You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Re the enforced monogamy comment:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/22/what-the-left-gets-wrong-about-jordan-peterson
The article continues: “Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”
Besides failing to clearly condemn incels, Peterson’s quote made it seem as if he believes women should be required to sacrifice themselves against their will to fix male violence. He doesn’t. He’s said that by “enforced monogamy” he merely meant encouraging monogamy through social norms. Peterson, of course, is a public figure commanding a vast following, and he should expect to be held accountable for what he says. It is impossible to defend his wild regressive flourishes – like his suggestion, in a recent Financial Times profile, that women would be happier under traditional gender roles.
A theory of monogamy, as a social norm, by which it performs a 'social function' of promoting social stability by ensuring that hordes of young men don't end up without long term partners, is surely not that controversial?
Do you have the quote for that because I believe you may be taking him out of context?
And therein lies the beauty of the way that Peterson frames himself. "that's not what I meant at all" says the indignant Prof when something he said is reveled to be just a little bit...well...Far-right-y. Here's what he said...
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
And sure please feel free to tell me how out of context that is...I'm dying to know...really. While you're doing that, explain what he means by "Swamp witches" and please feel free to explain away such pearls of wisdom as "Feminists wish for brute male domination" and that women should "Allow themselves to be transformed into mothers by nature" because declining birth rates (note, nothing about declining sperm counts here) will "be the undoing" of "The West" This last couplet by the way, has been used in such luminary podcasts as The Daily Stormer and "TDS" (Formally The Daily Showa, they got bored of saying Showa on their far-right podcast so shortened it to tedious, geddit?) as intellectual back-weight for the 14 words.
So even if his words are being taken out of context by the left, they're also being used by the far right. Something for which he has form.
Also; Lobsters. Which you have to admit is pretty funny when some-one pointed out how he'd got it completely backward... Ooh, burn ( as I think the young people are saying )
A theory of monogamy, as a social norm, by which it performs a ‘social function’ of promoting social stability by ensuring that hordes of young men don’t end up without long term partners, is surely not that controversial?
Have rates of monogamy declined? What agency have women in this? Are there hoards of young men without wives? and then finally let's be clear here; Women through-out history have managed to, prevent and indeed hold back the tides of male violence including male violence to women, wars, murder and other crimes...by just getting married to them...Oh wait...
Women have only relatively recently gained agency over themselves, and their reproductive rights, and the very thing that Peterson blames for this? Not overt male domination, but those nasty witches who want to overthrow men's rightful place. Oh, the humanity...
Do you have the quote for that because I believe you may be taking him out of context?
LOL, Initiation 101.
Dude, we get it - you're a fanboy and you won't accept any criticism of him. Can we move on please?
And sure please feel free to tell me how out of context that is…I’m dying to know
He's clearly talking about monogamy as a social norm having a certain 'function'. Indeed that was his clarification rather than being some de jure state-of-affairs. There is a difference also between is and should. Surely one can identify the social norm of monography as a cure without saying that it should be the cure!!?? A subtle difference but important otherwise many discussions and conversations are off the table.
So even if his words are being taken out of context by the left, they’re also being used by the Far Right. Something for which he has form.
Is it fair to blame someone for how others' use their words?
Women through-out history have managed to, prevent and indeed hold back the tides of male violence including male violence to women, wars, murder and other crimes
Why do you think men compete with each other like that? Peterson would say it's so that they may be chosen by women.
By some accounts, it was the agency of Queen Helen of Sparta that precipitated the biggest war in Greek mythology.
Is it fair to blame someone for how others’ use their words?
Yes. They're dog whistles. When he says "Declining western birth rates", he means white people. He knows it, his far right supporters know it, and that's why he keeps on saying it. A lot of what he says is uncontroversial, but an awful lot of what he says is designed to be 'heard' and understood and translated by ultra conservatives and the far right.
That either bothers you or it doesn't.
Edit: I'm not doing this any more, I'll leave you with the Prof's own word: Rule 10 "Be precise in your speech"
I'll also quote Maya Angelou "When people tell you who they really are, believe them"
Why do you think men compete with each other like that? Peterson would say it’s so that they may be chosen by women.
Spoken like a true incel.
