Correct. Polygamy is illegal and where it is still practiced illegally, it's often done by crazy polygamist cults where the fathers habitually rape and "marry" children. Honestly, I see why so many people are against polygamy when the relationship traditionalists adoption of polygamy has been nothing short of the very definition of exploitation of women, and perpetuates what is commonly known as "rape culture" in the proper context of its use.
However, the modern relationship model for many of us, the whole "hook-up" culture, the "we meet up, maybe casually have sex, but usually dating and elevated friendships are non-exclusive for a period, but if the person is someone we really resonate with, it becomes exclusive." thing, is honestly polygamous in nature. Also with the rise of LGBT rights and awareness, we'll be seeing an interesting case for bisexual rights as people enter into trinogamous relationships.
My personal opinion is that classical polygamy, in the sense of a single male in marriage and long term commitment to multiple, set female partners (or 1 female and multiple male for that matter), on top of being questionably moral, just doesn't seem sustainable.
My wife is bisexual to some degree(she isn't really sure how much, she grew up in a very strict, religious household and is kind of behind in her understanding of her self), and I've done a lot of pondering on the nature of relationships and my understanding comes from having to learn what I think is the absolute boundary for a healthy relationship, for most people this is probably monogamy, but I do see that maybe a trinogamous relationship being something that can be healthy and functional, as all 3 people are putting effort into each other, and the relationship is more complete in that sense.
Now, if you take into account the modern relationship model of casual dating, and the inherent polygamy that provides, then polygamy isn't so bad inherently, but the classical model of it is downright vile in almost every single other implementation in history.
I'll grant him that being in a relationship/having a lot of sex might make men less violent. I mean, maybe, right? Because violent people tend to be violent in relationships. Having sex with a violent man doesn't make him less violent, and it certainly doesn't protect you from that violence.
I always try to throw Peterson a bone, and I'll finish the rest of this article, but why should women be so self-sacrificing that we marry a guy just so he doesn't kill our neighbors? I mean, kind of seems like the number thing we shouldn't do.
If it's a fact that violence in society is men's fault (which I don't believe myself), then, gee, shouldn't the solution be teaching men to stop being so entitled? To sort out their hormones in their own way, peacefully, behind closed doors, and stop complaining about not getting "laid enough"? If all of this is supposed to impact all men, then why don't all men shoot up schools and rape women?
Oh. That's right. Because men are people too, and can't be boiled down to animalistic urges.
But a lot of trade jobs you're talking about require a lot of traveling, or are not as cushy as a tech industry job. Yeah, i could work for commercial electrical work and get 15K a month, but I would be on the road 95% of the time with little to no time off between while having extremely strict deadlines. Trade jobs aren't some magical high paying job sector that pays gold for no reason, if it was, there would be a lot more people doing them. Most tech jobs pay above the middle class sector and are pretty cushy physical/travel wise with great benefits. The only time trade jobs get near the tech/white collar level is in upper management which is anyone's guess to how long that takes.
source: me and others working as electricians getting paid $12-15 an hour. And this: 43 Trade School Jobs Among the Highest Paying Trades
Trade jobs get 3/4 or 1/2 of most tech jobs.
So basically it's a way to take basic ideas and use Simple Dramatic Words to make them sound a lot more important scary, and absolutely maximize how much one sounds like a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual jackoff.
It's the CURE to the incel problem.
That means we're talking about DOING something.
This is a continuation of his well-known and documented personal views/philosophy.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810165492522455040
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/928981541849522176
He's always been like this, he's continuing to be like this.
"I don't like how Jordan Peterson manipulates language"
"The far-left does it too!"
"Stop with this whataboutism shit"
"Aha, man I'm not a fan of the alt-right or far-left attempts to manipulate language, all I'm pointing out is that you should judge both sides equally"
So is your argument that Jordan Peterson does or doesn't manipulate language? Or is that he does but it's okay because he isn't alt-right or far left? Or that people cannot criticise him if they are left else they're hypocrites for criticising an individual on one side without criticising the other side, despite the fact that Peterson is also not on a 'side' because he's not a member of the alt-right or far-left in the first place?
How does Peterson being anything have whatever to do with whataboutisms being bad? What does the far-left have to do with Peterson either manipulating language or not manipulating language? It seems like each of the responses are totally discontinuous to the actual argument they're responding to.
Like at one moment it's "Peterson isn't a member of the alt/far--right" and the next it's "You cannot criticise Peterson without criticising the alt/far-left, his opposite". Somehow he's a part of a political 'side' while at the same time also not being a part of a political 'side' whenever it might make him look bad by association.
Or, it speaks to patterns that are nearly universal in our psychology and are thereby useful for psychological self regulation, parsing the world in simpler terms (as humans are inherently forced to do by virtue of the complexity of the world), and for understanding the viewpoints of others. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't using those words just to sound smart.
Reading JP articles is like deciphering tea leaves to tell the future, you can interpret it almost however the fuck you like but you'll forever be a moron for thinking of it as legitimate knowledge or wisdom.
How does he manipulate language? I thought the conversation was about words like "Cuck", which he never uses.
Did you read your own online source?
It literally has nothing to do with incels and the fact that you insist it does reveals that you refuse to hear anything else.
No, not really, there's definitely some truth to what he says. There's a reason stories made by humans often have very similar archetypal characters and villains. They represent a lot of generalizable truths about the common human experience, and to ignore that as just "pretentious pseudo-intellectual jackoff" is to miss out on a lot of the depth found in much of quality literature. We can learn by looking at the wisdom written down by people, just as smart as you or I, for thousands of years, and much of that wisdom is found in myths and legends. It isn't scientific truth, but that doesn't make it any less true. It allows us to better understand what it means to be human.
