They want sex that they can enjoy. That's not as readily-accessible for everyone as you might think.
You can't honestly believe that just because someone claims there's a link between X and Y, that "well X isn't ALWAYS Y!" is a reasonable response.
Yeah I think they primarily hate women but they're also pretty lonely dudes.
It's a shame, isn't it, that the only place they feel they can receive support for their issues is also a breeding ground for radicalization.
I posit that if our society were more accepting and understanding of "undesirable" men, they wouldn't be drawn to these toxic communities.
Did I have a stroke or something? The paragraph about dragons and witches just repeated itself several times without making any points or giving any examples of "modern witches" I guess if dragons did exist they would certainly be considered predators. I need to lie down now.
It was an extremely poorly-worded paragraph that, I think, was meant to express that these imaginary beings (dragons and witches) are very real in the sense that they're an embodiment of our fears as a society?
Maybe?
But also society should lead people to believe that their self worth should be tied to having someone to bone.
That's precisely the opposite of what I said.
I suspect you didn't truly read my post in good faith and instead skimmed it looking for a weak point to latch onto.
Incels are angry and lonely dudes and sex won't solve their problems at all. I think they need something more than that if they can get over their hatred of women.
You have no idea what you're even responding to with regards to what I've said, do you?
He has a lot of shit opinions but most of what he claims comes straight from actual statistical backing, it's just the interpretation that imo is wonky. I wouldn't be judging your dad for liking Jordan Peterson's stuff.
I mean, you could also talk to him about it instead of judging by association.
Maybe I'm not arguing against you!
Jordan Peterson says a lot of things.
Sometimes, the things he says are very refreshing because it feels like nobody else is going to acknowledge the issues he's speaking about.
But he also says a lot of very concerning things that tend to require a lot of backtracking.
You seem to be saying that the solution to the problem lies mainly in reshaping the expectations placed on men/ending the idea that men are valued by their sexual success? I agree with that, but I don't see how it serves as a defence of what Peterson is saying?
His "enforced monogamy" seems to me to just be an intellectual repackaging of the idea that the "solution" to the incel problem is for women to have sex with them. Of course there is the issue that this places some kind of weird responsibility on women to be 'sexual healers' for disaffected men, but even putting that aside, I don't think it even makes any sense.
If you look at the incel "icon" Elliott Rodger, it's pretty clear that that he had real mental health problems. No one could seriously claim that this guy's problems would have disappeared if he had gotten a girlfriend. Of course, not every incel is Elliott Rodger, but my point is that people who identify as "incels" are often going to have much deeper issues, and that a solution which focuses on "how do we give the incels what they want?" isn't really going to work.
I think you're right to highlight society's expectations/toxic masculinity as a contributing factor to all of this, but again, I don't see how that's a defence of Peterson?
Unless I'm misunderstanding what he means by "enforced monogamy" - I know he means societal pressure rather than government intervention, but that still seems to centre on the idea that sex will heal the incels.
I'm defending Peterson on the basis that his argument has been largely misunderstood and he has been maligned as a result of it, not because I think he's actually necessarily correct.
Also my rant about incels isn't really about Peterson, but more the extremely toxic response to anything deemed "incel-related" that focuses on mocking and humiliating as opposed to compassion and understanding.
This is probably the more sensible take on this that I've read so far, and it still sounds incredibly stupid.
Jordan Peterson: Socialism is the death of western civilization
Also Jordan Peterson: SOCIALIZE GIRLFRIENDS FOR INCELS
jordan peterson's views are an endless well of incredibly stupid takes
he says some incredibly vague nonsense and then people spend 10 pages working out which of the many, many insane interpretations is the least insane, and then say "that's what he meant"
he's like the human equivalent of a crossword - taken as a whole, his statements are just total garbage, but you can probably make something out of it if you stare for long enough
So he's just bringing up statistics and saying "enforced monogamy" without out-right explaining how or why it would work, and without acknowledging the potential problems with whatever "solution" he's insinuating.
Sounds like self-congratulatory bullshit to me, dude.
To be honest, I've never understood how some in the field of evolutionary psychology can so simply posit an non testable hypothesis such as the one linked here by Peterson and speak with relative certainty. How does one empirically test for an unconscious motivation? Is a statement on such matters even falsifiable?
The solution he proposes is not contained in that post. Since you seem unwilling to do even the most basic search of what he has said, either on his blog post made expressly for that reason, or on his twitter where he has several clarifying posts, I will do it for you.
The solution he proposes:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/998088964719464449
(In reply to:)
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/998087424814256128
and
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/998086485747347456
I would argue that going by the many incel communities that have popped up and, in some cases, consequently got stomped out, they don't really deserve compassion and understanding.
Psychology uses a range of measures to determine that including things ranging from self-report to implicit bias questionnaires to peer-report. Generally speaking they use a method of statistical analysis and the same sort of assumptions any field of evolutionary theory uses.
How do these things test for the unconscious, though? both self-report and peer-report sound like they can only detect that which is conscious.
In what manner does statistical analysis indicate the inherent unconscious drive of persons to commit certain acts?
> Critics of my “enforced monogamy” comments in the NY Times: why do you think polygamy is illegal?
"Thing is illegal" is a non-argument. My polyamorous friends don't seem like terribly violent people. Quite the opposite.
I would argue that compassion and understanding is the only way to truly open someone up to having an honest conversation with someone they heavily disagree with.
I don't think you mean this, but the root of your statement is that the right (or privilege, perhaps) to be treated fairly is subjective to the person who is expected to act fairly. In other words, the idea that we should treat others fairly is entirely about treating people we dislike fairly.
Freedom of Speech, as an example, is entirely designed to protect speech the government doesn't like.
It doesn't really aim to in most cases. It simply points to associations between statistics and then posits plausible explanations. In this case, the association in question is the one between violence and status in men.
A thought prevalent in much of Peterson's lectures and writings is that he believes in some sort of absolute morality, and what frankly seems to me a kind of moral darwinism, in that he implies that the kind of societies that survive show their stability - a stability owed to their conforming with this moral truth inherent in the human psyche as opposed to going against it.
He believes that societies which fail to conform in this manner are pathological, and necessarily fall victim to what he terms "Chaos" or "The Unknown", a lack of a coherent structure of meaning. It seems to me that his views on matters such as these emanate from this assumption, in the way of the fact all "successful" societies that survive now and have survived for quite some time historically have in some form upheld monogamy both legally and socially.
Did I make some sort of claim that "my polyamorous friends are not violent people, a perfectly sound deductive argument that shows flawlessly that Peterson is wrong?"
This is just a dressing up of traditional conservative nonsense. I am not going to shame my friends for practicing polyamory because Jordan Peterson thinks it will lead to murders overall. I am going to shame my friends if they murder. This is faux-scientific pearl-clutching over things don't harm people they don't involve.
Polygamy is illegal because its a red tape nightmare for taxes/wills. That and america was founded with god fearing principles. Not because its detrimental to society. Someone wants to marry 2 people with their consent? Who gives a shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
