Forum menu
I’m not for one moment suggesting we should be passing laws that force women into relationships with men and neither is Peterson; that would clearly be wrong and socially and morally repugnant. You’re making that suggestion, not him.
If he isn't what does he mean when he says the cure for violence is "enforced monogamy".
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
WTF is "enforced monogamy" then?
WTF is “enforced monogamy” then?
It's just Peterson calculatedly being a controversialist. His acolytes laud him as a communicator but he uses deliberately inflammatory terms like "enforced monogamy" to a mass audience without any caveat or explanation only to later claim that of course he meant it in a technical anthropological sense and you're all too thick to get it.
It's always about the grift, anything to increase exposure to bump up the book and tour ticket sales
It’s evolutionary and kind of important to our continuation as a species.
Continuation of what exactly?
To breed more retards like this in the world? We think, and hope, the human race has evolved into an interesting intelligent being. But then when secularism and lack of empowerment is brought into view, the only comments re: solutions come from self promoting insular, non cooperative, backward looking gobshites like him.
I doubt I’ll get sued for this comments, because they are essentially true.
The more you post about this bloke the more you are digging your own self into the sand, with the tide coming in.
Get out more, stop promoting preaching morons.
Hey there socially inadequate virgin who’s sat watching this in your bedroom at your mums house in between furiously masterbating to unpleasantly violent pornography and tweeting rape threats to feminists. It’s not your fault that women don’t like you. It’s THEIR fault!
If you keep giving me money I’ll use some big words to tell you why
But the methodology for determining the conclusions is just as robust as say high energy physics.
Of all the guff you spout this one made me laugh the most.
And your messiah still sounds like Kermit. 😉
Direct quotes from the man himself not taken out of context.
That is exactly what he said.
You can't see you are wrong or you can but truth doesn't matter to you. Either case is disappointing.
You can’t see you are wrong or you can but truth doesn’t matter to you. Either case is disappointing.
Teach us please enlightened one. Put the quote in context so we can all understand just how wise he is
The truth does matter to me and the truth is this man is a vile misogynist,
Its very simple to see the moment you read anything of his.
Teach us please enlightened one. Put the quote in context so we can all understand just how wise he is
I don't follow the guy or watch much of his stuff. Not my thing, but I did follow the resulting argument and coverage over this particular quote. Whether the choice of words used was an accidental bad choice or a deliberate attempt to drum up controversy is neither here nor there. If you look at what he was saying around the subject, it was definitely not what TJ asserts. If you are that interested the explanation is freely available, go look for it yourself. If he is a vile misogynist then there will be plenty of things to pick up on without exaggerating stuff to suit your own agenda once you start doing that you are as bad as the other side.
I say he is and produce direct quotes that prove it. You say he isn't but cnnot provide anything.
Its just so obvious from his speeches and writings. Its the whole crux of his argument dressed up in such a way as to appeal to disenfranchised men as some sort of scientific truth. As has happened here.
You say he isn’t but cnnot provide anything.
I say he isn't what?
Just a few choice quotes from him
Catcalling is not assault, consent is what a man wants, there is no rape culture, women just want attention, men are persecuted
Also, women harass themselves and shame one another into wearing burkas to even the playing field when it comes to beauty:
Probably because they're ( women) more biologically prone to negative emotions and are neurotic
God forbid we sit back and listen to what women are saying:
Though the reason women never speak against Islam is that they just hate capitalism and themselves:
Wouldn't matter anyway, because the feminists are crazy and irrational
And it's a real shame men have no protection from them. I mean -- can't even hit them!
But if a woman challenges you, she's probably just flirting with you
Probably because women prefer obeying men:
Wake up, men! They took yer jobs! And yer moneyz
Well, how can one be a strong individual when these "Gender Studies types" are indoctrinating your gullible, un-free-thinking children:
and it is "a fact" that Gender Studies (along with other disciplines) is just neomarxist postmodern indoctrination:
I really canot be bothered any more into diving into this cesspit of misogyeny, neo nazism and hatred
Just a few choice quotes from him
There you go again. Where did you copy and paste that from?
