You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks. It’s difficult to see your behaviour as anything better than rank hypocrisy.
So much this.
Some of what JP says is fine. At the headline level his 12 rules make sense - I'm all for people taking some responsibility for themselves and not blaming others for their misfortunes. A lot of the other ideas are rather worrying, and are seized on by people who want to do exactly that - find a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. JP knows this, but does nothing about it, indeed fans the flames in order to make a lot of money. So I'm not 'shit scared' that he's right, I'm shit scared that he's stirring up a very dangerous demographic (the same demographic that in other countries supplies most of ISIS's cannon fodder) just so that he can get rich off it.
@mogrim, thanks for the appreciation.
So the STW msogynists, white supremacists, rightwingers, Brexiters (and Brexit apologists), poor-people haters, muslim haters... like this bloke and the others don't.
Probably a grade A **** then.
Can any of the people saying that he’s misrepresented explain to me the basic idea of what he’s about?
Herein lies the problem.
Like most people I'm sure he has many opinions on many subjects. No one is going to agree or disagree with them all, though the herd will try as everything has to be made into an us vs them argument.
It's why I try and stay away from these threads; the inability of people preventing themselves going full tribal.
I don't do very well though I manage to avoid the EU thread due to the above. It was amazing how few people could get their head around the fact that I could be critical of the EU yet still be pro-remain.
So the STW misogynists, white supremacists, rightwingers, Brexiters, poor-people haters, muslim haters… like this bloke and the others don’t.
Just to help you along with your troll, exactly who are you calling what?
He reminds me in a lot of ways of Julian Assange, in that any message or 'cause' (god only knows what that is?) is distinctly secondary to their own messianic self-promotion.
But there seems to be a large pool of the gullible who are lapping it up. Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don't seem to have any answers.
Well.... none that make any sense
If Geetee could enlighten me as to what 'The Cause' is, I'm all ears.
10 pages for you to read back, sbob. Put people in whichever category you see fit. If you don't consider your posts have put you in any of them, don't take offence. And even then, only take offence if you've put yourself in a category you see as negatve
Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don’t seem to have any answers
Bit rich coming from you binners, I've been waiting since page three for you to provide evidence of your claims, yet nothing...?
He reminds me in a lot of ways of Julian Assange, in that any message or ’cause’ (god only knows what that is?) is distinctly secondary to their own messianic self-promotion.
But there seems to be a large pool of the gullible who are lapping it up. Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don’t seem to have any answers.
Binners, Isn't that what you used to say about Jezza before he started doing a bit better in the polls and you turned into a supporter?
10 pages for you to read back, sbob. Put people in whichever category you see fit. If you don’t consider your posts have put you in any of them, don’t take offence.
The only thing anyone has written that has come even close to offending me is being likened to ninfan for apparently avoiding the question.
An accusation made by someone who quite brazenly did exactly that at the start of this thread.
What's that word people are bandying about...?
Binners, Isn’t that what you used to say about Jezza before he started doing a bit better in the polls and you turned into a supporter?
When did I become a supporter? Just to clarify: I still think he's absolutely hopeless.
Not that that has the remotest relevance to this thread.
I think Corbyn is hopeless. But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
Something he seems ambiguous about, at best
Have any females posted their thoughts?
No. They know their place.
binners
I think Corbyn is hopeless. But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
You keep making the same noises and yet manage to say nothing....just broad allusions to "dangerous ideas" "bad people" "misogynists...racists" while proudly boasting that you'd rather stuff sand in your vagina than listen to Peterson.
Amazing.
Dezb
Have any females posted their thoughts?
I posted an article by Carol Horton, a female, a self declared liberal/lefty, whatever. It's a well written piece that does a great job of articulating her thoughts on Peterson and the controversy surrounding him. I'd be amazed if any STW members, male or female could do a better job of framing the debate.
Here's the link - http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/
But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
S'funny - pretty much what he says about lefties like Corbyn and his acolytes leading us back into a dark age of communist genocide
I'm with him until 48 seconds.
From 48 seconds his argument that post modernism and 'identity politics' are a conscious deception by the discredited left is without any logical basis.
It completely ignores societal changes engendered by the Industrial Revolution and both world wars for a start.
