https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b2CZ33PkIg
(its an edit)
I wish daddy Jordon would play house with me
This is amazing. It reminds me a lot of this channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fSXp6N-vs
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK3SC3JNVhY
didnt this one pretty much happen one time?
Can someone tl;dr why everyone cares so much about this jordan peterson guy.
hes an extremely dangerous, right-wing, "intellectual" speaker. by profession he is a clinical psychologist. some of his controversial thoughts are:
feminists want male domination, they just don't know it
order is masculine, chaos is feminine
we should have forced monogamy, as in women are forced into sexual relationships with incels to prevent them from going on killing sprees
there was a proposed bill in canada banning discrimination against a person based on gender identity. he said it was a grave threat to freedom of speech and would lead to people like him being arrested.
he has thousands (maybe millions) of followers around the world, he hates sjws and political correctness, he is constantly setting himself up to win in arguments against people and then plays the calm and collected type to make it seem like he is the reasonable one.
hes a total dick.
Imagine if the anti gay anti women's rights anti trans pastor you saw on the TV in 1999 came back but with a university degree, a bunch of complicated words to make it look like what he's saying isn't just bigotry and also a fan base of thousands + all your friends listened to him and that's JBP.
I'm not sure if you're ignorant and don't understand his argumentation or purposely building a caricature because you don't care about actually disproving ideas but just outright making his ideas up.
https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/955889027957297152
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
[quote]
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.”
[/quote]
It's all right there dude
It's the result of people taking headlines at face value.
I find it ironic that in these videos Peterson talking complete bollocks actually makes some kind of sense, unlike his usual shit.
https://youtu.be/9arXKu_1p9I
This defines Jordon so flawlessly
Cripple fight!
"Enforced Monogamy" is an actual term in anthropology. It fairly tightly defined meaning. Here's Peterson going into more depth and also citing an academic paper from other sociologists in the field:
"So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation."
That’s all.
No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)
Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children. (On the New York Times and "Enforced Monogamy" | Jordan Peterson) (And the academic paper: SAGE Journals)
Yes, it's an actual, defined term, I understand that entirely. What you're missing here is that his legitimate explanation of enforced monogamy doesn't excuse the rest of the batshit insane things he's said.
It's not a result of taking headlines at face value. I've seen this fuckwits talks and I've seen his debates.
You know what, for real, I'm really mad that Jordon isn't an actor.
Imagine him playing an evil villain who plays it cool and talks smooth
until he just
snaps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdEbOzcN1U
He does it for the lulz.
So you understand it entirely... But you still chose to say that Peterson wants women to be forced to marry incels? I'm not sure what your point is, then.
Alright, I fucked up with a quote. At the end of the day, there's nothing to gain from defending this guy.
If you want more insight you can check out the regret-filled short history of the guy who got JBP hired, lined him up for repeated promotions and then realized
"...I fucked up." here
I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s da..
If you want the real short version of the hypocrisy of a dude who thinks the state is out to censor him using the state to censor others you can take a look at his latest scandal:
Jordan Peterson sues Wilfrid Laurier University for defamation o..
There isn't really much to defame in Jordan Peterson he's pretty much done it all already himself.
Of the two cherry picked studies which Peterson uses (two studies, not a well-developed body of anthropological or sociological research) one goes completely against his argument (it purports that sexually active males are more violent than non-sexually active males), the other is written by a racially-driven ideologue who has been widely criticized by scientists in the field for his bad scientific practice.
Monogamy, when used in an anthropological context, refers to how pre-historic and civilized human cultures socially encourage relationships between two individuals. We already live within a society with 'enforced monogamy' where monogamous relationships are the norm.
How are we not living in a society with 'enforced monogamy' already?
