Forum menu
How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
It would mean they don’t feel rejected by the world.
We get them to marry each other?
dissonance
I am not sure that really clarifies things. How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?
In a nutshell stable long term relationships are better for a child's development and illustrate the value and utility of a loving long term monogamous relationship. The absence of a father can negatively impact a boy's development and drive them to seek alternative male role models, say from media.
In a society where people value casual sex over stable relationships they will become focused on the superficiality ie physical appearance or status. The upshot being that men who have one or both can command the attention of a disproportionate amount of women, and the men without either will become disenfranchised with, or withdrawn from society.
It would mean they don’t feel rejected by the world.
You will still be rejected, but others will now also be forced to lead a life where they don't feel fulfilled. Just because those in relationships are forced to be monogamous, doesn't mean those who are incapable of establishing relationships are suddenly going to be fighting of the opposite sex with a pointed stick.
And trying to pretend he didn't say what is there in black and white, or trying to pretend he is speaking in the abstract so you can read different meanings into clear statements is absolute bullshit.
It seems his believers have a religious fever.
In a nutshell stable long term relationships are better for a child’s development a
Compared to? Long term bad relationships? sticking together for the kids?
In a society where people value casual sex over stable relationships they will become focused on the superficiality ie physical appearance or status.
Which society is this?
Maybe all these poor rejected and oppressed white males could adopt a more ISIS approach, and remove the choice, and thus potential rejection from the deal
alternatively.... and this is a totally keraaaaazy whacky left-field idea: do a bit of self-analysis, ask themselves why nobody likes them, and maybe do something about it? Instead of whining on about everything being SOOOOOO NOT FAIR and looking to blame everybody else but themselves
Like i said.... totally mad idea!
"do a bit of self-analysis, ask themselves why nobody likes them, and maybe do something about it"
That's what the black pill is all about- you realise the obvious truth that it's a conspiracy by every woman in the world, and you deal with it by becoming a total ****.
Thanks for responding geetee. But let's do it one at a time. I'd prefer this doesn't descend into a L/R youtube grade suppositional slanging match. I'm look for evidence of clarity in a (to me confusing, obscure, unclear) statement that JP made in reference to a brutal terrorist attack. Regarding the killer, this is the full quote from the NYT, referenced in the Indy article:
“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.”
Now at first glance that seems fuzzy enough on a number of levels, you may (must?) think differently, but reading it you would expect that Peterson already knows everything about the psyche/motivation of the killer.
I may have missed but The Telegraph report doesn't mention that the attacker was angry at God or a product of polygamy? Do you have a clearer view of Minassian's motives that we could use as a starting point to discuss Peterson's assertions?
This is what I can find at short notice:
OurWindsor.ca talked to neighbors of the Minassians in Richmond Hill. A woman across the street said the family had lived in the neighborhood for six to eight years. She said it was a family of four, with two parents and two young men.
The father, she said, was very friendly, but the sons weren’t so friendly and never really looked at her. Another neighbor who lives a street away, Ryan Baker, said he would see a man who looked like the suspect jogging in the neighborhood, but he never made eye contact.
However, neighbor Wes Mack had a different experience. He told the National Post that he occasionally saw Alek jogging and would sometimes talk to him.
Neighbor Elaha Jamal had yet a different story for the National Post. She said that the parents were always supervising Alek and his younger brother and didn’t let them wander alone. “They were an older couple but they took care of these boys like they were babies,” she said...
...
Sona Minassian was quoted in a 2009 story in the Richmond Hill Liberal, saying that she was concerned her son, who had Asperger’s, would lose access to a Helpmate program that helped prepare him for the workplace and helped him “work through his cognitive barriers.”
“My son would spend afternoons working with Helpmate. They were sensitive to his needs and now he has a job at Compugen here in town,” she said, according to The Globe and Mail.
“He was able to take the experience provided by Helpmate and apply it,” she said. “This kind of service for my son wasn’t available elsewhere. I am convinced that if we didn’t have Helpmate, my son would not have had such an opportunity.”
She never named her son in the story, so it is not known if she was talking about Alek.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/alek-minassian-parents-family/
A lot more on the killers background at the above link. Some excerpts:
The Minassian family lives in a two-storey red brick house on a tree-lined street in the Toronto suburb of Richmond Hill, near sprawling green parks, well-ranked public schools and the David Dunlap Observatory.
