-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
I'll be frank I don't really care about how someone speak.
Heck I used to watch all kinds of debates and realized that they're all kind of pointless.
A bad idea presented by the world best orator will look great against the best idea presented by an idiot.
In the end, if what you're looking for is sound ideas and concept, debates are the last place to look.
That's why even if the impersonation was bad I wouldn't really be able to tell :lol
Lindsay Shepherd is Canada's biggest joke lol. She doesn't have a sincere bone in her body.
Hugo and Jake on Jordan Peterson probably being a shitty friend brought me some measure of joy:
-victims probably put themselves into their shitty situations
-thinking that someone is probably responsible for their own shitty situation should maybe be your default position/judgment
-don't help people who won't help you
-surround yourself with people who will help you (but...you don't really have to help them back because this is all about YOU)
Jordan Peterson: shitty friend.
-victims probably put themselves into their shitty situations
-thinking that someone is probably responsible for their own shitty situation should maybe be your default position/judgment
-don't help people who won't help you
-surround yourself with people who will help you (but...you don't really have to help them back because this is all about YOU)
Jordan Peterson: shitty friend.
jfc
as someone who spent a lot of time in atheism/skepticism circles online when I was younger, I'm fucking embarrassed that these dudes keep showing their asses.
as someone who spent a lot of time in atheism/skepticism circles online when I was younger, I'm fucking embarrassed that these dudes keep showing their asses.
Shermer has always been a right wing libertarian type whose embrace of skepticism came borne out of his infatuation of self-discovery. It's not a coincidence that you found a gamergate sentiment within part of that community years before it blew up in the gaming community. Also allegations of sexual misconduct against him, which if I remember correctly, still hasn't been "resolved".
Thanks! Good to feel wanted.
Some dipshit on twitter several months ago tried to get me to watch Dave Rubin because he's a "centrist" and referenced Shermer as an example of someone he invited to his show that was "from the Left".
Why give money to Jordan Peterson? Plenty of places that have collected the worst quotes from it to save you the blight on your consciousness :P
I've read the whole thing. It's worth it just to witness how ridiculous it is. It's a complete sham: he can't write for shit, goes on constant incoherent rambles, loses himself in the middle of his points with off topic details and forgets to make conclusions. It also completely dismantles the "people like him because of his self help books, not his bigotry", because the books are drenched in his bigotry. The whole thing is about pandering to white dudes telling them that they are not responsible for their own failures and that these failures are to blame on someone else, be it women, Marxists , or minorities in general.
Get it from a library or from the "internet library" ( ;) ) though, dude doesn't deserve a cent from it.
How did it take people a whole book to realise this? I listened to him ramble on the h3h3 podcast and could only last 5 minutes of his incoherent bullshit. He's pretty much the definition of an anti intellectual masquerading as an intellectual. It's no real wonder the right love him since they can't pick out the difference between a well thought out point or a guy using big words in a nonsensical nature to look smart.
Google Peterson and "enforced monogamy". It's rather appalling.
I'm sorry, but I find it hilarious that Vibri turned into "Deleted Member 18568"
Probably bad form to discuss it but it's just funny to me
Probably bad form to discuss it but it's just funny to me
Jordan Peterson: feminists support Muslims because of their "unconscious wish for brutal male domination."
https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/955889027957297152
https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/955889027957297152
I swear to god, that this was the first result after a youtube search.
So, he states that enforced monogamy is something that already exists and that society promotes, but he says the solution to a guy crashing into a bunch of people because he's "mad at God" is that same enforced monogamy...which he says already exists. Sooo...I guess enforced monogamy is not working? Or is he trying to indicate that this person didn't come from a stable monogamous household? Because that doesn't seem to hold either...
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...age-suspect-no-one-thought-capable-of-murder/
I think you are spinning it a bit too much. Having police eliminates most of the crime, but not all, does that mean that having a police force does not work and we should just remove it? Of course not, and the same goes (maybe) for enforced monogamy. I have no idea if enforced monogamy eliminates most of the violent behavior of incels, but I do know, NOW, that he did not say that women should be forced into sex with incels, as Machachan mentioned.