Peterson uses the term to mean the redistribution of females to the majority of males, lest they go wild and kill people because (according to Peterson) it is logical to expect young men to murder people because women will not have sex with them. By arguing that the reaction of the incel social movement is 'natural' he gives them justification for their warped view of the world. The vast majority of men in the western world do not think this way, but Peterson uses his ideology of mixing Jungian Archetypes and biblical stories to argue that everything he says is 'natural' and 'logical' regardless of whether it is based on fact or not.
There's a big jump between saying stories reflect generalised thoughts and feelings of the society that made them, and arguing that the physical universe is subordinate to jungian archetypes and the nazis didn't commit the holocaust because they hated jews, but because they were driven against their will to reenact roles from biblical stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM
There's also the fact that he's hilariously wrong when it comes to matters of biology and history. There's a big jump between expressing an alternative perspective and outright rejecting the best scientific knowledge we have on particular subjects in order to push a singular uncompromising meta-narrative driven by western-centric judaeo-christian value systems and pseudo-philosophical dogma.
In fact I would argue that Peterson is much more in line with postmodernism than he would necessarily like. His views are more in line with radical postmodernists, who believe that all of reality is subjective and subordinate to socially constructed meta-narratives, than modern psychoanalytic or cultural/literature studies. There are better people to read when it comes to how grand narratives drives culture and affects human behaviour. Including the mechanisms of how those narratives actually result in certain behaviours through cognitive behaviour.
His whole religious belief system resolves around the post modernist notion of grand narratives interpreted through Jungian Meta-Archetypes. His views actually correlate with the most radical postmodernists, he isn't just saying that people consciously construct narratives within society to guide their own moral principles (a la the society-wide belief in colonial america that white people were superior to black people, used to justify slavery), but that the biblical stories he was raised on literally bend reality in such a way as to force people to conduct certain behaviours. The nazis didn't actually wish to establish an ethnostate of aryan germans because they believed that the Jews were inferior, they were instead literally subconsciously re-enacting the biblical story of the Mark of Cain.
He also believes in the conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism, which is the idea that there is a concetrated effort by undercover communists to destroy western society through pushing for things such as gay marriage and women's rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9MnM7N_k3I
He's also a radical fundamentalist christian who believes in biblical determinism.
I'm not sure about that one, I distinctly recall him being pretty ambiguous on his christianity and validity of the bible as fact and not an expression of the archetypes he so praises as universal.
Do you have a source for that?
He said in his Reddit AMA that he refuses to explicitly identify as a Christian because "it's more powerful to endorse [Christianity] implicitly" and tweeted that "faith in God is a prerequisite for proof" Jordan B Peterson on Twitter (deleted tweet archive). His belief is that religion is necessary for society, stating that Stalin killed people because he was an atheist and that atheists "have never been discriminated against, but maybe they should be." He believes that all people follow biblical archetypes, I don't think he's a biblical literalist, but he does ascribe divinity to it by making it the source of all archetypes.
In his book, Maps of Meaning (from what I've read, anyway), it seems more like he's arguing that the bible and the teachings and things described in it are just one more incarnation of the eternal archetypes inherent in the human psyche - crystallized into an Order (as opposed to Chaos - a lack of such order which ascribes absolute meaning - which he always takes as a bad thing).
I don't think he talks about Biblical archetypes, but archetypes that one can find in the bible (and if his belief is to be followed, in all systems and stories ascribing any meaning to human life).
Given that he also doesn't really explain what he means by God or when asked gives different answers, it's hard to gauge just what he means, but kind of ambiguity is par for the course for the guy.
Jordan is fighting to maintain the status quo to keep chaos at bay, or so he believes. He is not a free speech warrior. He is a social order warrior.
Should we start calling these pansy alt-righters SOWs, now?
I've heard "status quo warriors" for obvious reasons, and also "social studies warriors" in reference to that Mega64 parody of alt-right videos.
https://i.imgur.com/rl0CGK3.png
The dude made him famous and then JBP went on a transphobic crusade against the world in general and made a huge mess which you could've seen if you'd read the article.
Read it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
