Are you similarly impressed by everyone else on patreon? Is it “culty” when people support artists and writers and musicians who’s work they enjoy in the same manner?
Art is one thing. Reactionary politics is another.
Alternatively, BKXC is basically David Koresh.
...if Koresh had asked folk to pay him to go off and ride a bike. (Nice work if you can get it btw.)
or if BKXC's patreons claimed that he was riding a golden unicorn despite the actual evidence that he was riding a bike, and claimed everyone else was wrong because unicorns are abstract higher meanings of riding bikes that only the select few can understand, and repeat ad infinitum when challenged with evidence of reality.
Alternatively, BKXC is basically David Koresh.
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who'd don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
Still.... it gets them out of their bedrooms at their mums house, watching endless YouTube conspiracy theories and hardcore grot, and into the fresh air, so its not all bad, eh? 😀
binners
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who’d don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
Still…. it gets them out of their bedrooms at their mums house, and into the fresh air, so its not all bad
The comment you make when you have absolutely nothing valid to say by way of critique so instead you create a lazy caricature of group you perceive to be ideologically opposed to you. Every time you post you're just winking to your little clique, and you've made it abundantly clear you've not listened to anything the man has said, so why comment? It makes you look stupid.
So I've been told.
Doesn't make me wrong though, does it?
I'd imagine theres a pretty big crossover between the people living at their mums, feeling rejected by girls, while nodding along to Jordans vids on YouTube, in between watching a lot of quite unpleasant grot and blogging about the aliens taking over the the government, and Mossad being behind 9/11
Basically, people looking to the internet to tell them what they want to hear, so that they don't have to face up to reality
This is all hugely entertaining, so by way of a very minor contribution, it’s probably worth pointing out that in North American higher education, ‘professor’ is a fairly generic term that’s used for most employed faculty members. In that respect, it doesn’t automatically imply the sort of seniority and intellectual gravitas that it does within the UK system, where the head of a department can still be a lowly ‘lecturer’.
A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who’d don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.
suppose if you are going to post bollox you may as well go right out of the box with it.
Doesn’t make me wrong though, does it?
Nope.
It's the being wrong that makes you wrong. 😛
it’s probably worth pointing out that in North American higher education, ‘professor’ is a fairly generic term that’s used for most employed faculty members. In that respect, it doesn’t automatically imply the sort of seniority and intellectual gravitas that it does within the UK system, where the head of a department can still be a lowly ‘lecturer’.
I heard he acquired his qualifications in an illicit game of cribbage one night, only winning thanks to turning over one for his nob.
binners
I’d imagine...
Yep.
I heard he beat a man to death with his own shoes to steal them
There's a very interesting article in The Economist that cites data collected by the LSE showing the relationship between polgamy and civil war and the impact that enforced celibacy can have on the male populations tendency towards violence:
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
Of course to suggest the the exact same effect is in evidence in the Canadian incident is perhaps tenuous at best and entirely inacurate at worst. We can't know for sure because we cannot assume that the same cultural norms and pressures are also at work in developed nations. While it is the case that there appears to be a correlation between instability (i.e. social unrest through male aggression) and polygamy, that could be as much to do with relative poverty.
Still, it's an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry
I assume you are using a different meaning of Polygamy? Or is there enough data on countries where being married to multiple people is common practice or allowed? It's certainly banned in Utah
Has he done any research into the correlation between incidents of domestic violence and proximity to a McDonalds?
My theory is that the availability (or otherwise) of sausage and egg McMuffins is a direct contributory factor to the number of assaults in the home in any given area.
Makes you think....
Or is there enough data on countries where being married to multiple people is common practice or allowed?
Yes thats what what the article is about. It’s safe to click. It’s the economist.
If they fight, they can loot, and with loot, they can wed. In a paper published last year, Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale found that a high brideprice is a “critical” factor “predisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposes”. Jihadist groups exploit this, too. One member of ****stan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, said he joined the organisation because it promised to pay for his siblings to get married. During its heyday the so-called Islamic State offered foreign recruits honeymoons in Raqqa, its former capital. In northern Nigeria, where polygamy is rife, Boko Haram still arranges cheap marriages for its recruits.