What I gather from his point, is that by having forced monogamy, as we already have in our society by laws and in culture by common relationship rules, is that it secures that every person has a chance to find a mate, both men and women, and thereby avoiding violence in seeking a mate... So we avoid becoming like lions and bulls, fighting over mates.
Caught a Youtube video where Peterson was claiming that Alex Jones de-platforming is an "absolute disaster".
JP is nothing if not predictable, I guess.
JP is nothing if not predictable, I guess.
Yeah, no. You can pretend this, but the reality is that if "enforced monogamy" solves the incel problem, it can only do so by the incel getting access to women that do not want him. If "enforced monogamy" does not do this, then it doesn't do anything for the incel. And that?
That's rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, and rape. On top of rape, rape, rape, and rape.
Even if we are charitable to Peterson and ONLY assume he's talking about enforced monogamy the way we see it in the real world, he's advocating for abominable things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum
This happens with "enforced monogamy". That's how it is enforced: mass graves of babies and broken women. It's indefensible, as simple as that.
(And that's not even getting into the gross idea that women not being "monogamous" enough causes incels, and not incels being misogynistic douchebags)
No one is saying anything about forcing women to have sex with incels, and there is no "enforced monogamy" law that states that women HAVE to have sex with incels. Enforced monogamy by law, is just that an individual can only have 1 marriage in regards to taxes and bla bla bla. If 2 individuals agree to become poly-, then it is their right to do so and no one is forcing them to be mono. But you cannot deny that most relationships are based on mutual agreement on being monogamous.
Again, I have no idea if enforced monogamy eliminates the violent behavior of incels, and that is not my point. My point is that you clearly quoted him wrong.
But why bring it up as a solution to the problem of a guy being "angry at God because women were rejecting him"? Follow me here...
Problem claim: "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him."
Proposed solution to the claim: ""The cure for that is enforced monogamy." (for full context: "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges.")
Okay, so monogamy emerges because women reject men? I think you're taking a bit of a skip and a jump by interpreting his words to mean that monogamy emerges so that we don't have a small group of men having access to all the women. Because that's not what he said. He is only talking about one man who is angry because women were rejecting him.
What if we replace the proposed solution with something else, like your police example:
Problem claim: "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him."
Proposed solution to the claim: The cure for that is a strong police force.
Okay, but if we already have a strong police force, why state it? Unless you're trying to say "We have a strong police force, but sometimes, criminals will still find a way to get around them. It's not a foolproof system."
But Peterson isn't saying that here. He's clearly saying that the solution to men being rejected by women is enforced monogamy, which he says already exists. By clarifying that it already exists, he's making his original argument worse. This is a man who claims to be very careful with his words, and people talk him up as a meticulous intellectual. If that were so, he would try to cover all the bases of his argument. He doesn't, and that's why he's so easy to pick apart. If he wants to be a rock star intellectual, he has to be ready to anticipate counter arguments. It seems to me that his worst enemy is the follow-up or clarification question. Or himself.
Last edited:
Because it already is the only solution, and we shall just let incels be pathetic. Should we force incels to take medication? Should we just put them in jail? Incels are a bunch of weirdos, but we cannot do anything about them directly without them having broken any laws, so the best solution is to continue with the status quo.
No, monogamy emerges, as far as I can tell from these last 60 minutes into this debate, is because men cannot find women to mate with, and women not able to find men who are willing to be in a stable relationship. So they both compromise. It sounds so fucked up and primitive, but I guess is part of darwin evolution theory.
Males, in all animals and species, want to mate as much as possible.
Females, in all animals and species, want to mate with the strongest and fittest male, to secure her and her baby.
So, since we humans are CLEARLY a morally dominant species (Ironic), we found a system of enforced monogamy, where everybody finds a middle spot, and we are all happy.
I think if we did not have enforced monogamy trough relationship culture, then we would have many more incels.
The bolded is actually what I wanted to say.