Vahe Minassian and Sona Minassian purchased the home on Elmsley Dr. two decades ago for $330,000, according to property records.
Born on Nov. 3, 1992, Minassian grew up in the home with his parents and a brother, neighbours said. His father is a senior manager of software development at Rogers and an alumnus of the University of Toronto, according to his LinkedIn profile. Sona Minassian is on leave from her job at Compugen, an IT service provider, “for obvious reasons,” a company spokesperson told Metroland Media.
Neighbours said the Minassians kept to themselves, but that their private nature wasn’t unusual in a suburban middle-class neighbourhood of busy families.
In high school, Minassian would fidget and twitch, tap his head, hug his arms around his body, meow like a cat, sometimes spit on himself and repeat the phrase, “I’m afraid of girls,” Cornish and other classmates said.
As yet I can't find anything so far about Peterson's claim that he was 'angry at God' he did leave a Facebook message to the effect that he was taking 'revenge' on humans, on sexually 'successful' stereotypes whom he refers to as 'Chads and Staceys' (might those be what JP refers to as 'archetypes'?)
Malvern Rider
As yet I can’t find anything so far about Peterson’s claim that he was ‘angry at God’ he did leave a Facebook message to the effect that he was taking ‘revenge’ on humans,
He's not saying the killer was literally angry at God, or that his killing was religiously motivated in any way. He's saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him. The worst pain you can inflict on society is to punish the innocent, or to kill innocence. Peterson is likely refering to Cain murdering Abel (God's favorite) in order to spite god.
on sexually ‘successful’ stereotypes whom he refers to as ‘Chads and Staceys’ (might those be what JP refers to as ‘archetypes’?)
Chads and Stacey's I believe is a reference to typical popular atheltic guys and good looking, popular girls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(slang)
Is it just me or are his tweets & quotes more like this
The extreme left and others however do not like what JP has to say
What does the "extreme left" look like? Genuine question, I have no idea. Can you give me an example perhaps?
Who knew stw was populated mostly by the extreme left !
It's a leftist echo chamber apparently.
Aside, this just popped up in a comment on a friend's Facebook feed.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/998234481134727168
Do you have a clearer view of Minassian’s motives that we could use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s assertions?
Peterson has offered the following errudite explanation as to what he was talking about:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
It's an interesting idea summed up simply by the fact that, based on evidence, men who marry and settle into a monogamous relationship are less prone to violence as a result.
What does the “extreme left” look like?
I think that very much depends on the position of the observer.
What does the “extreme left” look like? Genuine question, I have no idea. Can you give me an example perhaps?
Well any one who uses terms like 'white pviledge' or 'global patriarchy' are likely candidates.
It’s an interesting idea summed up simply by the fact that, based on evidence, men who marry and settle into a monogamous relationship are less prone to violence as a result.
Perhaps we could work on ways to curb male violence, nature vs nurture.
Jimjam wrote,
"Chads and Stacey’s I believe is a reference to typical popular atheltic guys and good looking, popular girls."
That's the common use but it's an awful lot more than that in incel terminology/mania. Basically they're the enemy- Chads are the men stealing the women that you're rightly due, Staceys are the women "denying" you. Being an attractive, sexually active woman is a red rag to these guys, it's like "but they're having sex with men! So there's no good reason they shouldn't have sex with me". It's the logic of "she was asking for it, wearing that skirt" taken to an even further extreme. And a Stacey sleeping with a Chad, well that's the worst of all- that's when the woman isn't just rejecting you, she's rejecting you wrongly. See also: gentleman.
"Private (Recruit) Minassian Infantry 00010, wishing to speak to Sgt 4chan please. C23249161. The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger."
Monogamy is not the cure for this, any more than a move away from monogamy is a cause. Treatment is the cure for this. It needs to be handled like any other psychiatric disorder, with special consideration to its links to violent radicalisation.
Enforced monagamy sounds a little bit sharia-ey doesn't it?
It's one thing for Peterson to make a shit ton of cash off the vulnerable & insecure blokes.
but is he now proposing that everyone is forced to marry & never divorce? Not sure that will end well, even worse than forcing accademics too address people by their preferred title!
He was talking about imposition by society ie social pressure to partner up and stay with one person, that's an important distinction. It doesn't change that it's absolute nonsense but it changes the sort of nonsense it is.
