I used the term "white ISIS" for comedic purposes, but in truth quite a lot of his views and statements sound like the type of shit radical islamist clerics would say. Such as (and this is by no means an exhaustive list):
Claiming that if women weren't "choosy" rape would be unnecessary
https://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/comments/2frwau/jordan_peterson_evil_and_tragedy_4236_an_amazing/clqsmg9/
Saying that birth control is a problem for society because it "enabled women to compete with men on a fairly equal footing." Jordan Peterson Talks Gun Control, Angry Men and Women CEOs | Ti..
Saying that wearing makeup is "simulating sexual arousal" and inviting sexual harassment, and thus wearing makeup is comparable to wearing negligee
https://youtu.be/T5ahmzySUB8
Arguing that men "can't control crazy women" because they aren't allowed to beat them Jordan Peterson
Telling women not to "usurp men" https://i.redditmedia.com/HO3TmvZ_m3qdS3UQJFLBSRsLKVvS2cA83rGFh_CdTwc.png?w=582&s=eb4f9db6e5b17996df94408b364a89db
I can go on if you really want me to but frankly I've had to browse through more of his schlock than is healthy for any person to experience in thrir lifetime already. As I said before the "white ISIS" remark was made for comedic effect, at the core of it Peterson is a religious fundamentalist and a traditionalist conservative, so he's going to have common points with every fundamentalist conservative group, that happens to include ISIS, it also includes the Republican party but that's less funny.
I wonder how many people in history have had as many defenders preface their defense with, "I don't agree with everything he says," as Jordan Peterson.
This is the issue I have as well. Petersons pretty shitty. But he isn't the boogeyman these threads make him out to be. A lot of this is exagerated, and hard to take seriously. A lot of it is trumped up on emotions and indignation, and that's not a convincing argument. But if you say this, and "Defend" him from literally fabricated claims, then you're obviously a huge supporter of Peterson, the altright, and everything that's ever been bad.
Nuance is hard for people I guess.
If it seems like he's being made out as a "boogeyman," it's because people are tired of sifting through the mountain of sophistry, motte and bailey, appeal to authority, and self-help baiting that seems to, rather effectively, hide the fact that he's just a bog-standard, run-of-the-mill social conservative.
I'm not disputing that though?
I'm disputing the claims that go beyond that and act like he's worse than " a bog standard run of the mill social conservative" and he's some really malicious actor.
I don't dispute he's a boring conservative. I wasn't disputing that. Read my post, and see what i was actually disputing lol.
IMO, that's more of a sign of the forum than the person being defended. People feel like they have to clarify the totality of their support because they're afraid of being attacked mercilessly, even when not defending those parts of his message.
I think his use of the techniques I mentioned to cultivate a huge fanbase and appear closer to the center than a really is makes him worse.
He isn't good, but he isn't the picture I see painted here by some of the more extravagent posters own descriptors.
Yes, he's a shitty charlatan. That doesn't mean his words, arguments, or statements should be taken out of context, to be used against him. They're shitty enough in context most of the time,
he can be argued against easily through those kinds of methods. But I see a lot of exagerated and silly garbage being used to critique him and I'm sure that doesn't help silence him, just the
opposite.
Actually, most of the critique I've seen in this thread has been nuanced and within the context of his work. Everything I said (which turned out that Psychology Today was basically saying the same thing) about his intentions is laid bare specifically by the context of the bullshit he says. Such as demonstrated by Asparkle.
The man is a pseudo-intellectual limp-dicked patriarchal shithead who wants a return to male-dominated society and a roll back of sexual autonomy for females. By his own mouth. This article is just yet another piece of the puzzle of his desires, since he usually stops short of outright saying it so people will defend him.
I mean, if you could explain the purpose of make up to me, in a way that completely dis-associates it from it's real world uses and connotations, okay. I agree with most of that but I also have
to point out in many ways, this is what I'm talking about.
You've ruled the "Truth" of all of those subjects is what you say it is, or what asparkle says, there's nothing about those subjects to be learned, or thought about, they're settled topics. I don't
think they all are, and I don't think him bringing up things like make up or birth control is wrong. I think the conclusions he draws publicly are, and how he lays the arguments out are often wrong, but aren't these topics worth thinking about?
Make up, even if it's solely for the wearer of the make up, is doing so to make themselves more attractive. Even if this is solely a habit, or function for the user of the make up to feel a certain
way, it's for that specific purpose. I don't think it's bad, I don't think it's wrong, but I just think it's worth thinking about more than "It's not a thing at all".
I think he's wrong on a lot of those accounts, and the more he's talked the more fucked up his ideas have seemed, but there does seem to be an effort to take anyone, or any idea, he's expressed and act like they're all on the same level. They're not.
