I swear every time this man speaks he either sounds like a MEMRI TV cleric, or like his sentences are completely randomly generated.
This is exactly how I feel. It's the same as when people would spam articles about how some guy said Trump had tiny hands or crosses his legs like a lady when he sits, it's a stupid hitpiece that detracts from the genuine faults in the person. Almost every single person in this thread is either crying out in disbelief that Peterson believes in dragons (he doesn't), or that he wants the state to give incels girlfriends (he doesn't). But we've all collectively decided JBP is bad so completely lying about what he said in a hit piece is acceptable apparently.
Why is society significantly less violent and unstable today than it was 60-80 years ago, when there actually was "enforced monogamy"?
I have literally no idea what he's trying to say. Do you understand me?
It's funny that he wrote that self help book because I haven't heard him give any advice on how not to be a boring piece of shit.
no it wouldn't
incels was always "tfw no gf" not "tfw no sex". Pay attention. The idea that it was ever the latter has purely been a distortion by reactionary hysteria. Incels don't want sex, because even where prostitution is harshly punished it is certainly anything but hard to find, or prohibitively expensive, they want intimacy.
The only difference is that, apparently, we can look at Anita Sarkeesian as a part of the post-modern-neo-marxists and infer that they, as a collective, have some hidden sinister agenda based on piecing together things said by a multitude of different people representing a wide range of possible viewpoints, but try to infer a logical conclusion of something said by a particular conservative thought-leader and suddenly everything has to be carefully interpreted.
This tactic is becoming an absolute favorite of the alt-right. Stuff like claiming that racism doesn't exist and disputing every reason given for why black people might be worse off economically, but always stopping just short of saying it's because of their genetics, so when people point out that's what they're clearly implying, they can claim they're putting words in their mouth. I've seen this so many times. It's no wonder that Jordan Peterson is considered an "intellectual" to these people, he uses all of the same "tricks" they do to "win" arguments.
Ok well then you might have some kind of disability or head trauma, sorry to tell you. If you want, you can tell me which words are hard for you to read, and I can explain them to you.
I thought that the whole van incel thing was a mis-reporting?
Increase in living standards and increased surveillance and police presence (generally), I figure. Just because things have gotten better doesn't mean they couldn't be even better.
This entire article seems like a massive misrepresentation of what was actually said.
Um, okay, can we take a moment here and just try to analyze this one point of discussion without the hysteria of the alt-right boogeyman? Peterson saying that monogomy decreases violence absolutely 100% does not "imply" that the next step is for the state to give incels girlfriends, or force women to get married. I think the more reasonable assumption (and I think this because it's what he himself said), is that it means if we as a society decide to value monogomy and support/promote the practice culturally, we could reap the benefits, including lower incidence of male violence.
You can't accuse someone of implying/suggesting/saying something they never implied/suggested/said, and then when they say "I didn't say that", turn around and shriek "AHA! Never willing to come out and say it, are ya?". You really, actually are the one putting words in the other persons' mouth. Yes, racists (not just the spooky new "alt-right", but racists since the dawn of fucking time, forever and always) have brought up crime statistics and tiptoed around saying "it's because they're black". That doesn't mean you can start accusing everyone of the same "tip-toe" behavior when it doesn't at all apply to the situation.
#ZINGER
I'll get myself checked out at the hospital later, thanks for the warning bro.
And we're just going to ignore this tweet posted earlier in the topic then?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810165492522455040
Considering the Tweet is from 2 years before the Incel Uprising and was never followed up on, I chalk it up to JBP being attention-seeking and stupid rather than a legitimate call for action. i.e. feels more like empty-headed pontification and "really makes ya think" than any sort of policy proposal imo.
"Don't make non-biased statements in discussion or you're a cunt"
I mean, first off I don't think stating facts makes you a cunt lol, but I get what you're saying. But like I said in my previous post, I'm not saying he isn't making a point with the fact, I'm saying his point is clearly stated and he has elaborated/explained it without ambiguity but instead you guys are getting worked up about whether or not he wants to give incels girlfriends. If he literally says he does not want to do that, and goes on to explain what he means by "enforced monogamy" and it doesn't include state intervention.. Then why are we freaking out about it?
No where in that tweet does he want incels to have fucking state-enforced girlfriends, dude. Simply asking "Could casual sex necessitate state tyranny?" and how the irresponsibility that tends to arise within one-night-stand scenarios needs to be addressed somehow does not mean "Give the incels their girlfriends now, government!"
So, rrkpp__, you're saying that he just... found it interesting?
No, I think he meant what he said and the accusations of nefarious "implications" are just scare-mongering. I think he thinks that society should value monogamy and promote it culturally because it benefits society.
Yeah, I don't agree with the man on a lot of stuff (including, well, this) but it's pretty clear that that's what he was saying, the article took the most nefarious interpretation of that, then the title of the thread bumped his statement from "suggested solution" to "a call for enforcement".
Its just a coincidence majority of his topics tote the right leaning line obviously. I mean i could say "Jews run majority of fortune 500 companies and have connections to the government" so when someone asks if i'm pushing a crazy Zionist conspiracy, i can go: "Im just merely stating a fact, and frankly its disgusting you would think that." Welcome to JP's entire manifesto. He totes that line closer and closer till hes on it. Someone calls him out for his insane bullshit, Then he hops back off the line to a extremely easy way to wash his hands of criticism. Real intellectuals blow JP's ass out of the water by sticking with their points, and actually expanding on them to great detail. If JP went around saying shit like hes saying here, people wouldn't give him any attention due to stating the obvious. But that's not whats going on.