Well any one who uses terms like ‘white pviledge’ or ‘global patriarchy’ are likely candidates.
Presumably with your vehement opposition to this idea you're the extreme right then?
at least the extreme left isn't taking up arms and driving cars into protesters....
Well any one who uses terms like ‘white pviledge’ or ‘global patriarchy’ are likely candidates.
Calling for Jordan Peterson not to be unfairly characterised as extreme then coming out with this kind of stuff ^^^^ - not seeing any hypocrisy there?
Peterson has offered the following errudite explanation as to what he was talking about:
> https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
Thanks, I already read the page you linked (it was my first port of call after reading the Indy Article), and he doesnt anywhere address Minassian's character, or the criminal case. Neither does he clarify his own claim that Minassian was 'angry at God'. I feel that it is grubby and irresponsible to generalise about a specific violent crime, especially such a recent, high-profile and devastating one as this one. Does Peterson have access to undisclosed details/case history of the killer? If so, wouldn't it be at least responsible to state that he does, even if he cannot yet disclose the content? But then why would he disclose some of it? It doesnt add up. So, again, one point at a time, back to my oroginsl question, I'll attempt to state it more precisely:
Do you have any evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation that we could use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s assertions about the reasons for his crime?
I'm interested in the logistics of what he's suggesting.
In his brave new world of enforced monogamy, did he mention whether these previously rejected men would be allowed to choose their own wives? Or would they be appointed one by a glorious, charismatic leader who's mission they were all committed and unquestioningly dedicated too?
#itsacult
Binners, think 1950s. Back when hyper-masculinity was a thing, and 'dorks' would get sand kicked in their face or join ultra-misogynistic online cults. Men and women knew their place. Sluts were shamed. Marital rape didnt happen and so was not a thing. And there was equality of opportunity for women to be housewives. Science. No homo. Psychiatry ruled the waves. Front-lobal readjustment with a pick axe. Etc. Ah, just irresponsibly riffing on hyperbole and theatrically over-reactionary polemic . Talking of which:
Could we not just bring them all over to Manchester for Friday night out at the Ritz?
It used to be heaving with desperate middle aged briffit, as long as you weren't too fussy.
Maybe Jordan's theory about monogamous relationships reducing violence could be expertly demonstrated by a Friday Night at the Ritz?
After watching the evening unfold in front of him, he would surely title his new thesis LEAVE IT DARREN!!! HE'S NOT WORTH IT!!!!!!
Maybe Jordan’s theory about monogamous relationships reducing violence could be expertly demonstrated by a Friday Night at the Ritz?
Nah I'm sure he just ignores domestic violence stats
Friday is Laydeez Nite, innit?
Bussloads of divorced mums and prison widows, marinaded in gin, hrt patches and despair, descending from hilltowns and sububs, looking for lerve.......
Seriously, we should set up a dating agency.
We get them to marry each other?
That would be beautiful. Like when two gingers or two fatties get together. Kills two with one stone. 🙂
Hang on a minute, my real time page analysis says I need to use the term "whiny" or "whining" to stay on trend. Here goes:
I do wish the herd of whiny passive aggressive Guardianistas would grow a pair, stop whining and have the testicular fortitude to insult someone properly, or to at least use their imaginations and come up with something original for once.
Wish I hadn't come back here for a nose.
Seriously, there isn't much that I find really offensive, but this guy's views are properly ****ed up.
Carry on.
Theres a pretty simple conclusion here
That the vast majority of people offended or upset by anything Jordan Peterson has ever said either:
i) Haven't actually read or heard what he actually said, and the surrounding context of the discussion in which he said it, or;
ii) dont understand it
Where?
I'm happy to discuss any or all of his ideas.
Where would you like to start?
I'm not offended or upset btw. 🙂
Dezzy - Its like Jim Davidson has done an online course on psychology, put together by some acid victim in California
Oh, aye oop.... the intellectual big guns are on the case
*runs for cover*
Jimjam
He’s not saying the killer was literally angry at God
No? Dammit. I though that he said that.
So what did he mean by 'God'?
He’s saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him.
1. So why wouldnt he say that? I note that his more motivated supporters do seem to act as self-appointed translators. Maybe he should speak more clearly and objectively? AFAIK, he meant that the killer was angry at God. Now God is another word for society? AFAIK the killer was angry because no social/relationship success online + handily-accessed cult of nihilistic ultra-misogynist anti-social media-addicts. But let's wait for all the evidence to come in, no?
