Sign in to follow this  
zoony

The Atlantic: Why cant people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying?

Recommended Posts

I love people like Peterson

 

My kids are going to run over his kids and lap them. Keep building the victim culture within the majority! Helps those of us who weren’t raised as nor will raise victims 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zoony said:

  Bumping threads from 4 months ago, lol.

 

#YoureHis****

 

When I saw this story this morning, the very first thing that occurred to me was "This is that guy Zoony thought was a prophet." I wonder how he will try to talk his way out of it.

 

And it's the way you always do: calling everyone a wimp.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

This is the most ironic post, ever, for this thread

 

Oops, forgot the end sarcasm.  I'll go back and edit because more people like you might take the first part of my post seriously. :rofl89:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

When I saw this story this morning, the very first thing that occurred to me was "This is that guy Zoony thought was a prophet." I wonder how he will try to talk his way out of it.

 

And it's the way you always do: calling everyone a wimp.

 

I was dying laughing reading the article.

 

 

It reminded me of another article I read about MRA's and the red pill movement, which is really Peterson's base.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad?utm_term=.jgMgRPyv9Z#.gbV0ObdEvM

 

 

Quote

 

Men's rights activists often cite the first time they realized it’s a woman’s world. They call these “red pill” moments, after the scene in The Matrix when the main character is faced with the decision to swallow a red pill and recognize the true nature of the world or take a blue pill and continue living a lie. For Elam, that revelation came at age 13, when his mother tried to force him to take his diarrhea medicine.

 

 

 

 

Men are oppressed because this guy's mother wanted him to take his diarreah medication.

 

Congrats to zoony for starting this thread and finding common ground with these losers.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Why is no one listening to Jordan Peterson? 

 

Because he says dumb **** like this:

 

LOL at that dumb woman who couldn't understand his point.  Here's a scientific fact for you: women's boob meat takes away from their brain tissue so their IQs are lower.

 

As much as  I respect Jordan Peterson, I have to question his plan on this one though.  What about all of the stuck up ****es out there who would still rather go lesbian or celibate than touch me?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: Who is that one guy who said that one thing that one time that sort of made a little sense so he got really famous, but once it was put into the context into his overall narrative and world view he was exposed as loony tunes?

 

A: J _ RD_N  P_T_R_S_N

 

Free vowels for all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a chicken farmer friend of mine.

 


"If there’s one thing raising chickens has taught me it is that if the males are violent because they’re not getting enough sex, the solution is not “enforced monogamy,” it is to kill them and eat them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 11:02 AM, No Excuses said:

 

Enforced monogamy. Yeah really. 

Did he make that term up or is that a thing I've somehow avoided running into until now?  I don't read MRA or Incel craziness so perhaps that would explain it.  

 

If I'm understanding him right, the problem he wants to solve is getting these incel losers married.  If that's true why go with the bizarre and immediately off putting "enforced monogamy"?  A well known alternative system that would solve this issue exists: arranged marriage.  He's already setting aside women's agency and worth by reducing them to useful distractions for male losers he fears would otherwise turn violent.  Might as well go all the way.  Besides, without arranged marriage he's still left hoping that women will choose incel lunatics over a peaceful life with some pets.  Unlikely that goes the way he'd like.  

 

Maybe the problem is that with arranged marriages moms would have a say in things. Can't have women making choices! Then again maybe it just wouldn't feel like the white solution?  Who knows?

 

He is right about one thing though, men feeling deep dissatisfaction with life and the prospects available to them are a potentially dangerous population.  Terrorist groups have been very openly drawing on these losers recently, but there is no shortage of examples.  Street gangs and cartels do the same.  Problem is, finding ways to pressure women into taking them isn't going to solve it.  It's not going to fix the economic factors that lead to increased crime.  It's not going to fix the internal issues or the horrible childhoods either.  

 

Writing about it probably will sell some books though.  If gangs and terrorists can exploit the losers, Jordan Peterson can too.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and India are seeing this problem of unpartnered males because of extreme misogyny and the preference for male children. Even in India, with its tradition of arranged marriage, is finding a shortage of marrigeable females. And the dowry tradition of the girl's parents paying a dowry is changing because the girl's parents now hold the upper hand in negotiations.