This whole debate is weird, but JP did not say that enforced monogamy = forcing women to have sex with incels.
I agree that he didn't say that. And he clarified that in the video above. However, to emphasize the points I made above, I think he's a reckless academic. One of the first things you learn in university is to define your terms. You can't just use a potentially loaded term like "enforced monogamy" without saying what you mean.
I'm not saying this is what he's doing, but I think one of the reasons he doesn't clarify right away in situations like this could be because he KNOWS he's going to cause an uproar by using that term and not clarifying it because he LIKES the attention. And it gives him material for the next stop on his speaking tour where he gets to say "Well, that was just a stupid thing. Here, let me clarify what I meant by that careless comment." I feel a lot of what he's doing, and what someone like Dave Rubin is doing, is not so much concerned with the public good, but with their own bank accounts.
Something Peterson is saying is resonating with people, whether positively or negatively, and he's capitalizing on that attention while he can to reel in as much profit as possible. This is his time to make his money, and he's doing just that. He LIKES attention. Hell, he starts off his book by talking about how highly-voted his comments are on the Quora website. It's not necessarily about the quality of attention he's getting, but the quantity. And we're all in it. And we kind of have to be. At least, I feel I have to be to provide a voice so that Peterson doesn't just get to say what he wants without anyone actually engaging him or challenging him. In a way, he's making a certain percentage of the population more critical and intellectually rigorous, but not for the reasons he thinks.
The truth is, I think he makes some outrageous claims, that he contradicts himself on a regular basis, and that some of his arguments just aren't very good or thorough. Not everything he says gets my back up. He has some reasonable things to say, but most of them have already been said countless times by others, and he just ends up repeating truisms in those cases. What's frustrating about him is how some young men view him as some kind of messianic figure and eat up everything he says without engaging with it critically. They only hoot and holler and shoot down his critics by saying either:
a) you're taking him out of context
b) that's not really what he meant
c) you're not smart enough to understand what he's saying
I appreciate a good and careful debate, but Peterson isn't encouraging that. He's encouraging a very specific worldview and is feeding his rabid audience with what they want to hear. Which is whatever he's saying that day. And sure, I'm happy that there are young men out there who have someone who makes them feel like they're not worthless or alone, but I hope that once they reach 30 years of age or older, that they look back on his words and arguments and actually ask themselves whether everything he is saying NOW is valid, sound, and free from error and/or poor and/or flawed reasoning. Because Peterson is not infallible.
Last edited:
I've said it before and I'll say it again democracy just doesn't workdebates are essentially pointless in letting people assert value to an opinion defended.
The enforced monogamy point is just example #587654 of that, onlookers have better rebuttals or defense of the argument than any participants could come up with.
Peterson as always is a joke, anyone else is literally making better, more thoughtful arguments than he has ever made.
And worse yet, he can't even follow his own advice and we've been given no examples showing that his philosophy is worth anything at all.
If the guy was rigorous as he claims to be, he would be publishing peer reviewed articles instead of fluff books. It may be less profitable but it's certainly harder to destroy the resulting body of work.
The enforced monogamy point is just example #587654 of that, onlookers have better rebuttals or defense of the argument than any participants could come up with.
Peterson as always is a joke, anyone else is literally making better, more thoughtful arguments than he has ever made.
And worse yet, he can't even follow his own advice and we've been given no examples showing that his philosophy is worth anything at all.
If the guy was rigorous as he claims to be, he would be publishing peer reviewed articles instead of fluff books. It may be less profitable but it's certainly harder to destroy the resulting body of work.
When Peterson has spouted gems like these, he's really the only person to blame for anyone else thinking he meant that women should have sex with incels:
Oops turns out when you dig through his past you get some pretty clear views on women:
"If choosiness wasn't there rape would be unnecessary"
Oh for fuck's sake. I remember the allegations of sexual misconduct against Shermer from many years ago, so I guess I'm not that surprised he is a piece of shit after all. I guess there's the possibility that the article will be devoted to debunking the shit out of his garbage, but probably not?
