I'm just pointing he seems to attract a disproportionate amount of devil's avocados (A whole devil's guacamole, if you will), and people who you'd think would have almost nothing in common with him seem to criticize him only very begrudgingly. It's like they know he's wrong, but he's a family member, and they don't want to make things awkward when he comes to thanksgiving.
Like anyone who is an average debater sees that majority of his talk is ramblings, motte n bailey, strawmen, slippery slopes, Either/ors, begging the claims, ect. Dude throws all these into majority of his discussions, which anyone who actually studies academics sees through instantly. Others who don't understand why these are all non arguments get sucked in.
I simply don't agree. At most, I think he could be accused of some exaggeration and poisoning of the well. With that said, his points aren't generally hard to understand if you take them in context and listen to the entirety of the argument.
It's because a lot of the comments in these threads aren't about the actual content of whats he says, they're bizarre character attacks that are baseless.
If you(not literally you personally) want to see less of that kind of defense, maybe folks should stop saying that he's a member of the alt-right, that he's "white isis", and blowing up claims of his to the most ridiculous interpenetration possible. Personally, I make a point to point out when I feel like a response is unjustified, regardless of who the response was to... Not because I want to play devil's advocate, but because I believe that criticizing things based off of the reality of the situation is important because otherwise it's just tribal shitflinging.
But that's the thing, you cannot misconstrue his fucking arguments. Not even JP knows what his arguments are half the time. He stays vague on purpose to pin both sides either against or for him. He weasels out of any talking point by using ambiguity, which is a logical fallacy, which means its a shit talking point. Just like the monogamy discussion. A lot of people pulled from his talking points that he wants to enforce monogamy and revert women's status because its a giant target. Then he just brushes it off by saying "I was merely saying monogamy is beneficial to society and should be encouraged". No shit, but he sure as shit made it sound like that's what he was implying. He doesn't do this by accident (if he is then hes even more stupid than i thought at being an "intellectual"). Its just his agenda of appealing to both sides using ambiguity as a crutch.
But he isn't defenseless because verbal abuse unlike physical allows you to remove yourself from the situation. It's called swallowing your ego. Let her be a crazy it's her own social standing she's destroying.
To elaborate on this, even if you accept the most benign interpretation, then he's making such wishy-washy, non-committal statements that he might as well have not said anything. Like "monogamy should be encouraged" How? In schools? Should cheaters be even further ostracized? Is not encouraged already? Is polyamory plaguing the nation or something?
Maybe if professor Ancient Aliens stuck to psychology and going on about the Mayans discovering dna in his classroom rather than further marginalizing trans people, some people wouldn't be as upset.
https://i.redd.it/s32jxgfg7rb01.jpg
When I mentioned that the comment was three years old, I wasn't arguing that it had somehow decomposed the statement and that it's was no long valid. I was merely impressed that ASparkle had dug through 3 years reddit comments to find an obscure one he thought he could use. And it seems clear to me that he was making a statement of fact, not taking a position on rape or choosiness, but you're free prove me wrong on that.
And no I don't see the controversy in that tweet. It doesn't mention a matriarchy, it can refer to any position of power. How is it controversial to state that if you usurp power through illicit means, you will naturally face resistance?
... But you can clearly see there are different ways to interpret that paraphrase, and I based my conclusion on this interpretation, on the previous quotes, which were disingenuously cut or taken out of context. Especially the one about birth control, which to me seems to make it painfully obvious that ASparkle is acting in bad faith. So honestly, again, look at those various quotes, and tell me, do you think he meant for the interpretation to be the controversial one, or the non controversial one?
My problem is that people make him out to be something he isn't. You wanted to make the comparison with an isis cleric, but you clearly haven't been able to prove this similarity in any way.
You've now also completely ignored all my criticism, so I won't bother dealing with whatever new "evidence" you've unearthed.