 

Same in China, the one child policy resulted in more male children. Males' parents are the ones "purchasing" brides even to the extent of going to nearby countries seeking to purchase brides. This practice doesn't bode well for some of the brides due to the purchase factor.

 

Maybe these young men could be encouraged to become more personable and develop more attractive traits rather than them sitting around online developing their misogyny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm putting this article here because it touches on a lot of the themes of the MRA movement and its offshoot involuntary celibacy basic misogyny and thinking that somehow men are entitled to a servile woman who supplies sex on demand.

 

It seems that the Santa Fe Texas shooter had pursues agressively a classmate named Shana Fisher who for four months had told him "No" repeatedly and finally stood up to him in class and "embarrassed" him so a week later he killed her and nine others. 

 

Read the tweets embedded in this article to see how women are told to Just Say No, and men can ignore it. 

 

As one woman tweeted: Entitlement Shame And access to a gun.

 

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2018/05/for-4-months-she-said-no-last-week-she-embarrassed-him-now-she-and-9-others-are-dead/

 

 

Below is a screen grab describing that the girl's mother wrote privately to the LA Times FB page about this boy's harassment of her daughter.I

 

 

DdmlE4iU8AMMPnY.jpeg

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Maybe these young men could be encouraged to become more personable and develop more attractive traits rather than them sitting around online developing their misogyny.

 

Awful socialization that leaves them completely unable to interact with society at a basic level is at the root of the issues of incels.  That plus their monstrous sense of entitlement.  They're essentially failed members of society and they need intensive therapy and complete social reprogramming to lead a decent life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Destino said:

Did he make that term up or is that a thing I've somehow avoided running into until now?  I don't read MRA or Incel craziness so perhaps that would explain it.  

 

I think he made up the term but it's following an idea that many social conservatives have put out in recent days: that America needs to return to monogamy and laws need to be constructed to enforce this.

 

What makes it ridiculous is that a culture of monogamy already exists in America. Millennials report having less sexual partners at their respective ages than baby boomers. Divorce rates are at an all time low in recent years. And the public opinion of infidelity hasn't really budged over decades.

 

All these arguments are kind of being defined under another weird term that is being increasingly used by people making arguments for this idea of "enforced monogamy". They are choosing to look at the issue of male involuntary celibacy and sexual frustration through a lens called the "sexual marketplace".

 

There is something really weird about looking into human sexual behavior as a "marketplace" that can be regulated and directed towards the underprivileged. 

 

One option would be that perhaps we should re-examine prostitution and look into legalizing and regulating it for both the safety and dignity of sex workers, and for making sex as a "good" more accessible to "underprivileged" males and females. But I really doubt this is a method that would really satisfy the crowd that is increasingly calling for the regulation of sexual behavior. 

 

I suspect enforced monogamy is something that would be practiced in the "sexual marketplace" through things like weakening of divorce laws, less access to abortion and maybe even reducing the penalty for violence committed within domestic partnerships. Viewing sex and partner choice as something that can be regulated in the form of a marketplace to enforce monogamous standards is a profoundly disturbing idea and it's pretty dangerous for people with millions of passionate followers to be openly advocating for it.

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the Marketplace is churning out sex dolls and expanding legal prostitution to meet the need....of course those losers will probably want govt subsidies as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let's jump right into Dominionism, because that's what enforced monogamy, forced pregnancy (no access to birth control and abortion), legalized prostitution (only benefits the "operators/owners/managers" not women who are basically sex slaves), and every other method to enslave women and their services and most importantly their bodies.

 

Extreme misogyny is what that is.

 

This is why I am glad I'm not intimate with men. This kind of thinking makes me sick.

Edited by LadySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a classic article that should be required reading by anyone that thinks the world owes them **** (or thinks Jordan Peterson makes a lot of sense).  I read it again once a year b/c it's good for perspective.  

