Forum menu
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.