2. Do you have evidence that supports your translation/extrapolation? Shall we make it easier and move the goalposts? Claim that JP (and now you) was not referring specifically to the Toronto killer that he was specifically referring to?
*runs for cover*
Quick! Hide behind a picture!
Like this one....
Look at that bird!
She must have a large family, bloody Catholics.
This bloke....you realise he's laughing at you, not with you?
The man fan, literally the angriest Irishman in the known world, and a nazi sympathiser. The answer to perhaps the strangest "what links" question of all time....
And the answer appears to be their two main weapons: Fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to Jordan Peterson... Our 3 main weapons are....
This bloke….you realise he’s laughing at you, not with you?
Who are you asking?
Clever man Murray. I've had a couple of very interesting conversations with him.
I thought you might have done....🙂
Care to debate Mr Peterson?
a nazi sympathiser
Don't you know? everyones a nazi sympathiser now daahling - Jezza Corbyn, Ken Livingstone, Donald Trump (except when he's moving the embassy to Jerusalem, natch), Oscar Schindler, Benjamin Netanyahu...
One thing's for sure - Jeremy Irons will do a good job on him if a bio-pic comes up.
(Or maybe as recognised - Bob Odenkirk)
Don’t you know? everyones a nazi sympathiser now daahling – Jezza Corbyn, Ken Livingstone, Donald Trump (except when he’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem, natch), Oscar Schindler, Benjamin Netanyahu……
Is that it?
I've an idea why his supporters are getting upset about not being taken seriously.
everyones a nazi sympathiser now daahling
They might be, but you're a nazi sympathiser as you tried to defend their use of poison gas noting that they didn't actually invent Zyklon B for that specific purpose, just repurposed it, so that was OK, somehow...
There’s a two hour debate being distributed on YouTube on the subject of free speech where JP and Stephen Fry take one position (I believe Fry has voiced support for JP in the past but could be wrong) and some other people I’ve not heard of before take the other.
Ive not listened to it myself yet but I suspect it would be very interesting for anyone intellectually open enough to listen to it.
I'd rather remove my own kidneys with a teaspoon
Have you thought of maybe getting out more?
The idea of watching Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry for 2 hours fills me with joy. No not joy, that other word.... Despair, yes that word.
Here it is.......
Care to debate Mr Peterson?
I tried that back on page two, but binners was too distracted by his crayons to play sensibly.
I simply think that most people who think he's an evil misogynist are simply misunderstanding what he is saying and letting their emotions take over, which is easily done on the topics at hand and with the language used by Peterson.
He often talks in a sort of high functioning autistically factual way which people misinterpret. Voice of clarity he is not.
I simply think that most people who think he’s an evil misogynist are simply misunderstanding what he is saying and letting their emotions take over
Nah, he's just a charlatan who's telling the disenfranchised and gullible what they want to hear.
I believe Fry has voiced support for JP in the past but could be wrong
You are, Stephen Fry is worried about the abuse of political correctness, which tentatively puts him on a similar side of a specific point as Peterson.
In fact he said
I don't think Jordan Peterson is a man with whom I necessarily share an enormous amount of, you know…
But to me, that is the point. I wanted to appear with someone from a different side of the political spectrum, if you can put it that way, in order to express, as much as anything, just a sense of worry.
He often talks in a sort of high functioning autistically factual way which people misinterpret. Voice of clarity he is not.
Given the types of people he is speaking to and (obviously being highly intelligent he knows this) then is that not a massive failing.
He would do a lot better if he spoke more clearly and communicated better without the need for his army of interpreters to tell us what he really meant.
Nah, he’s just a charlatan who’s telling the disenfranchised and gullible what they want to hear.
LuLz & KEK!
Given the types of people he is speaking to and (obviously being highly intelligent he knows this) then is that not a massive failing.
He would do a lot better if he spoke more clearly and communicated better without the need for his army of interpreters to tell us what he really meant.
Maybe he's happy with the concept of some people being too stupid to understand what he's talking about and doesn't feel the need to dumb it down for you?
is that not a massive failing?
Yes it is.
Maybe he’s happy with the concept of some people being too stupid to understand what he’s talking about and doesn’t feel the need to dumb it down for you?