Women through-out history have managed to, prevent and indeed hold back the tides of male violence including male violence to women, wars, murder and other crimes…by just getting married to them…Oh wait…
I mean I dislike Peterson and I don't like his theories on enforced monogamy because if it wasn't for having found the perfect other half, I'd prefer to just be playing Xbox, Mountain Biking, casually dating and enjoying singledom. I like people and socializing but there are very, very few people I can cope with on a day in, day out basis.
However....
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
Having said that, Polygamy isn't the automatic alternative to "enforced monogamy" and shouldn't be seen as such. Not to mention the models that are studied are essentially just another form of male ownership of women. It's just kind of an interesting topic, there's quite a lot of sociological research on it actually.
Yes. They’re dog whistles. When he says “Declining western birth rates”, he means white people. He knows it,
Maybe he meant the birth rates of dogs in the West? Because he didn't specifically say it wasn't dogs that he meant he must have meant it right?
Knock yourself out I Scoff Cake -
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331505661817937921
Can we get back on topic now please?
I accept that Jordan Peterson doesn't think his penis is of adequate size and I have sympathy for the complex he seems to have because of it.
But he doesn't have to keep yapping like a demented Jack Russell. He could just shut his ****ing mouth and piss off.
Hah.
Actually surprised Jordan gave in there and saw the flaw in his logic - something tells me his real views are different to his contrarian stances.
Generally, I ignore post or clips where it's said that person X 'destroys' person Y.
Adversarial 'debate' where someone tries to catch or snare someone is a childish sport. People don't truly engage with or learn from each other doing this. Nothing is achieved other than to 'win' an imagined prize. It's all done in bad faith.
Actually surprised Jordan gave in there and saw the flaw in his logic – something tells me his real views are different to his contrarian stances.
He said he could be wrong implying that he may need to rethink or clarify his thoughts. Actually, the interviewer asked a loaded question and that may have caught him off guard too.
Sadly, in the impoverished world of Twitter and social media, admitting any kind of doubt is a weakness to be siezed upon, and we wonder why there are so many problems today!?
Nothing is achieved other than to ‘win’ an imagined prize.
The piss-mark on the wall is visible for at least five minutes.
I don't actually hate Peterson as much as others, I think his views are often siezed upon by deranged incel lunatics but unlike people like Katie Hopkins, he does seem to attempt to understand other peoples points of view. He's an arrogant, haughty prick but he's capable of engaging and being engaged by others in real debate - and his views have shown some fluidity. It's just a shame that intelligence sometimes translates to ****ing batshit insane viewpoints.
Katie Hopkin is a clown. Whilst I'm only lukewarm on Peterson it pains me that people want to lump all conservatives together like this. It's done in bad faith IMHO.
Jordan's latest brain fart is a real doozy "without looking into the figures I would say modern medicine, excluding public health, kills more people than it saves". Off the top of my head I would say more people have been cured of bowel cancer than have died due to medical mishap.
Adversarial ‘debate’ where someone tries to catch or snare someone is a childish sport.
Or alternatively, polarising opinions created to rile are best exposed through this simplest of scrutiny. Let them expose themselves.
I ignore post or clips where it’s said that person X ‘destroys’ person Y.
actually that one doesn't reflect too badly on JP as he realises he's on loser and admits it.
tbh, I might actually read a column of Burchill's on Peterson. I doubt she'd be gentle. Other than that, I think we're done unless anyone wants to
truly engage with or learn
....and then presumably sign up as a JP paetron. (The only mildly interesting thing about him is how he's managed to monetise incoherent middlebrow waffle. Nice work if you can get it.) Anyway, unlikely to be me.
Generally, I ignore post or clips where it’s said that person X ‘destroys’ person Y
You can't watch much of Peterson then, almost every clip seems to be titled "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS insert name of person he's having a perfectly civil chat with here.
Helen Lewis wrote a broadly sympathetic piece in The Atlantic recently. Peterson's response? A rather plaintive tweet
"Why do you hate me so much @helenlewis? I have tried to be a good man."
If he got addicted to Benzos, it doesn't surprise me that he's been more unhinged of late and posting twitter replies like that. There are usually fairly severe reasons for that kind of addiction.
Interesting Atlantic article, cheers.
“People need to know this. It’s not good. Those drugs are for short-term treatment of stress-induced anxiety,” he said. “It’s quite shocking to me actually that I didn’t know, despite my professional speciality, that I had no idea how catastrophic benzodiazepine use could be.”
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
There's a difference between knowing and knowing if that makes sense? Intellectual vs experiential knowledge.