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

 

6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person

 

You should read the whole thing, its long, but excellent and entertaining.  Here is a favored snippet:

 

Quote

4.  What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People

Let's try a non-money example so you don't get hung up on that. The demographic that Cracked writes for is heavy on 20-something males. So on our message boards and in my many inboxes I read several dozen stories a year from miserable, lonely guys who insist that women won't come near them despite the fact that they are just the nicest guys in the world. I can explain what is wrong with this mindset, but it would probably be better if I let Alec Baldwin explain it:

 

[Video of Alec Baldwin saying "**** you" a lot in Glengary Glen Ross]

 

In this case, Baldwin is playing the part of the attractive women in your life. They won't put it as bluntly as he does -- society has trained us not to be this honest with people -- but the equation is the same. "Nice guy? Who gives a ****? If you want to work here, close."

 

So, what do you bring to the table? Because the Zooey Deschanel lookalike in the bookstore that you've been daydreaming about moisturizes her face for an hour every night and feels guilty when she eats anything other than salad for lunch. She's going to be a surgeon in 10 years. What do you do?

"What, so you're saying that I can't get girls like that unless I have a nice job and make lots of money?"

 

No, your brain jumps to that conclusion so you have an excuse to write off everyone who rejects you by thinking that they're just being shallow and selfish. I'm asking what do you offer? Are you smart? Funny? Interesting? Talented? Ambitious? Creative? OK, now what do you do to demonstrate those attributes to the world? Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. The patient is bleeding in the street. Do you know how to operate or not?

 

"Well, I'm not sexist or racist or greedy or shallow or abusive! Not like those other douchebags!"

 

I'm sorry, I know that this is hard to hear, but if all you can do is list a bunch of faults you don't have, then back the **** away from the patient. There's a witty, handsome guy with a promising career ready to step in and operate.

 

Does that break your heart? OK, so now what? Are you going to mope about it, or are you going to learn how to do surgery? It's up to you, but don't complain about how girls fall for jerks; they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer. "But I'm a great listener!" Are you? Because you're willing to sit quietly in exchange for the chance to be in the proximity of a pretty girl (and spend every second imagining how soft her skin must be)? Well guess what, there's another guy in her life who also knows how to do that, and he can play the guitar. Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick. You're like a new movie whose title is This Movie Is in English, and its tagline is "The actors are clearly visible."

 

I think this is why you can be a "nice guy" and still feel terrible about yourself. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from that article, and relating to "thoughts and prayers" .Number Two

 

 What did the collective power of those good thoughts provide? Jack ****ing ****. Children die every day because millions of us tell ourselves that caring is just as good as doing. It's an internal mechanism controlled by the lazy part of your brain to keep you from actually doing work.

 

Don't you have that annoying Christian friend whose only offer to help anyone ever is to "pray for them"? Doesn't it drive you nuts? I'm not even commenting on whether or not prayer works; it doesn't change the fact that they chose the one type of help that doesn't require them to get off the sofa.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2018 at 10:25 PM, Destino said:

Did he make that term up or is that a thing I've somehow avoided running into until now?  I don't read MRA or Incel craziness so perhaps that would explain it.  

 

If I'm understanding him right, the problem he wants to solve is getting these incel losers married.  If that's true why go with the bizarre and immediately off putting "enforced monogamy"?  A well known alternative system that would solve this issue exists: arranged marriage.  He's already setting aside women's agency and worth by reducing them to useful distractions for male losers he fears would otherwise turn violent.  Might as well go all the way.  Besides, without arranged marriage he's still left hoping that women will choose incel lunatics over a peaceful life with some pets.  Unlikely that goes the way he'd like.  

 

Maybe the problem is that with arranged marriages moms would have a say in things. Can't have women making choices! Then again maybe it just wouldn't feel like the white solution?  Who knows?

 

He is right about one thing though, men feeling deep dissatisfaction with life and the prospects available to them are a potentially dangerous population.  Terrorist groups have been very openly drawing on these losers recently, but there is no shortage of examples.  Street gangs and cartels do the same.  Problem is, finding ways to pressure women into taking them isn't going to solve it.  It's not going to fix the economic factors that lead to increased crime.  It's not going to fix the internal issues or the horrible childhoods either.  

 

Writing about it probably will sell some books though.  If gangs and terrorists can exploit the losers, Jordan Peterson can too.  