Like I said, I do think peterson takes it a little too far, and I think a lot of it comes from his desire to be religious without actually believing the religions themselves. So he is forced to create overly important symbolic meanings to impart value to stories that he doesn't see as literally true, but that doesn't make the entirety of his views "pretentious."
The New Atheist movement pushed society so far away from literary/artistic/etc. experience that many people grew up having no appreciation for anything outside of the hard sciences. Peterson seems to be a sort of counter-reaction to that. He points to the very deep and meaningful truth that can be found in the wisdom stored through the ages in things like literature, art, and poetry.
(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)
Okay. Points for that. But then is pushing marriage offering a solution? Or just trying to sweep it under the ground? Peterson is playing the "lead the horse to water, and if it drinks, well hey!" game. He's not advocating for governments to regulate marriage, he's just encouraging it as a really good, really valid idea. Again, he isn't saying that, but he's getting so close to it that he might as well be saying it.
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.
Again, I don't buy that married man = emotionally-stable man. It's not groundbreaking to say that a person with issues is going to have those same issues while in a relationship. If having access to women was the silver bullet that incels think it is (and I'm not lumping Peterson in with them), why is divorce so high?
He isn't speaking categorically. Married man =/= emotionally stable man, but many social benefits are drawn from stable couplings. Just like statistically speaking people from western countries value individualism over collectivism, but you can find exceptions, so too is it for stable couplings and positive results. Sure, some of them turn out bad, but for the most part they produce good results.
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.
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.
To be fair it's that things like this happen whenever you take something to logical extremes.
For example: I don't want to go to class, therefore I need an excuse that's sufficient, the only excuse my professor accepts is medical documents showing I couldn't make it. I couldn't make myself I'll, but physical injury is not out of the question, so I will physically injure myself to not go to class. (Actually happened in a few finals that people did this).
Stuff like this is merely example that not all benefical good is beneficial for the sake of things. Much in the same way as eugenics or birth control. There is a whole book about logical, scientific extremist views and how people can misinterpret things that lead them to ideas like this. I forget what it is called, but essentially it's mistaking something sometimes benefical to some as something inherently beneficial to society, and you end up reasoning yourself to the extreme with a vicious cycle of things that you consider to be anti-ideal through confirmation bias.
I suppose it's ironic that someone with a doctorate in psychology would be victim to such a psychological fallacy, though.
Did you read it? Im saying its pulling ALL sectors of the industry, industrial, commercial, and residential. That goes with all of those trades. A residential construction manager will make less than a commercial one. A commercial manager is all over the place to overwatch multiple jobs across the country, same with an electrician/engineer/plumber. The jobs below show working into something like networking/programmer/developer/editor pays as much or more while being a much more lax job with little travel.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. What specifically do you mean by "subordinate?" In what way does Peterson see the physical universe as "subordinate" to Jungian archetypes?
You're right, talking about how if men were given sex more often they wouldn't riot has nothing to do with incels.
The original reason why I made the counter argument was the fact that you're applying bias against trade work. For you, that lax job sitting in an office sounds nice. For me that sounds like a nightmare.
Incels are a group of people who believe that they deserve state-mandated access to women. JP is arguing that men in general are better when they are in stable relationships. One is a ridiculous fringe-opinion, the other is drawn from observation and raises the question "So what?". The answer to that question according to JP is radically different from the incel answer, and so even making the comparison seems silly. He says we should promote it socially, incels says women should be dolled out like chattle. Do I have to point out the difference?
Because for majority of people, being stuck outside moving heavy shit all day or traveling days at a time with no time off or benefits is pure hell. Not to mention a lot of industrial and commercial jobs don't pay till its over or even later. The time spent away home for months can be depressing and stressful. Especially for people who have partners.
It both obfusicates and oversimplifies by using connotation-laden words that appeal to the human tendency to view the world as a "story". But this is a cognitive bias that people should be made aware of, not exploited with an easily digestible vision of a simple, deterministic society.
How long until Jordan Peterson reveals he's the creator of Spirit Signs...
I don't think he's saying anything particularly profound. Am I somehow missing/misreading something here? What's the big deal?
Are you actually having trouble understanding that or are you just picking a random quote to gawk at? Like, what about this is confusing?
No? incels are men who believe they don't get the girls they deserve. Like @ilikecorn said, they believe just because they treat a random girl nice, they deserve a relationship. They mostly don't believe the state should give them a GF, its just a joke towards JP. What JP is saying is they should get pussy more so they don't riot which is fucking ridiculous. And incels will eat that shit up as another example to why they deserve a gf. Incels are one of JP's biggest groups and he caters to their bullshit by saying vague things like that. Then once someone points out how asinine of a comment it is, he retreats to his easy to defend position of "well I wasn't saying state enforced monogamy. I was just saying men are less likely to commit crime when married duh, silly". He stays vague as possible so he can have best of both arguments. If someone doesn't call out his outrageous accusation, he can float with it. But if someone does, he has a backup alibi to make the person who called him out look stupid.
Every talk and argument the dude does relies on motte and bailey, which allows people like incels to follow the bailey and normal people to be ridiculed with the motte.
Every Jordan Peterson argument I've heard or read so far sounds like a very long winded gish gallop.
Eh, I see your point. I just think it's being a bit intellectually dishonest. It's a valid point to make that hormones and evolution do crazy things to the brain (and I think society puts a lot of pressure on men to base their worth on how easily and how many women they can "obtain") but what are the solutions he proposes? If not strongly encourage marriage, then what? Anita Sarkeesian does the same shit. She doesn't say the c word, she just spends a whole lot of energy on making sure people think censorship will totally lead to a healthier society.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