The emancipation and democratisation of non totalitarian states is ignored, as are the effects of global access to information.
From 1 minute 37 he's giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He's belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
From 3 minutes he repeats himself.
Your thoughts?
It was amazing how few people could get their head around the fact that I could be critical of the EU yet still be pro-remain.
I am surprised by that. Since I havent met any pro-remain person who didnt have reservations about some part of the EU or another.
I've just watched a few of his ramblings. Its so incoherent its difficult to know where to start
I cannot believe that people are investing the guy with any credibility whatsoever
He sounds like Marlon Brando as Colonel Kurtz delivering the monologue at the end of Apocalypse Now
I havent met any pro-remain person who didnt have reservations about some part of the EU
Likewise. I've never met a Remainer who thought the EU was perfect. Just that it was better than the alternative.
pretty much what he says about lefties like Corbyn and his acolytes leading us back into a dark age of communist genocide
OK, I've watched that and I reckon @Rusty Spanner has it about right.
I'd also say that although he claims it isn't 'a paranoid delusion' that is exactly what it sounds like. The idea that there is a shadowy organisation of Marxists seeking the overthrow of western civilisation, starting by infiltrating the Universities, middle management and the civil service is bizarre to say the least. Based on the evidence of that clip, I worry about his sanity.
I am surprised by that. Since I haven't met any pro-remain person who didn't have reservations about some part of the EU or another.
I have no doubt of them having reservations, just that there was a total lack of will to discuss them as that doesn't fit with the black and white, us vs them tribal nature of STW arguments.
Tell a lie, when trying to discuss the suitability of Juncker I managed to get four non-positive words out of a remainer. Four.
I have no doubt of them having reservations
You seem to be switching tracks here. So what do you have to support your claim that people cant get their heads round it?
Check out my first dozen posts to the EU thread, sbob. I outlined some of the downsides whilst being firmly in favour of membership.
I have no doubt of them having reservations, just that there was a total lack of will to discuss them as that doesn’t fit with the black and white, us vs them tribal nature of STW arguments.
Having discarded your previous assertion, I'm sure you'll be able to furnish us with some evidence to support your new one. I would also add that not wishing to discuss something with you specifically is not a reliable way of drawing wider conclusions.
I watched the vid, I haven't experienced anything so deluded and funny since reading Dylan on BM. Certifiable.
I’ve just watched a few of his ramblings. Its so incoherent its difficult to know where to start
It is odd. Maybe there are some better examples but all the ones I have seen your use of "ramblings" comes across as rather polite. Admittedly the first time I heard of him was on the carcrash of a show with Sam Harris which set the scene badly but every time I dip into his stuff it doesnt seem any better.
You seem to be switching tracks here. So what do you have to support your claim that people cant get their heads round it?
Not switching tracks, just thought I was being obvious with what I meant: despite repeatedly stating that I was a remainer posters would continuously argue against me as if I was a Brexiteer just because I dared to question the EU.
The point was the us vs them nature of discussion here.
Having discarded your previous assertion
I haven't.
If you add "whilst arguing in an STW thread" to the end of my first post you refer to you will see that I haven't changed what I was saying.
I didn't think it was necessary to add "whilst arguing in an STW thread" on the grounds that that was exactly what I was talking about.
Apologies for the confusion, but thank you for helping me to prove my point
I’m sure you’ll be able to furnish us with some evidence to support your new one. I would also add that not wishing to discuss something with you specifically is not a reliable way of drawing wider conclusions.
If making unsubstantiated claims is fine, why have you just asked me to substantiate a claim? 😆
It's intentional, like THM used to do- make your point badly and then mock people when they misunderstand you, and if it turns out you're wrong just pretend you meant something else. It's very hard to tackle an argument when it's so floppy.
"Enforced monogamy" is a good example of this. Lots of people thought that this meant, well, enforced monogamy. No you illiterate buffoons, he says, he just meant marriage encouraged by society, how could you be so stupid as to think otherwise? And how dare you lefties misrepresent me!
(actual quote: "My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings. I might also add: anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.")