When did people stop reading The Game by Neil Strauss?
It explained to you why you weren't getting a shag and you didn't have to sit through any evolutionary psychology bollocks other than 'People want what they can't have'.
He's a **** and TJ is correct, as usual.
/end
Well you may well be right tj and if those quotes are correct in that they are his and in the right context then I’d be more than happily agree with you
however he constantly states that almost everything he’s ever done is on YouTube so it should be top of the list if it’s that outrageous and yet I’ve never heard him say anything as offensive as that and he doesn’t seem to be the sort of bloke that would
he also seems to have freinds and acquaintances that wouldn’t be seen dead with him if he did hold those views as I’ve said though I’m never all that sure what he actually thinks I just find the polarised reaction he creates to be bizarre
I’m never all that sure what he actually thinks I just find the polarised reaction he creates to be bizarre
Hardly bizarre, given that he's deliberately divisive.
"Hardly bizarre, given that he’s deliberately divisive."
Yup. And he's very good at it. I have no idea if he's actually a misogynist but I know he very carefully and deliberately plays that card both to generate outrage from critics and support from actual misogynists. He's essentially a clever Katie Hopkins. And I think that's probably worse than being an actual misogynist.
In the case of incels in particular they're a genuine terrorist threat, responsible for the Toronto attack among others, and without a doubt he intentionally fuels them.
Whether the choice of words used was an accidental bad choice or a deliberate attempt to drum up controversy is neither here nor there.
Actually it is a very important. For somebody who is apparently so clever and well thought out it's hard to understand how he uses some of those phrases by accident. It's calculated and then he has his excuses for later.
Watched the first 13 min. All I wanted was the girl behind him to throw up on his back..He would score highly in the management bollocks thread.
Of all the guff you spout this one made me laugh the most
Oh so you’re an expert then? You’ve read up extensively on the subject? Clearly you haven’t but I have and I assure you the model generated are based on rigorous statistical analysis. They dealing with much larger degrees of variance and error but the basic approach is the same.
Catcalling is not assault
I dont know if Peterson said that but catcalling is clearly not assault. It might well be harassment but it’s the kind of low level harassment that a lot of people endure everyday. It’s called life. I don’t think it’s ok but it’s not remotely a problem unique to women.
. Am I still getting this right, @geetee1972?
No you’re not, you’re way off which hopefully is good news for you.
This is worth a read if you’re not already familiar with the story.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/05/writers-behind-grievance-studies-hoax-address-criticisms/
He’s a massive ****.
Consequently, massive ****s are attracted to masturabting their flaccid penises to his videos on YouTube and then to defending him on Internet forums. They’re best ignored. Like him.
#MensRightsNow
#SexualGratificationForIncelsNow
#BloodyWimminz
This is worth a read if you’re not already familiar with the story.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/05/writers-behind-grievance-studies-hoax-address-criticisms/
Academia, what a self-licking lollipop. This all reminds me why I ditched my Management Degree, just a lot of papers desperate to invent a new buzz word and get a book deal on the back of it. Just ignore them all and they'll go away.
Sad to see you're still banging this drum OP.
I guess it kind-of suits your fragile self-esteem to imagine that with your superior intellect and bold-mindedness you can perceive the truth while almost everyone else here is blinkered by political correctness or whatever.
Please do consider the possibility that JP is actually just a twisted old misogynist and you are a gullible sap.
🙂
Unfortunately Peterson will not just go away He has discovered his audience who lap up his vile philosophy and use it to excuse their own inadequacies.
A very dangerous man who needs to be opposed and exposed every time he speaks
Some people are just desperate to have someone tell them what they want to hear.
More so if they use big words and, like, have their own YouTube Chanel and a book and stuff
And particularly if they’re telling them their attitude towards women, which is clearly so totally self-evidently *ed up, is actually just peachy *ing creamy
"Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person"
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/
There’s a [b]fundamental truth [/b]that at a basic level, most men have a built in urge to find a mate and then have children. It’s evolutionary and kind of important to our continuation as a species. If it wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be here so [b]the truth is, to coin a phrase, entirely self evident.[/b]
OR .......
