has nothing but the default 1-man 1-woman couples with no gays or nonmonogamists or anybody except a wife to fuck
So did he try and say that Dragons exist as much as anything, maybe more than anything, because they're part of the group of predators, and even though not existing, they'd exist through sharing a group with predators?
I genuinely do not think I can parse this statement out logically or rationally. It's completely loony toons.
On his blog:
“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.”
What the actual fuck does this mean?
Jordan Peterson is proof that you can be smart and still be a fucking idiot
Absolutely nothing. That's Jordy P's MO, he says a lot while saying nothing. It sounds very impressive until you try to actually listen to it.
I think he’s trying to say that dragons exist in the symbolic sense, just as witches exist in a symbolic sense? That’s the closest I can figure out, but even then he didn’t exactly specify in what way symbolic so who the fuck even knows.
i think the guy is losing it, like, more so than before. At least previously he’s been pretty coherent, albeit extremely disagreeable. Now I don’t even know what he’s trying to say, it’s just... gibberish. Is he back on drugs? I recall reading he had a huge drug abuse problem before.
Why did he decide to engage in politics at all? He says a couple years ago he had three clients in his private practice “pushed out of a state of mental health by left-wing bullies in their workplace.” I ask for an example, and he sighs.
He says one patient had to be part of a long email chain over whether the term “flip chart” could be used in the workplace, since the word “flip” is a pejorative for Filipino.
“She had a radical-left boss who was really concerned with equality and equality of outcome and all these things and diversity and inclusivity and all these buzzwords and she was subjected to — she sent me the email chain, 30 emails about whether or not the word flip chart was acceptable,” Mr. Peterson says.
Behold, the terrible visage of post-modern Neo-Marxism.
He just strikes me as a bullshit salesman spamming you with smart-sounding buzzwords. He comes across as the kind of pillock who'd fill his house with Soviet propaganda as a " constant reminder of the oppression of socialism". Probably because he literally did that and it's in the NYT article lmao
Jordan Peterson's talk is kinda endemic of the fake reality a lot of people like him live in. Of course he will refuse to take responsibility for the shit that spills out of his mouth. That he talks about folklore so much is kinda making sense with what politics have become for those without consideration for the bigger picture.
These days, everyone would say folklore is a bunch of superstitious bullshit that parents tell their kids to scare them. What if I were to tell you that socio-politics has become the exact same thing for a lot of people, just instead of supernatural elements, there's a loosely grounded fear of conspiracies and oppression?
just legalize and destigmatize prostitution.
And also this fuck this patriarchal fantasy world that all of these reactionary pseudo-intellectuals want to create
The reason people with these viewpoints are pushed to the fringe is that no one takes them seriously. Their view points are completely a-historical and just mired in a nostalgia. If you apply any critical thinking to their bullshit it completely falls apart.
Is he suggesting slavery for women? And yet his political demographic decries sharia law?
I didn't find peterson's blog post hard to understand at all. Chiefly because i actually read the whole thing.
On the other hand, I'm unsure what its relevance is to the incel hysteria. Incels cant get partners, by definition. Its of little use then to say that monogamy dominant society models reduce male violence.
The people who tell the NYT why they listen to Peterson are exactly the types of people who I would expect to gain valuable insight from his dogma.
“You’re a divine locus of consciousness,” Mr. Peterson tells the crowd of 1,200 or so people.
He looks down as he walks. He paces. He pleads — he often sounds frustrated, like you’ve just said something absurd and he’s trying to correct you without raising his voice. He speaks for over an hour without any notes. He runs his hands over his face when it’s all too much. He cries often.
yeesh.
Honestly, Peterson just talks really vague nonsense and then takes advantage of the fact that people who support him can then twist said vague nonsense into completely opposite meanings, meaning that any criticism of him can be deflected as "no, he actually meant something different". Thats why he talkes about dragons and witches and never clarifies what he even means by "enforced monogamy".
Many politicians in Poland use the same strategy. In fact, one in particular comes to my mind.
try actually reading his post. That way you can avoid embarrassing tantrums like this.
Jordan Peterson is one of the most irritating people out there. Plenty of people are much crazier or more evil than him, but the fact that people take him seriously when he's such a pseud is mind-boggling.
It's been pointed out before but it's weird how groups that Peterson seems to oppose vociferously (Nazi's, MRAs, MGTOW/incel types) seem to latch on to his words.
The part that people are trying to decipher is in the NYT article. You should read that too.
Women who criticize patriarchal society are whiny, but men who can't get laid should be taken seriously and provided with concubines?
This fucking quote from the NYT article is what gets me though.
The changes in his life include starting to clean his room. “My mom’s been nagging me for years, but I’ve never done it until Dr. Peterson,” he says.
Clearly I need incel tinted goggles to guess at his intentions. I did. Why don't you tell me what it meant to you?
>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.
"You're against the government enforcing equal outcomes."
"But you want the government to enforce equal dating outcomes."
"For the stability of society."
"But you don't see the inconsistency?"
"It is inconsistent if you look at it."
"So...?"
"so what"
What a hypocrite.
Says there are natural hierarchies, and that destroying those hierarchies is wrong, but wants the government to coddle his specific group when they fall out of the top of the food chain.
Says you shouldn't enforce equal outcomes, unless if it affects his specific group, in which case we obviously need to go as far as limiting the rights of women. Because getting society to focus less on dudebro "you get laid yet bro" culture is too hard. It's futile to change society from its natural lobster hierarchy, so we need to change society from what it is to a natural lobster hierarchy. Wanting stability in society for minority groups? Bah humbug! Guys are crying that they don't hold power over women anymore? Egad, this is horrid!
His whole purpose is to be an "intellectual" icon for conservatives to tout around when seeking to legitimize their poison.
I thought Ben Carson already proved that a while ago.
Because hes saying its not fair that women get to choose to be with wealthy or more attractive people. This whole tidbit reads exactly like the handmaid's tale. Incels are a joke, if they want to get with someone, its not the partner's job to do it.
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him.
The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.
Half the men fail. And no one cares about the men who fail."
He's literally saying women should act as a conduit of their partner's anger.
This infuriates me on god knows how many fucking levels... Women should not be blamed for the actions of these fuckwits.
This is like the backward ass idea of saying how women's clothing cause rapists to rape them.
The bar for "conservative intellectual" is so low you could probably find a fossilized trilobite making the argument for validity of the Laffer curve.
I did read it.
Theres nothing to decipher from the NYT article because it is very obviously baiting with its lurid suggestion that Peterson said anything about government issued monogamy. You have to then go to Peterson's blogpost to get clarity on what hes talking about.
again, its interesting but I dont see the relevance to incel hysteria. Monogamy reduces male violence? Solution... more monogamy? Ok how? Welp back to square one because its not the 1950s anymore and those conditions no longer exist. That said, I will say perhaps my disinterest in the subject blinds me partially - i simply do not think incels are the "problem" they are being made out to be. Despite all this hysteria and articles being pumped out en mass about toxic misogyny there have been how many "incel" killers in US history? 4?
The vast majority of incels are completely harmless, doing nothing but wallowing in their own filth and depression.
Is he getting alzheimers or some shit?
This goes to show how the far-right/alt-right have weaponized the use of language to their advantage.
The use of "Smart" words such as Philosopher, Intellectual, Debater, etc. is how these fuckers have ever gotten a following. And also using words such as "Libtard, Libcuck, Cuck, Liberal, Snowflake" to dehumanize their opposition. Cause thats how half these guys arguments and discussions devolved into. "Oh you're just a Liberal/Cuck/Libtard/Liberal faggot".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