So his own unclear wording becomes a chance for him to dismiss his critics as ignorant, and to pretend that they've dismissed any value in monogamy outright. And he's already gained attention which he wouldn't have gained had he just explained himself coherently. (his supposed actual point being obvious, uncontroversial, and not really interesting enough to be worth broadcasting)
All of which is very cunning etc, and if it weren't against the backdrop of an incel terrorist attack wouldn't be at all bothersome.
Check out my first dozen posts to the EU thread, sbob. I outlined some of the downsides whilst being firmly in favour of membership.
Yes, but you're reasonable. You're the exception that proves the rule.
I'm still confused, by this enforced monogamy? How would it be enforced?
What if some people while happily in a marriage want to have sex with other people & have their partners consent?
I haven’t.
Your words suggest otherwise.
If making unsubstantiated claims is fine, why have you just asked me to substantiate a claim?
You can claim whatever you like. I'll file it under "cobblers".
Northwind
So his own unclear wording becomes a chance for him to dismiss his critics as ignorant, and to pretend that they’ve dismissed any value in monogamy outright. And he’s already gained attention which he wouldn’t have gained had he just explained himself coherently. (his supposed actual point being obvious, uncontroversial, and not really interesting enough to be worth broadcasting)
That would be the least charitable way to look at it, and unsurprising. Another way to look at it would that he's using the correct nomenclature from whatever field of study he's refering to. A perfect example of this would be James Damore's use of the term "neurotic" and "neuroticism" regarding women in his memo to Google. Damore wrote a memo discussing the differences between men and women (higher trait neuroticism being one) and how emloyers should take this into consideration if they wish to improve STEM work environments and thus hire more women. People latched on to his use of the term "neuroticsim" as a pejorative attack on women and branded him a misogynist despite the fact that he was using the term correctly and in the context of a memo in which he was positing ideas to make it easier for women to work in STEM.
All of which is very cunning etc
Sorry, I thought he was stupid rambling incoherent etc, or a pseudo intellectual. Now he's very cunning.
if it weren’t against the backdrop of an incel terrorist attack wouldn’t be at all bothersome.
I like how you made a completely throwaway reference to incel attacks and thus make an inference that it's somehow relevant in any way. Put it like this, if incels are listening to Peterson then they are ignoring everything Peterson is saying to them and doing the absolute opposite. The complete diametrically opposite opposite of what he says. But I guess that's also part of a cunning strategy.
I’m still confused, by this enforced monogamy? How would it be enforced?
Well, in some societies they stone women to death for breaching it.
In other places other women quite rapidly excommunicate them, refuse to mix with them socially and call them names like 'whore' and 'slut'. ie, in the way that a womans behaviour being seen as normal or not normal can have social ramifications, ...
I'm sure there are fancy names for it, like 'morality' 'enforcement of social norms' and 'peer pressure'
Well, in some societies they stone women to death for breaching it.
Curious that you focus on women only.
Your words suggest otherwise.
Would you like further clarification?
You can claim whatever you like
See https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/eu-referendum-are-you-in-or-out/ for evidence.
just thought I was being obvious with what I meant: despite repeatedly stating that I was a remainer posters would continuously argue against me as if I was a Brexiteer just because I dared to question the EU.
What exactly do you mean by "as if I was a Brexiteer"?
Have you thought that, just possibly, they didnt share the same criticisms as you and so were challenging those specific criticisms? Do you think they shouldnt have challenged any claims they disagreed with?
I’m with him until 48 seconds.
From 48 seconds his argument that post modernism and ‘identity politics’ are a conscious deception by the discredited left is without any logical basis.
It completely ignores societal changes engendered by the Industrial Revolution and both world wars for a start.
The emancipation and democratisation of non totalitarian states is ignored, as are the effects of global access to information.
From 1 minute 37 he’s giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He’s belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
From 3 minutes he repeats himself.
Your thoughts?
Anything?
its an interesting point dissonance - i has no doubt that there are a significant number of men stoned to death for adultery in some countries, however the cases that tend to attract press attention in the west predominantly appear to be those of women being punished for it. I wouldn't like to guess whether thats an element of media bias or representative of it being more common for women to be the victims of male/societal violence, particularly given a number of countries where things like polygamous marriages appear to be common for males.