You did mention the make-up though, which is weird, because this is so easy to prove by a quick search: The Science of Makeup – Observations of a Nerd
Imagine being so self absorbed that you can make up an entire psychological profile based on less than a minute of looking at someone, and then coming to the conclusion that breaking their legs would be a good thing. Even I didn't think Peterson was that messed up.
You're engaging in the same sophistry he is here. Those comments don't exist in a vacuum. Why would he do so something to pointless as to point out that userping and enslaving men (sort of an inverse patriarchy, I wonder if there's word for that?) is bad, unless he thought there was significant plans to do so? Do you think he just likes stating random facts that happen to be about women for fun? And you accusing other people of being disingenuous.
Good grief, the guy sounds as self-righteous as Jay Naylor.
It’s you that’s extrapolating a wild conclusion from that tweet, because it supports your narrative. I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he is referring to any position in power, being gained through illicit means, such as quota politics in management.
Or because it’s supported by the context? He’s said 100 things in the same vein so I don’t think it’s an unreasonable conclusion to make.
Then you should include some those examples if you believe if you believe they support your argument
I'm sorry, I thought he was just stating facts? Where does the slaughter and enslavement of the doomed male rebellion come in?
it’s a tweet that you could interpret in multiple ways, some more reasonable than others. If you honestly believe that your interpretation is correct, then please back it up with something. If Peterson makes an allegory about dragons, do you then also jump to the conclusion that he thinks actual fire breathing lizards exists?
And again please take a look at the quote about the workplace, and tell me that isn’t woefully disingenuous. He deliberately makes it look like Peterson thinks it’s a problem that women have birth control.
At the very best, it's an absurdly melodramatic, baffling, bizarrely specific metaphor. As for the other quote, like most of the things he says, if you're very generous and assume he's not implying anything at all, it's just a useless, wishy-washy observation.
But you don’t see it as an underhanded tactic to snip a quote like that, so that the meaning becomes something entirely different?
The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.
I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus, get a hobby.
Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.
Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not.
Can men and women work together in the workplace? I don't know
Feminists support the rights of Muslims because of their "unconscious wish for brutal male domination."
should I continue?
I’d still appreciate a link to context though. Especially on the appalling theory one.
Doing a preliminary skimming of them, I don’t see the connection to the interpretation of the tweet.
Admittedly, if taken at face value I can see myself disagreeing with a lot of them, particularly the part about frozen, which seems a bit ridiculous as almost any Disney movie could be interpreted as art or propaganda depending on how you look at it. But then again, I never said I agreed with everything the man has said, and this isn’t what’s being discussed.
Sure,
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
In the section 'Are you denying the existence of discrimination based on sexuality or race?'
The way he backs this up is even worse than the point I think. You can quite clearly see the problem with his argument technique here too.
Instead of discussing the reams of nuance in the situation, he boils down an incredibly complex issue to a single cause. “do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. … Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane.”
So, life sucked for women because of poverty. And it sucked for everyone too so women can't have been oppressed.
Blowing off the entire field of Sociology - apparently the idea that there are likely multiple interacting causes or factors for a certain social problem is intolerable. He does this all the time and it's actually the logical crux of most of his 'common sense' points.
do you think he meant for the interpretation to be the controversial one, or the non controversial one?
I don't get what you mean by this. What even is the non controversial interpretation? I've changed my mind on the interpretation of Peterson's words in the "can't control crazy women because violence is forbidden" interview. I can't find a non controversial interpretation, without going to "he was just stating a fact, he didn't mean anything". Clearly he must have some reason for saying the things he says, and clearly the listener is supposed to be able to take something from it, and come to some form of conclusion, otherwise what is the point of saying it? In his whole rant about not being able to defend himself against crazy women, he states that men 'should' stand up to women, that masculinity will be fatally undermined if they don't, and that his proposed alternative solution won't work. He may not state it explicitly, but if I follow his logic, what else am I supposed to conclude than men need to fight back? I mean they're literally using the words 'undermining masculinity', 'fatal', 'invading society', and 'the decline of western culture'. Are we supposed to listen to that conversation and not care about a solution?