 

 

you misinterpreted his words.... 

 

... he was calling for a series of giant circle-jerks all over the midwest.   

Edited by mcsluggo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Here is a classic article that should be required reading by anyone that thinks the world owes them **** (or thinks Jordan Peterson makes a lot of sense).  I read it again once a year b/c it's good for perspective.  

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

 

6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person

 

You should read the whole thing, its long, but excellent and entertaining.  Here is a favored snippet:

 

 

 

This is the kind of perspective people need. Stop reaching for olive branches. Fall, get up, dust yourself off, and get started on being a positive force in the world, instead of a whiny ****.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 12:08 PM, grego said:

 

i can see how you could get that from his words, but i can also see how one can see what hes saying as pretty standard, non controversial stiff- 'women wear red lipstick to make themselves more attractive to men'." so youre saying" X, when hes actually saying Y.

 

i think what we hear when we hear someone speak is largely dependent on the information we have- information about the subject matter, the speaker and what hes said in the past. our political leanings can influence our interpretations (traumps sotu address is a good example. the best example ive ever seen- and one that i can still watch in awe is harris's exchange with ben affleck on the maher show- harris is saying one thing and affleck (and much of the audience) is hearing something else- almost the opposite of what hes saying. the peterson newman thing is a good one- what she was hearing wasnt what he was saying). 

 

this is the scott adams two movies thing- two people are watching the same movie but seeing very different things. this is a really interesting thing to me, especially as it relates to our current political divide. 

 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/

The Left And The Right Aren’t Hearing The Same Jordan Peterson

A New York Times Magazine hit piece says more about the mainstream media than it says about Jordan Peterson.
 

Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has enjoyed a surge into fame over the past year, has become a bit like the Yanny and Laurel audio meme. People listen to what he has to say but disagree wildly about what they are hearing.

Some hear a man with important ideas that can help people live a more fulfilling life, others hear a dangerous misogynist who wants to set back the cause of liberated women, trans people, and the rest of the cast(e) of oppression. In a feature for The New York Times Magazinethis weekend, Nellie Bowles clearly came down on the latter side.

 

 

(I see this all the time these days - people are seeing two very different things and that reliably seems to be determined by our political leanings) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, grego said:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/

The Left And The Right Aren’t Hearing The Same Jordan Peterson

A New York Times Magazine hit piece says more about the mainstream media than it says about Jordan Peterson.
 

Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has enjoyed a surge into fame over the past year, has become a bit like the Yanny and Laurel audio meme. People listen to what he has to say but disagree wildly about what they are hearing.

Some hear a man with important ideas that can help people live a more fulfilling life, others hear a dangerous misogynist who wants to set back the cause of liberated women, trans people, and the rest of the cast(e) of oppression. In a feature for The New York Times Magazinethis weekend, Nellie Bowles clearly came down on the latter side.

 

 

(I see this all the time these days - people are seeing two very different things and that reliably seems to be determined by our political leanings) 

 

So have you learned enough about Peterson now to decide whether he's a misogynist or not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

So have you learned enough about Peterson now to decide whether he's a misogynist or not?  

 

As far as Peterson, I really don't know that much. He's not my favorite person to listen to for more than a few minutes so I couldn't say with any certainty about his possible misogyny. 

 

What the article does reference is one of the recent criticisms - 

 

Quote

 

"The Times article makes it appear that Peterson means somehow women will be forced into sex they don’t want to have, calling his ideas about “enforced monogamy” absurd. The reaction to that line has been swift and damning. But that’s not what he is talking about at all. He is talking about societal norms that value monogamy and work to enforce it. He addressed this on Twitter this weekend.

 

 
 

Furthermore, anyone motivated by the NY Times to assume that what I meant by "enforced monogamy" was anything other than social convention favoring stable pair bonding can think whatever they want, as they no doubt will anyway... https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/998087424814256128 

 

  •  
  •  
Peterson is saying that quote has been misinterpreted, so he's either clarifying it or lying. I don't think he's a liar, so I'd assume the former. And given how we filter things through our idealogical and, especially tribal, lens, it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Peterson is less interesting to me, in other words, than how and why we see things the way we do. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.