So, the video you posted?
From 1 minute 37 he’s giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He’s belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
Hmm, he spends a couple of minutes after that making a very strong argument that communism, as enacted, failed, in part due to the centralisation of power - not something that I think most people would disagree with, but I'm sure you're entitled to.
edit:
so, the video you posted
FFS, Hold your horses for a minute, I'll answer you in my own time and when I get round to it, (as I just did). Look at you, hopping up and down shouting 'answer me, answer me' like an overgrown child.
Sorry darling, apologies for bringing you down to earth with a bump and everything, but you're opinion just isn't all that important to me.
Hmm, he spends a couple fo minutes after that makes a very strong argument that communism, as enacted, failed, in part due to the centralisation of power – not something that I think most people would disagree with, but I’m sure you’re entitled to
I have no idea what you mean.
I agree with everything he says about the left up to 48 seconds.
If you're trying to equate post modernism, female emancipation and universal suffrage to the failure of the left to acknowledge the limitations of communist dogma I'm happy to discuss that.
FFS, Hold your horses for a minute, I’ll answer you in my own time and when I get round to it, (as I just did). Look at you, hopping up and down shouting ‘answer me, answer me’ like an overgrown child.
Sorry darling, apologies for bringing you down to earth with a bump and everything, but you’re opinion just isn’t all that important to me.
Happy to discuss any aspect of JP's beliefs or any podcast, video etc.
How about dealing with the question?
Would you like further clarification?
Nope.
Jimjam wrote,
I like how you made a completely throwaway reference to incel attacks and thus make an inference that it’s somehow relevant in any way.
You are having a laugh. His entire argument about enforced monogamy was relating to and inspired by that exact terrorist attack "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges." It couldn't be less throwaway or more relevant.
Jimjam also wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
That would be the least charitable way to look at it, and unsurprising. Another way to look at it would that he’s using the correct nomenclature from whatever field of study he’s refering to.
He dropped it casually in an interview with a mass media outlet, without making any reference to any specific field of study, in the middle of an argument about stopping men who can't get laid from murdering people. Using obscure academic terms in an interview with a non-academic publication for mass consumption is either incredibly stupid, or a good way to cause confusion.
You say I'm choosing the least charitable way to look at it; not at all, I'm giving him credit where it's due. I think it's a low tactic but it's effective. The least charitable way to look at it is to say he's just unable to explain himself adequately, as some do.
Of course, he's not actually said anything about exactly how his enforced monogamy could cure this problem, and I covered earlier how of course it wouldn't actually change the issue at all- monogamy doesn't change the numbers game at all, or the reasons that they're misogynistic, hate-filled and single. They would fail to pail off in a monogamous society just as they do in a more permissive society.
And unsurprsingly, incels lapped it up- he was speaking about them and saying how understandable their anger was, how it's not their fault that they've failed, how "half the men fail" (a total nonsense stat of course) rather than just a tiny furious minority, and about how nobody cares about those poor failures, and that the interviewer is laughing at them because she's a woman.
Here are some incel reactions:
“What he is saying is exactly what I have always been saying"- SaintMarcLepine (Marc Lepine being the perpetrator of the Montreal Massacre, a hate crime against women.
"This is absolutely brilliant. He is forcing mainstream writers and the public to confront the idea of monogamy and explain why feminism has destroyed it for their own chad-hungry desires.
Peterson is contrarian by nature too. He thrives on disagreement. So he won’t let this go. The more feminists argue they have a right to only **** Chads, the more he will highlight how damaging this is to society.
The tide is turning."
"Peterson is striking at one of the most precious values of the modern West: the agency of women when it comes to the matter of sexual selection and reproduction."
Quite incredible the OP has been attacked so much here as if he's an undercover alt-righter when he openly said he voted for Corbyn
I think you've missed the OP's long posting history of being negative about women, his suffering at the hands of women in his youth and what he says are his resulting attitudes to women, legomeorology. The thread was started about women, not right/left. We are all a function of our environment and the OP's environment has lead to him starting threads like this, which doesn't bother me too much as at least he's made it clear where he's coming from and why he feels the way he does. Peterson on the other hand seems to be gratuitously macho and misogynistic.