Interesting in a well that is happening somewhere, interesting as in something to draw extrapolated conclusions from?
then
Globally, polygamy is in retreat, but in some pockets support for it is rising. After America’s Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage in 2015, some people argued that plural unions should be next. According to Gallup, a pollster, the proportion of Americans who consider polygamy to be morally acceptable rose from 5% in 2006 to 17% last year, among the most dramatic jumps in the subjects it tracks. Campaigners in Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and other central Asian states are seeking to re-establish men’s right to take multiple wives. In Kazakhstan, a bill failed in 2008 after a female MP included an amendment stipulating that polyandry (women taking multiple husbands) also be allowed. Advocates claim that polygamy promotes social harmony by giving lusty husbands a legitimate alternative to infidelity. The mayhem in places like South Sudan, Afghanistan and northern Nigeria suggests otherwise.
I see a direct correlation there, there are no other factors that could be influencing anything there at all.
and the impact that enforced celibacy can have on the male populations tendency towards violence:
At least that is your reading of it.
An alternate reading would be to look at the part about cultural norms only considering a man to be, well, a man once he has got married and had some sprogs. Then you would need to consider the impact on those males who still end up single and are now even more disadvantaged.
Also confusing the polygamy societies which will often have very strict cultural norms and for example Canada is more than slightly odd.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
Please provide the exact quote supporting this as opposed to your interpretation.
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
And the causal link is?
An alternate reading would be to look at the part about cultural norms only considering a man to be, well, a man once he has got married and had some sprogs.
and
Of course to suggest the the exact same effect is in evidence in the Canadian incident is perhaps tenuous at best and entirely inacurate at worst. We can’t know for sure because we cannot assume that the same cultural norms and pressures are also at work in developed nations
You clearly didn't read my post did you. Back of the class for you boy.
And the causal link is?
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That's quite well established. There's something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
You don't see the same effect in women, notwithstanding the fact that women are less likely to be represented in violent crime data than men are.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to drop as they get older.
Older men are more likely to be married with children.
That's quite well established.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established. There’s something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
Seems to depend on the reporting level doesn't it, as the recent investigative journalism in Australia pointed to a huge amount of suppression of prevention of reporting of domestic violence by organised religion.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23/when-women-are-believed-the-church-will-change/9782184
Conclusions should be questioned if the underlying data is not sound don't you think?
Correlation and causation are two different things. Just because there's an apparent link between two things doesn't mean you can automatically assume that one begets the other. (Of course, it doesn't mean we can rule it out as causal either).
It's like when someone plays GTA or CoD and then goes and on a shooting spree. Do we conclude, as the media is wont to do, that he went on a rampage because he played violent video games? Or rather that there was something wrong in his brain that made him predisposed to both violent games and actual violence?
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
geetee wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Still, it’s an interesting line of inquiry and precisely the one that JP was articulating.
</div>
Is it now? Polygamy is a statistical non-issue in the US and has no bearing on "incels", not one has been from a community where polygamy is legal.
Neither does monogamy for that matter, because of course monogamy doesn't adjust the ratio of potential mates in the slightest- it removes one from each pool. The odds remain identical.
And an "incel" would still be single even in an "enforced monogamy" world, because all that would mean is that people who can form a relationship stay in it; people who can't, will still be single, and no doubt will blame all the monogamous women for immorally and incorrectly withholding their vaginas.
So no, it's not an interesting "line of inquiry", it's an irrelevant nonsense and can only serve to make excuses for murderers, give future murderers more excuses, and sell some books. There is not some outside force or societal evil making this happen, it is individual guys who can't get laid and want to blame everyone else.
Rate of violent acts in men tend to dtop after they have got married and had children. That’s quite well established. There’s something about getting married and having kids that calms men down, especially if those men were prone to violence before.
That's not a causal link.
You clearly didn’t read my post did you.
I did although not sure why I bothered.
The first point refers to the fact that a lot of the problems are caused by the cultural norm of requiring marriage. Which as far as I can tell is what you seem to be aiming at. So as solutions go not really the best.
For the second. I was just commenting on it is absolutely pointless to try and correlate the two. I would say beyond absolutely wrong. You then skip past that regardless and try the "interesting line of inquiry" to try and ignore the wrongness of your link.
Back of the class for you boy.
Not up with class room layouts nowadays. is the back where the cool kids hang out or the incel morons? If the latter will give it a miss.
dear god, I wondered why I don't come on here as much. This thread is a perfect example . infowars links cited as evidence. Misogynists hiding their views behind pseudo intellectual claptrap . This place is looking more and more like a youtube comments section every day
Should we post more pictures?