Pity, I did like Shermer's book back in the day (bought it before I knew what a scumbag he was, of course). The Skeptics community is such a dumpster fire right now, JFC. Thankfully we still got decent folks like Phil Plait, but man... >_<
200% will not be a debunking. They're both part of that Intellectual Deep Thinker Oppressed Cosplay club.
Rivenblade, since JP has as one of his twelve rules to use precise language and fails at that in the same book, it's safe to assume he's too wrapped up in himself to reflect on his statements. Don't assume malice where it could be neglect, or something like that.
As for your remarks on his fan force, Liana Kerzner once called out what she christened the Jordan Peterson Online Translation Service.
As for your remarks on his fan force, Liana Kerzner once called out what she christened the Jordan Peterson Online Translation Service.
Seems apt. The more I read about the man and the more I read and listen to his own words, the more I realize he's just not on the level. Is he well-read? Definitely more than I am based on his constant citations. Does he know more about the history of socialism than I do? I would venture to say yes. Can he keep a consistent thread in an argument? Rarely. Are his arguments sometimes disingenuous and are only meant to serve a very specific purpose and worldview that doesn't consider alternatives? Absolutely.
He's not a sound academic. He's a messianic cult figure.
Sorry, no, that is not a part of any evolution theory. And no, not all species work like that.
I am not stating, I am reciting the point made my JP and linking it to what I believe he uses to emphasize his point. I have no PhD in biology, so I will not make any statements on that subject. The statement, however, I am trying to make, is that JP did not say that enforced monogamy = force women to have sex with incels.
What I don't get is why your'e defending Peterson so hard on this particular point.
Why is it defence? This isn't another instance of "you need to read his book to get the full picture".
Ironically, that ass-backwards grade school understanding of evolution ignores the mechanisms of natural selection that likely led to the development of empathy.
Why defend him at all? There's plenty of lobsters to do that for him.
Anyhoo....the scientific study understanderer has logged in again:
Can we just cut to the core issue on several of these points. Firstly, Jordan Peterson suggested enforced monogamy as a kind of solution to a problem. Then he went on to later clarify that enforced monogamy is merely our set of cultural standards. Ok, if enforced monogamy is our current cultural standard that means the solution is already being implemented. Then why would any "intellectual" suggest this is a solution?
Let's consider the problem of theft. Imagine I asked Jordan " what do we do about theft" and he says "It should be against the law to steal". Ok, We've already done that. It's kind of a dumb suggestion don't you think? If enforced monogamy is merely our current cultural standards then he is suggesting to try what is currently occuring? This is incredibly dumb. This is on top of the fact that he makes other statements which are blatantly stupid:
Males, in all animals and species, want to mate as much as possible.
Females, in all animals and species, want to mate with the strongest and fittest male, to secure her and her baby.
Anyone, with even some remote sense of understanding of biology knows this is idiotic. Why is an "intellectual" making statements this stupid.
Last edited:
He'd probably argue that we need to making theft more illegaler!
Are you aware that you're just repeating yourself? Am I defending JP now?
He's conservative af.
Last edited:
Another Hugo and Jake. This one pretty blatantly outright calls him a disingenuous conservative christian charlatan.
just seeing this thread. I will never forget going on a date and finding out he was a JP fan, dismantling JPs arguments / explaining his impact on young men and having my date go "huh.... havent thought of it that way". you're welcome world.
Also I havent seen this posted itt yet, its pretty hilarious how JP begins to say something "leftist" and then catches himself and stops.
Also I havent seen this posted itt yet, its pretty hilarious how JP begins to say something "leftist" and then catches himself and stops.
Aggression, violence, and ambition are learned traits. Of course a PragerU video says they can't be abolished but harnessed.
Not even a minute into that shit and I feel a stroke coming on. Crying Lobster Man is gonna tell people to be manly when he bawls over Ayn Rand quotes?
Not even a minute into that shit and I feel a stroke coming on. Crying Lobster Man is gonna tell people to be manly when he bawls over Ayn Rand quotes?
- Status