Can you demonstrate this part? I don't think I've ever heard him call for a limitation of any freedoms for women.
Did you.. complete ignore ASparkle's posts? The things he advocates removing there are cornerstones of female sexual freedoms.
He's said some pretty fucked up things and still stands by those statements when asked about them. I mean, he thinks women shouldn't be allowed to complain about being sexually harassed when wearing makeup at work. What the fuck?
So firstly, there's a difference between saying you don't like something and saying women shouldn't be free to do that thing. Wearing a lot of makeup might be an example for Peterson. He doesn't like it, but he's not calling for it to be illegal.
Secondly, those points are presented very dishonestly anyway. Take this one:
Peterson says nothing like this. He's pointing out a difference between men going against other men and men going against women. When men are arguing with other men, there is often the possibility of a physical fight. We see this sort of thing all the time when two men are screaming and yelling at each other. We're almost expecting a punch to be thrown, we may even think it's justified. On the other hand, this dynamic doesn't exist between a man and a woman. No matter how insane, rude, mean, etc. a woman is being to a man, the man is never allowed to fight a woman. There's a different dynamic.
His point isn't that men need to be able to beat crazy women, but that relationships between men are different than that between men and women. The same rules don't apply. If a man did some of the same things a woman did, he ought to be expected to take a punch, but the woman doesn't.
Any examples? I honestly just see people dissecting his bad points for the nth time. He DOES hold most of the views people are ascribing to him because they come right out of his mouth. No amount of reinterpretation is changing the fact that he genuinely thinks, for example, that "The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.” .
People shitting on 'clean your room', sure, can be a bit silly, but people see his seemingly benign self help stuff as trojan horse. And it is, it's near impossible for you to remove yourself from the bullshit he says. He wouldn't have attracted such a large base if he was simply parroting bog standard self help aphorisms, as so many people have before him.
>[...] men "can't control crazy women" because they aren't allowed to beat them
>His point isn't that men need to be able to beat crazy women, [...]
You're the one presenting a point dishonestly there. As far as I can tell what you just described is exactly what ASparkle said. At 39:11, Peterson says: "I'm defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those techniques are forbidden to me.", pretty much exactly what you're quoting ASparkle saying. And as a side note, that's a pathetic and weak notion of masculinity.
Saying that you want to "beat" someone and saying that there's a possibility of two sided physical violence isn't anywhere close to the same thing, and you know it. I've also never heard him say that he wants to be able to fight women. He's describing a difference between the two.
Whether you think it's pathetic and weak is irrelevant. It's an accurate assessment of interpersonal communication. A man coming up to another man in an aggressive way, trying to demean or yell at him, is likely to be punched, and observers are likely going to actually be fine with it (Hell, plenty of people were fine with Richard Spencer getting sucker punched for the things he's said). If you switch the man with a woman, though, and keep everything else constant, the entire situation changes. No matter how crazy the woman gets, nobody would be ok with the guy making it physical. He would automatically be condemned, no matter how far she pushed. Even if she made it physical, the man would be expected to either take the punishment or try to stop her without hurting her.
Children fight, drunks fight and idiots fight. If two capable grown men go at each other for real someone(and most likely both) is getting fucking destroyed.
You literally picked the example that inspired me to actively dislike the guy instead of just be someone who disagrees. Only a young man in his formative years who hasn't seen the real life consequences of real violence would agree that "This is a mans only tool". It's a last resort and Peterson glorifies it as an acceptable approach to any conflict.
None of those examples support any of your claims in any way. I'll take them one by one.
"Claiming that if women weren't "choosy"....."
I have to give it you, a 3 year old reddit comment, that's dedication, Did you actually sift through his comment history or did someone point this out to you? I'm assuming you're referring to this part specifically:
"Also, the fact that women can be raped hardly constitutes an argument
against female sexual selection. Obviously female choice can be forcibly
overcome. But if the choosiness wasn't there (as in the case of
chimpanzees) then rape would be unnecessary. Read David Buss on female
sexual selection. "
I'm not going to watch the 42 minute long lecture, so I'm unsure of the context, but I think you're trying to make it seem that, he thinks that women shouldn't choose their male partners if they don't want to get raped. I'm fairly certain he's making a statement of fact, rather than promoting the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to choose, because I don't see that anywhere in the quote. As in, in this context of whatever event is being discussed, the women wouldn't have been raped if they didn't have the freedom of choice in male partners or "choosiness", because then they wouldn't care who their sexual partner is, which makes perfect sense. Again, I'm assuming here, that this is what is meant, but I can say for certain though, that nowhere, does he make the case that this is the women's fault or that women shouldn't be choosy.