If that was the case then his wording is absolutely appalling. If the root of the problem is supposedly men not knowing how to interact with women in the workplace, then why does Peterson instead say that the problem is caused by women having birth control pills that put them on equal footing with men? As Crumpets has very well demonstrated this is hardly the only time he's made his misogynistic views clear, it's just apparently the only one you're willing to defend.
Also I still don't excrete glitter when I'm aroused.
What a nut bar.
I fear this will veer us off course from the original argument about the tweet, because I do not see the connection to his statement here. Also, as I've said repeatedly, I have contentions with the man on various issues, and I don't necessarily agree with him on this. But if I'm to play devil's advocate for a second, I think that his argument here is that life sucked equally, for both sexes, but for different reasons. So that while women didn't enjoy the same rights as men, they didn't have to work incredible hard, and dangerous jobs, or serve in the military, putting their life on the line.
I think he's incorrect in saying that women weren't discriminated against, because they surely were, and that life in general was shitty doesn't negate that, but I do think that he's right in that the hardships, that both sexes had to face, to one degree or another could be argued as being equal.
The way I see it, is that this is more a call to action for other women (those he define as sane), to stand up against their insane sisters,, far more than it is a incentive for men to start beating up crazy women. The fact that he says, that these sane women are too busy to deal with the problem, doesn't change the fact that this is his go to solution.
If you paraphrase this to: "Arguing that men "can't control crazy women" because they aren't allowed to beat them" without adding context or anything else, whilst trying to compare him to an isis cleric, you're being deliberately dishonest.
First of all he says (very clearly) that the problem is that we don't know the rules that govern the behavior between men and women, not that women have birth control or have equal footing. Just because something is part of the cause of a problem later on, doesn't make it negative. In the same vein, you could say the industrial revolution was great because it gave us a lot of new technology, but at the same time it caused other issues, such as man made global warming. I don't know how this is so hard for you to comprehend, or how you can't see the problem in paraphrasing his statement as
"Saying that birth control is a problem for society because it "enabled women to compete with men on a fairly equal footing.""
It's so painfully obvious that this is nowhere near what he actually said.
I'm guessing the glitter thing is referring to the makeup. I gave you a source on this, and there are several others out there. Do you have contentions with the science on this? Then provide some proof to back up your argumentation.
How do you come to the conclusion that it's his go to solution? Here's some quotes again:
"my wife pointed has pointed out too, well, men are going to have to stand up for themselves",
"I know how to stand up to a man, [...] the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical",
"it isn't men that have to stand up and say 'enough of this', even though that is what they should do"
"but the problem there, [...] is that most of the women I know who are sane, are busy doing sane things, [...] so I don't see any regulating force for that terrible femininity"
It seems that the conclusion here is quite obviously split between these two options, either men need to stand up for themselves or sane women need to. Of the two options, the latter is the only option that Peterson shoots down as unlikely to happen. And to be honest, the fact that he's even presenting the threat of violence as an option for regulating social interaction should be bad enough in itself. In any case, the fact that we can sit here and discuss what he meant by this clearly shows how awful he is at making his points.
He is saying it's unlikely to happen, not that it shouldn't happen. And I don't think he presents the violence part as something necessarily positive, it's just a part of how our mind works.
And yes, I agree that's it's a somewhat poorly formulated statement (whether you agree with it or not), I would have loved for the woman to have been more critical and questioned him on this, instead of just nodding along.
Pair bonding exists in many species, including humans. Jordan Peterson is suggesting we promote monogamy socially, and not just our instincts. I imagine he is talking about Tinder, Bumble, all of the hook up apps, as well as western culture at large that promotes losing your virginity asap, and having multiple girlfriends/boyfriends as you grow up.
The trouble is there is no way you could actually enforce such a thing by law. The best anyone can do that agrees with him, is create art that encourages monogamy, and teach your children that monogamy is generally best.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