There’s a [b]fundamental truth [/b]that at a basic level, most women have a built in urge to find a mate and then have children. It’s evolutionary and kind of important to our continuation as a species. If it wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be here so [b]the truth is, to coin a phrase, entirely self evident.[/b]
so which one makes it “self evident” that it’s a “fundamental truth”
First one? ... second one?
Neither maybe ?
Basically, what you have written is total horseshit (dressed up as common sense).
I added two letters to the entire quote, and it totally reversed the meaning of iwhat you wrote, but it still makes sense and apparently proves itself somehow.
even though what it “proves” is totally different to what the first one “proves” 🙄
How ignorant of you to think so.
Yeah it is isn't it. Just as ignorant as Peterson's bullshit.
however he constantly states that almost everything he’s ever done is on YouTube so it should be top of the list if it’s that outrageous and yet I’ve never heard him say anything as offensive as that and he doesn’t seem to be the sort of bloke that would
he also seems to have freinds and acquaintances that wouldn’t be seen dead with him if he did hold those views as I’ve said though I’m never all that sure what he actually thinks I just find the polarised reaction he creates to be bizarre
Listen to some of the discussions Sam Harris has had with Jorden Peterson and you will soon realise that Jorden's predisposition to relying on a false premise before forming a string of rhetorical sentences to back up his premise is just a shtick that has seemingly duped a vast swath of his poor embittered male following.
He's a piss-pot charlatan and nothing more, he's definatly not the messiah!
Geetee.... Just to confirm? Does no mean...
a) no
b) yes
<div class="bbp-reply-author">tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Just a few choice quotes from him
</div>
actually, and I’m no JP apologist, those aren’t actually his quotes at all. You’ve C&P’d a Reddit post where someone else has used those comments to describe various JP tweets. He didn’t actually say those words.
Oops. It wasn't reddit I got it from. My mistake then if thats so. As above I ain't dipping into his cesspool any more
Just to confirm? Does no mean…
a) no
b) yes
Do you even need to ask?
That's the kind of thing Donald trump does. Posts false information taken from other people without checking and passing it off as fact.
Zero credibility.
I'm amused by Peterson, he's very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended who need to spend more time listening and less time with their gobs open.
All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like "black people commit more crime" and then rides the wave of carnage.
I’m amused by Peterson
I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.
I’m amused by those amused by Peterson.
Thank you, I'm here all night.
An Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar...
All he does is the equivalent of walking into a room and making a statement like “black people commit more crime” and then rides the wave of carnage.
So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?
he’s very good at instantly highlighting the dim witted professionally offended
don't forget the professional offenders and misogynists who love his work too, gives them a feeling of security that the clever man (not an expert we don't like them) says it's ok.
So he is nothing more than a cheap troll then?
I'm not sure if he's aware of it or not. He's definitely "on the spectrum".
the clever man says it’s ok
Except he doesn't, does he? I've not listened to everything he's published but most of people's problems with him seem to boil down to people's inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
There is such a circle of knee-jerking that I believe a new form of the can-can has been invented.
Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth. Its a total distortion to suit his audience of hapless inadequate men who want to blame others for their own inadequacies.
Thing is its not an explanation that has any ring of truth.
What isn't? Without specifics there is no discourse.
audience of hapless inadequate men
Oxford union?
I’ve not listened to everything he’s published but most of people’s problems with him seem to boil down to people’s inability to understand the difference between explanation and justification.
Yes, and the way he lets that happen over and over again, as if somebody so intelligent would have spotted that and thought about changing his approach a little to stop that happening.....
audience of hapless inadequate men
Oxford union?
Well I don't think you will find a higher concentration of entitled white men who's grip on power is being reduced by equality and progress every day. Sounds like a perfect place for him
they do invite some interesting people there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union#Retractions_of_speaker_invitations