You see plenty of rightwingers hang onto him for dear life to find meaning in his vague shitposting so they can confirm themselves with an "intellectual". If JP wanted to state "mono coupled men are less violent due to being in relationships that enforce rule and discipline rather than dangerous and harmful acts." No one would give a shit. Instead he says "monogamy should be enforced and encouraged to prevent males from becoming a violent tide". That can go two ways, the obvious one which lines up with his other bullshit arguments is the one everyone latched onto. But of course he switches to the defensive one, like every fucking time.
Exactly, he structures his arguments in such a way as to lead inexorably towards a conclusion but will always stop shy of making the point, allowing the people he is really speaking to (right leaning types) to make the conclusion he wants them to make, but when called out on it, does the whole "But I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth."-thing, which is literally true, but language/communication is not entirely literal and there is a subtext to everything he says. And the subtext here is a massive dog-whistle to incel/nice-guy types who believe that they are owed/deserve female companionship.
It's not a coincidence, obviously JBP is conservative. I don't think even he denies that, but conservatism isn't the same thing as hating Jews lol. You keep making the point that JBP "just states a fact", when he's not. He brought up a fact while making the point that he thinks we as a society should value monogamy, "and here's why..". I don't get what is confusing about that? Like, the line of logic you're applying definitely fits a lot of people and I get what you're going for, I just don't see how it at all relates to this situation where he makes a clear case of his beliefs without ambiguity.
1. Breakdown in the sense of rising divorce rates, delayed marriage, and lower marriage rates particularly among the young and lower class where it serves more of a function for social stability. Fatherlessness and even lack of fathers in a community being linkes to male dysfunction. Same with economic inequality.
2. You contradict yourself in the same post. You claim more fish in the sea yet try to defend lower rates of sex and marriage in the young.
3. Young men do not have higher standards. You just made this up. They rate attractiveness evenly.
4. You posit male self improvement as the easy answer in order for you to stay ideologically consistent and recuse yourself. Unfortunately you're making the issue flat. There's a growing education achievement gap, changing economy which means less emphasis on male characteristics and more stratification along lines of intelligence of which men vary more wildly, the growth of media and entertainment industry that distorts expectations and rewards characteristics men were not selected for in most of history, the bias of courts, and intensifying competition in the labor force and decreased social mobility. Theres more. This all impacts ability to attract mates and therefore average social enfranchisement. Generally, the state of class hierarchy particularly affects men since women don't depend on it as much for their place on a sexual market.
5. It doesn't really matter what you think the middle class should look like, I'm telling you what enfranchises people particularly in the lower classes. Liberal democracy depends on them living a middle class lifestyle. This lifestyle consists of property ownership, marriage, and social mobility. It also depends on a belief in something greater, i.e. metanarrative which fosters a long-term, crossgenerational view. Without this, its easier for us to have a breakdown in civic identity into constituent parts, like race and class or atomized individuals.
We are at risk of leaving those young, prole, and/or male behind in the 21st century western society. With us becoming more stratified, plutocratic, atomized, culturally divided, disillusioned with institutions and our role in the world, and politically polarized, liberalism and democracy is in a crisis and JP is right to fear that the young men he mostly attempts to help are a concentrated symptom of it that for some reason the left refuses to take seriously and give a seat at the table of identity politics. Thus the collapse of the blue wall, on that note.
The issue is mostly capitalism and culture war.
On one hand, I will admit that I jumped to conclusions. I read the NY Times article, but not his blog post.
The article puts his mention of "enforced monogamy" right next to the description for "sexual redistribution", and mentions sex redistribution later.
On the other hand, he mentions "enforced monogamy" as a solution to men not having sexual partners, so excuse me for thinking that "enforced monogamy" meant "monogamy that's enforced" rather than "polygamy that's looked down upon". Maybe I've been traumatized by c****b Beetlejuice.
Going with his actual definition, however, is still incredibly flawed.
He links to a scientific study showing "see, men who are in monogamous relationships are less violent!" But the study is about how men with multiple partners are more violent than those who are monogamous and those who don't have any partners. The latter being the subject at hand, someone who didn't have sex and was mad about it.
Furthermore, we can't assume that socially "enforcing" monogamy will actually spread partners around, and thus won't solve the problem with radical incels.
You could argue that stopping "high-status" men from sleeping around would cause women to seek out lower status men, but that's not necessarily true. Flip it around - people being able to sleep around means women are also able to sleep around, which means any women who would be interested in the guy who went crazy would have already slept with him.
Also, there's another option besides "all the girls go for the alpha men" and "women will look around until they find a spare, unmated male": celibacy. Women can simply, you know, not sleep with anyone. Masturbation exists.
Neither of these are true and the link between family integrity and social health is pretty well established, as is the dependence of democracy on a middle class.
Yes they both are. Rates of violent crime in the 20s and 30s were significantly higher than they are today, yet back then sexual morality was enforced by law (homosexuality and transgenderism were both illegal, divorce was much harder to get, marriage was considered consent). There is not a positive correlation between sexual liberation and crime.
Enforced monogamy is essentially marriage. Marriage is not enforced anymore because anyone can leave their spouse for any reason and claim half of the shared property. Why get married when your husband or wife can dump at a second's notice?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