"Saying that birth control..."
Nah. This is what he actually said:
"It’s more deeply reflective of a bigger problem in society, which is
that the birth-control pill has enabled women to compete with men on a
fairly equal footing. But we still don’t know what the rules are that
should govern the behavior, the interaction between men and women in
places like the workplace."
He is clearly saying that the problem is we don't know the rules that govern men and women's behaviour in the workplace, not that women have equal footing. This is so obviously wrong, I'm starting to wonder if you're being disingenuous on purpose.
"Saying that wearing makeup..."
Makeup is supposed to simulate the visual signatures of sexual arousal though. I don't see what's wrong with stating this? And he's definitely not saying that it's an open invitation to sexual harassment, he even states that he is very much against sexual harassment. With regards to the negligee, he is taking his argument to the next extreme, as in we know that the makeup is worn to be more sexually attractive, and if we accept that this is allowed in the workplace, why not allow negligees? His point with this is that we haven't, from a societal perspective discussed where this line is supposed to be, or why it exists.
"Arguing that men "can't control"..."
Again, you really want to make it seem like he's promoting beating women, but I doubt that was his point with this statement. Instead I think he's making the point, that in an escalating confrontation, women, in general, feel as though they are allowed to raise the level of escalation far higher, than a man would against another man, as he would, because the man knows that the likelihood of a physical reprisal is more likely in his case, and more societally acceptable. I'm not sure if I agree with him, but it's hardly the controversial statement you were looking for.
"Telling women not to "usurp men"..."
What's controversial about this? I think you want to make it seem like he doesn't want women in power? But he clearly says usurp, which means to take something illegally or through nefarious means. How is that controversial?
I'd actually love for you to go on, because so far you've yet to point to a single piece of evidence that makes your statements believable. And the fact that people seem to have blindly agreed with you, instead of checking if you actually had gotten even one thing correct, says something about how far this smear shit has gone. People want to agree with you simply because it affirms their political idea, that Peterson is a nazi or incel alt right whatever, when he's merely just someone with a (sometimes shitty) conservative stance on certain aspects. And that's fine to disagree with, but at least be factual about it. Build an ironman of your opponent instead of one made of straw.
I don't think I have anyone I agree with, one hundred percent on everything.
No one said he said he wants to be able to fight women. ASparkle and Peterson said that he can't control women because he can't fight women. I think distinguishing between 'beat' and 'two sided physical violence' is unnecessary semantic bullshit in this case: clearly, if you're using violence as a technique against someone, the one-sided violence from you to them is the goal, so whether the result ends up as 'I beat him' or 'we fought' only depends on how successful you were.
And I don't think it's entirely accurate. He talked about it like it was just the natural way of things imposing a disadvantage on men engaging with female insanity, when in reality this is a 'disadvantage' that everyone should have regardless of the gender they're interacting with. The entire notion of violence as an acceptable 'technique' is obviously an example of toxic masculinity. That's not saying that violence is never justified (the Richard Spencer punch was not, in my opinion), but having it associated with the male sex is unacceptable.
The fact that people WILL get hurt is his point. He might very well try to fight you. So even if you want to go crazy on him, there's an incentive not to.
He's not saying that men should be throwing punches at each other all the time. He's saying that the very bottom of the slide into aggression two men always know physicality exists. The goal is to not be physical, to not fight, etc., but it's there as a possibility if everything else fails. If every other avenue has been taken away, physicality is there, lurking.
I was a big kid in high school, probably the tallest guy on campus. I was also pretty nerdy. I did a lot of things that would traditionally have been the target of bullying, too, but I also almost never got bullied. Why? Because people knew that there was the possibility that a fight would break out, and they had a good chance of losing (If they had known me, then they would have known that getting me to fight would be nigh impossible, but I'm glad they didn't.) Now, you take out that possibility of physicality, and you sure as hell bet I would have been bullied more. There would have been no reason not to (note that I'm talking about people who actively bullied others that I knew).
The risk of them getting hurt helped prevent me from getting bullied. That's the kind of underlying understanding Peterson is talking about. Men often temper their behavior because there's a slight chance, in the back of their mind, that they might get hurt, but that this dynamic simply doesn't exist for men and women. Women know, especially in public, that men cannot, no matter what, use physical force with them. It is always unacceptable, even when the woman starts the violence.
How do you think ASparkle wanted that phrase to be interpreted, honestly?
You know, I was going to make some joke about making the inverse of a strawman by bending over backward to make absurdly generous interpretations of what someone said, but you seem have already made it for me. There's you playing straight out of the motte and bailey handbook he and his followers love to use (And acting like 3 years is dredging up ancient history): "Oh, he didn't mean <controversial statement>, what he was merely stating <fact that would be completely pointless to mention in any other context>" Best of all, though, that is you say "Oh, he just means take power illegally," as if warning against some forcefully imposed matriarchy is any less of an insane thing to say.