If it wasn't Peterson would you be mocking someone's prescription drug addiction?
Nobody warned me benzos were addictive? Really? Cool story bro.
You'd be surprised by how some doctors in other countries give them out like sweets, I know someone here in the Netherlands who got addicted to them because the docs just threw drugs at a relatively minor psychological problem (in the grand scheme of things) instead of putting them through long term therapy.
Or alternatively, polarising opinions created to rile are best exposed through this simplest of scrutiny. Let them expose themselves.
The question was loaded with an ends justify the means assumption. Peterson looked tired and didn't pick up on it.
Absolutely nothing was learned.
You’d be surprised by how some doctors in other countries give them out like sweets, I know someone here in the Netherlands who got addicted to them because the docs just threw drugs at a relatively minor psychological problem (in the grand scheme of things) instead of putting them through long term therapy.
Valium especially used to be like that, i.e., given out way too easily. Utter hell to get off it.
There's plenty of examples on that thread - not just that one tweet.
Whilst I’m only lukewarm on Peterson
Then why have you completely de-railed the thread when someone mentioned him in passing?
Getting massive incel vibes from this thread.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It's 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
All this thread needs is some dull street portraiture and it'll be like we've gone back in time a couple of years.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It’s 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
Bahahaaha WTAF. Guess he chased the dragon of chaos too far.
All this thread needs is some dull street portraiture and it’ll be like we’ve gone back in time a couple of years.
Far too exciting.
Jung is an analytical framework, you can take it or leave it. It's not more or less empirically valid than many of the post-structuralist inspired ideas such as CRT, white privilege etc., that are currently in fashion.
post-structuralist inspired ideas such as CRT
Well. I think you'll find cathode ray tellies definitely exist, though I agree they aren't in fashion anymore.
has anyone tried to read his Maps of Meaning book? It’s 300 pages of total parklife crypto bollocks, but the illustrations / diagrams what really make it for me
Hahah that looks like something from Scientology.
It does seem like he went off the deep end properly, doesn't it?
Well there's a novelty! 🙂
If Jordan Peterson is what passes for a 'thinker' nowadays we really are **** ed as a species.
Calling all alien starships - you can take us now.
In another age, Peterson would have founded a religion. He's a classic stupid person's clever person and he's mostly very good at it.
So is he pro or anti vax? And what is his stance on Brexit?
The nation NEEDS to know.
Has anyone here who is mocking Jung / Joseph Campbell types ideas actually read anything on the topics of mythology and comparative religion? Don't get me wrong, all ideas have problems and can be criticised, but saying something is like Scientology and 'Parklife' seems anti-intellectual. I'm also wondering what of Peterson's people have actually been exposed to beyond some cherry-picked social media low-lights?
Has anyone here who is mocking Jung / Joseph Campbell types ideas actually read anything on the topics of mythology and comparative religion?
Yes.
A long, long time ago (at the end of the 60s).
This thread needs more pictures.
Here's a bike, out standing in it's field:
It should have fallen over by now, though...
...because it's two tyred.
^^^
By which point everyone with a pre-existing prejudice thinks they have had it confirmed one way or another and the goalposts are moved another millimetre towards legitimising view that should be unacceptable to a civil society.
"All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
There's a lot of twaddle spouted about how we are evolved animals at heart and that those urges and characteristics cannot be 'educated' out entirely. Even if that is true, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
People who like to misappropriate Nietzsche most often ignore the desirability of actually making the effort to combat innate issues...
Mind you, no one seems to be able to actually determine what Nietzsche or Wittgenstein were intending...
I think, ultimately, it boils down to rule number 1 most of the time.
There’s a lot of twaddle spouted about how we are evolved animals at heart and that those urges and characteristics cannot be ‘educated’ out entirely. Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Have you tried going with food and water entirely? Try 'educating out' the need for them.
Freud thought that the civilising process of modern society made people miserable but otoh who would want to live in a Hobbesian world?
The truth is probably somewhere in between a post-modern idea that we are infinitely-plastic beings scripted by discourses and the idea of biological essentialism.
towards legitimising view that should be unacceptable to a civil society.
What exactly is wrongthink in 2021 out of interest?
Look!!!!
A squirrel!!
Oh hey
Have you tried going with food and water entirely? Try ‘educating out’ the need for them.
No, but what's that got to do with someone stirring up hate to compensate for having genitalia that they perceive to be of inadequate size?