You can’t call it pseudo intrelectual claptrap. If you do that then you apparently demonstrate your own lack of intelligence and inability to see the true picture
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them. And this is apparently societies fault. Especially the 50% of society with tits
It’s definitely not as simple as them just not being a thoroughly unpleasant bunch of ****s who constantly voice pretty backward and misogynistic bollocks to try and explain away their numerous offensive personality traits
As I think this thread perfectly demonstrates
Careful binners, your anger shows you may be prone to polygamy or nicking your neighbours goats
Especially the 50% of society with tits
Speak for yourself... I'm easier than a two piece jigsaw....
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them. And this is apparently societies fault. Especially the 50% of society with tits
I haven't read the rest of the thread - I'm not really a big Chris Evans fan - but I've always thought that enforced monogamy might help with that sort of thing. I don't know if anyone one else would agree, my wives were certainly all in favour,
though, admittedly, the true picture seems to be no more complicated than some inadequate blokes who are really, really angry because nobody female wants to shag them.
Binners, that is PRECISELY what Peterson is saying! So you're basically agreeing with him.
Yes, I get that. I’m not that bright, but I’m genuinely not that thick.
But it’s what he then suggests as the solution to that that i’ve Got the issue with.
Enforced monogamy? 😳 enforced how? And by whom? Well.... men, obviously. Like in the caliphate?
Perish the thought that the blokes might want to do some critical self-analysis, and moderate their behaviour accordingly to become a bit more pleasant to be around.
Nope... it’s the women’s fault, clearly
you can wrap it up in all the pseudo-bullshit in the world, but at the end of the day it’s just good, old fashioned misogyny
A true internet win there geetee, ignore everything else and misquote FTW
Nope… it’s the women’s fault, clearly
Especially the large percentage who are abused by their partners.
Here's a great article on Peterson and the failure of the left. It's written by "gasp" a woman (so presumably not a misogynist) and someone who describes herself as having a "life-long identification with the social democratic (or, in U.S. terms, left-liberal) side of the political spectrum". Obviously those who wish to attack and mis-characterise Peterson won't want to read or know anything about it or him but I've pasted some of the article because a lot of it maps quite well on to this thread. Perhaps something might sink in by osmosis.
I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson until a short time ago. In my case, the first signal of his arrival on the cultural scene was a friend’s series of Facebook posts vividly denouncing him as a reactionary cult-like leader.....Soon, I found myself going down the Peterson rabbit-hole with countless others. I listened to several of his lectures on reinterpreting Bible stories as archetypical myths. Contradicting my friend’s warnings of hate-filled right-wing propaganda, I found Peterson’s discussions intellectually engaging, personally meaningful, and a refreshing departure from the standard discourse on such issues.
Although my newfound interest in Peterson might seem to put me in good company this isn’t the case at all. On the contrary, it puts me into a pretty isolated, alienated, and uncomfortable position. The reason for this is simple: I’ve always identified strongly with the left-leaning side of the political and cultural spectrum.
The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels.
First, it’s unconvincing to everyone who’s not some sort of true believer or faithful follower (or, more cynically, a journalist looking to please an editor demanding yet another Peterson hit piece). No doubt, I’m not the only person who’s wondered what all the fuss is about, decided to take the time to listen to one of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, and come away feeling that the Left’s commentariat is trying to sell me a fake bill of goods. The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many of us to ignore.
the Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it.
I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.
I find it even more aggravating that such distortion is typically coupled with a predictable string of gratuitous insults (Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, a transphobe, and so on).
Rather then vilifying Peterson, I’d love to see left-of-center writers, thinkers, and political commentators engage with his ideas in challenging, but also thoughtful and respectful ways.
Sounds eerily familiar.
Evans has lost the plot (again?). He was playing a load of pish from Deepak Chopra this morning.
Sounds eerily familiar.
It does? It seems to me that you fanboys become shy when asked to substantiate his assertions.
Actually, I think one of his more interesting papers is this one:
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Something you can see borne out rather well in this thread 🙂
Here’s a great article on Peterson
which tells us precisely nothing about his ideas or their validity, but enables you to claim victim status on his behalf. Are you a snowflake?
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Because taking pleasure in human suffering is a little perverse.
Because taking pleasure in human suffering is a little perverse.
It’s an interesting theory
maybe you should go out and research the issue, and publish your results in a peer reviewed journal.
until you do, i’ll stick with his conclusions. My sincere apologies for preferring evidence over opinion 😉
I'll be just as happy if you shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
AKA, why are lefties so miserable?
Because we're worried that you haven't stopped beating your wife.