High school bullying dynamics should ideally not be a good analogy for general social interaction between people. Phrasing it like a positive framework of rules is awful (and he does, since he claims that respect requires the threat of violence at 38:37), the rule should be that starting violence is always unacceptable no matter the sex of either party, but reasonable self defense is always acceptable regardless of the sex of either party.
... I've already stated that Peterson isn't advocating for the right to fight women. So what conclusion am I leaping to?
I know, but you stated that in response to ASparkle paraphrasing a quote from Peterson, which didn't advocate the right to fight women. So by responding to that quote by saying "you're presenting the point dishonestly, he isn't advocating for the right to fight women", you leaped to the conclusion that that's what the paraphrased quote meant.
Anyway, I have to say, it's not difficult to conclude that he actually is advocating that men should be allowed to fight women. He starts the point by saying that his wife pointed out that "men are going to have to stand up for themselves", and follows it up by defining exactly what 'standing up' means: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. He later says that "it isn't men that have to stand up and say enough of this, even though that is what they should do" and then presents an alternative solution that he believes won't work, and concludes that the situation is therefore fatal. So in short, he's presenting this threat based communication format as a positive regulator, and says that because the techniques are forbidden against women, the 'undermining of masculinity' is 'fatal'. I'm actually having a hard time finding any other conclusions here?
I'll admit I didn't consider the connotations of the word 'beat' when directed specifically at women, I simply read it as something like "start a fight and win".
For someone who claims to disagree with him you sure are willing to go to great lengths to defend him, especially when you're claiming that the reason you disagree with him is his conservative policies, but those are exactly what you're defending. And literally all I've done prior to this point is say he's a fundamentalist traditionalist conservative, if I wanted to just generally paint him as an unhinged lunatic I'd mention his conspiracy theories about Frozen. I certainly don't think he's a Nazi because he doesn't have the slightest clue what Nazism even is, although I'd definitely argue that he's very sympathetic to the incel ideology when he considers rape and mass shootings natural responses to not having sex. If you want more examples of his fundamentalist/traditionalist perspective how about the time he said there's been no historical oppression of atheists but "maybe there should be" https://youtu.be/48V0m2lia5U?t=4m49s Or the time he said promiscuity is a "public health problem" that he alleges is more common in gays because "they have no women to bind them" and that gay marriage "undermines the tradition of marriage" https://youtu.be/1tYL5q_wGQY?t=1m14s Or when he argued that the rise of the Nazis and Communists was caused by people not obeying the church and that this disobedience of religion causes "weird mental diseases like nihilism" https://youtu.be/ZXm7kTggz9g?t=1m5s And of course the argument that the position of women is to have and raise children https://youtu.be/LASAIgBt-4g?t=8m22s he even compares not wanting children to being mentally ill. https://youtu.be/kj7VgBnQNUc?t=10m39s He frames things like statements of fact even when he's completely made them up, he has no statistics or evidence behind his claim here, he just wants it to be true so he asserts as if it was.
Also if you have your eyelids turn black, fingernails change color, and have scars/blemishes disappear when you're sexually aroused, you should probably see a doctor.
Have you considered that me doing that was an attempt to prevent exactly this kind of narrative from being attributed to me?
I'm not an apologist for his views, I'm being an 'apologist' for the blatantly false and over-reaching comments being made. There are plenty of valid criticisms in this thread. There are also plenty of criticisms that are total asspulls.
Some people are actually honest enough to defend against fallacious argument aimed at people they disagree with.
monogamy is good and i hope it stays the standard
ooooor he could be just a fan of JP given he can quote him by word in detail. I mean fine, if people want to be suckers and not look at human history to see "we started enforcing cultural monogamy for the good of the species and subduing male rage" is a load of shit with extremely obvious current day proof of it not being the case, then they can just go believe it. Because at the end of the day, that's what JP wants. The less people look into the insane bullshit he spews out, the more he gets away with being called an "intellectual", which then his followers can also claim themselves "enlightened" or "open minded" for believing it. Its a never ending circle of circlejerking that pulls more and more people into the tornado of false intelligence/enlightenment.
I'm not sure how that's a relevant response. I, nor anybody else, have said that you aren't allowed to show how Peterson is wrong on that topic, or any other.
The issue at play with the post you quoted is ASparkle's totally dishonest attempts at refuting Peterson by misquoting him, taking his statements out of clear context, and pushing conclusions that Peterson never made.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