Nice skilled little dig at the end there 😉 Bless you must have been holding back while deliberately missing the point.
Nah, he’s just a charlatan
Are you actually suggesting that Peterson's qualifications are not genuine?
Strong gambit.
Nice skilled little dig at the end there 😉 Bless you must have been holding back while deliberately missing the point.
Enrich your life by simply not engaging with ****s. 🙂
Are you actually suggesting that Peterson’s qualifications are not genuine?
Is he the right expert on all the things he speaks about?
Is he misrepresenting what his qualifications qualify him to speak about?
Using language that leaves what you say open to interpretation and not suited to the audience you are addressing would certainly raise some ethical questions about his professional standing.
I give up.....
'Let's have a debate about his views' - No, a big boy made me cry.
'Let's have a debate about his views' - No, you're not bright enough to understand.
'Let's have a debate about his views' - Shan't, you smell of poo.
Enrich your life by simply not engaging with
It was too well crafted to ignore, you know I think he is getting back up to speed these days, using the less is more approach really, letting the quality come back through rather than the endless trump is awesome SNOWFLAKES!! line
Is he the right expert on all the things he speaks about?
Does he need to be? As long as he is not
misrepresenting what his qualifications qualify him to speak about
which I don't think he is.
Using language that leaves what you say open to interpretation and not suited to the audience you are addressing would certainly raise some ethical questions about his professional standing.
He is a university professor who typically addresses university students. I don't think you can call someone's professional ethics into question because some crayon eating 'tard happens to have worked out how to use Youtube.
I don’t think you can call someone’s professional ethics into question because some crayon eating ‘tard happens to have worked out how to use Youtube.
That is the grey area, if he is aiming at these people or happy not to explain himself further when he might be getting misunderstood then he does bear responsibility. I know plenty of people who are highly qualified and know how to speak to different groups of people. We already have the people giving us their interpretation of what he has said so he is deliberately leaving things ambiguous.
I don't think it is fair to say that he is deliberately ambiguous, and my point was that unless one reserves their views to a locked room that no one is completely in control of their audience.
Listening to the above debate whilst playing games on another tab, I can't help but notice he sounds not too dissimilar to Kermit the Frog. 😆
Listening to the above debate whilst playing games on another tab, I can’t help but notice he sounds not too dissimilar to Kermit the Frog
Maybe that's why the OP likes him so much?
He strongly identifies with Kermit, as he has also suffered in an abusive relationship with a sexually aggressive female.
Mate, you're playing games on here too.
Don't act surprised when you're called out on it or people respond in a similar manner.
Are you actually suggesting that Peterson’s qualifications are not genuine?
Did gay swans give Cliff Richard cancer?
I don’t think it is fair to say that he is deliberately ambiguous, and my point was that unless one reserves their views to a locked room that no one is completely in control of their audience.
Like any good defence lawyer would say
Did gay swans give Cliff Richard cancer?
🙄
You were the person that used the term charlatan.
<div class="dDoNo"><span data-dobid="hdw">charlatan</span></div>
<div class="vmod">
<div class="lr_dct_ent_ph"><span class="lr_dct_ph XpoqFe">ˈʃɑːlət(ə)n/</span><span class="lr_dct_spkr lr_dct_spkr_off" title="Listen" data-ved="0ahUKEwiNvuf3sJnbAhUIbcAKHVGYCt0QlfQBCC0wAA"><input height="14" src="" type="image" width="14" /></span></div>
<div class="vmod">
<div class="lr_dct_sf_h"><i>noun</i></div>
<div class="xpdxpnd vk_gy" data-mh="-1" aria-hidden="true">noun: <b>charlatan</b>; plural noun: <b>charlatans</b></div>
-
<div class="vmod">
<div class="lr_dct_sf_sen Uekwlc XpoqFe">
<div>
<div class="PNlCoe XpoqFe">
<div data-dobid="dfn">a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-dobid="dfn"></div>
</div>
</div>
I was just trying to clarify what you were saying, which is just as well as you appear to be using words that you don't know the meaning of.
Here is the debate on YT:
I’d rather remove my own kidneys with a teaspoon
You don;t value learning then Binners
Well done forum.
Well ****ing done.
A bit of a stealth edit there!
What for?
Like any good defence lawyer would say
A compliment! Keep 'em coming.