Jordan Peterson hates compelled speech, loves compelled marriage

[Puupi]

You don't believe her in that she found his assertions absurd? Or you don't believe that it's the primary motive for her outburst?



That people don't much care about losers (male or female) is irrelevant. Nor is it their fault when said losers decide to murder a bunch of people. Sure, we shouldn't mock or make fun of these people, but doesn't mean we have to molly coddle them? The idea that women should give these "losers" sex in order to stop them from killing people is absurd. Sorry, but I just cannot see this as not self evidently true.

Shouldn't we give unemployed people jobs so they stop rioting?

What is being suggested here isn't all that different from solving income inequality, unemployment, homelessness, crime....

If you find that absurd - there's a word of that: cognitive dissonance.

[Slybak]

Right, I don't believe her. That people don't much care about male losers is self evidently true. I think "I laugh because it is absurd" is the resolution of cognitive dissonance.

lmao at the idea that childless men in their 40s face more social opprobrium than childless women in their 40s.

[JohnBrown1917]

Sex robots seem a more likely solution to the "incels".

Maybe the inceels who are not part of the incel community, but those who are got a lot more deep seeded problem.

[Spectral]

You don't believe her in that she found his assertions absurd? Or you don't believe that it's the primary motive for her outburst?

The latter. I think the sentence "I laugh because it's absurd" is constructed as a post hoc resolution of cognitive dissonance. Note that this is her written thoughts at a later date rather than something she said at the time. The laughter immediately follows "no one cares about the men who fail".

That people don't much care about losers (male or female) is irrelevant. Nor is it their fault when said losers decide to murder a bunch of people. Sure, we shouldn't mock or make fun of these people, but doesn't mean we have to molly coddle them? The idea that women should give these "losers" sex in order to stop them from killing people is absurd. Sorry, but I just cannot see this as not self evidently true.

I'm personally not much of a fan of male losers. I'm not all that interested in defending them. I certainly am not going to defend the pathetic, mewling whines of incels, and I'm especially not going to defend any that resort to violence. I'm mostly interested in the implications about the beliefs and habits of the upper class - people that are avowed egalitarians and equalists wind up having to have some pretty awkward conversations.

I don't personally have to deal with considering why I feel differently about different types of equality - I just actually don't care about inequality. As long as people have the bare necessitates provided by society, the rest is on them. If someone wants sex, status, and wealth, my answer is pretty much always, "get better". It's unfortunate that dark triad and other anti-social traits are conducive to acquiring these, but they're not the only path.

I think there's something to be said for Peterson's point that past societies likely vented some of the young male frustration through societally enforced monogamy, but that he's probably overstating the point by a far sight. Nonetheless, he makes some incisive observations about modern behavior and attitudes.

[Melius]

JP is an angry mean mad white man who refuses to acknowledge his white male privilege. He is one of the deplorables. The sad part is however that many young men are becoming radicalised by this con artist - he is essentially the father figure you never had for many of these impressionable young white men.

see here kids, this is one of the reasons people cant take lefties seriously anymore. my dude you should go write some fiction novels, it seems you have the talent for it

[Biomega]

JP is very clever. In every sense of the word. He knows full well how to market himself and his "shock value" statements, which are always backed by a deeper intellectual core simply masked by apparent facility.

That's not to say that he is automatically objectively right about what he's saying, of course. It just means you should never ever take anything he says at face value, because THAT is the trap leading to his "ha, gotcha!".

He's not wrong when he says that the emergence of (forced) monogamy in large parts correlates to to a) controlling women (by restricting their sexual choice), and b) placating men by more equally distributing sexual satisfaction. That's simply a historic fact in the history of most (Western) civilizations. Polygamy, by the way, plays with the same factors just in different ways, and for different reasons.

Now, whether or not you take such historic developments into consideration for developing contemporary/future social models, that is another question entirely. JP is often conservative in that respect (some say even reactionary), taking the historic emergence of organizational structures as evidence of their inherent suitability for the human condition - like the whole lobster/hierarchy thing. In simple terms, monogamy emerged because it "works", and because it works, it is something that should keep continuing. Of course, he himself is very aware of the vulnerability of that argument: namely that it presupposes an inability for human reason to influence base drives and behaviors. But that, too, has a history of actually working. It may not have yielded a perfect state of being just yet, but we have come a long way since the barbarous times of "let's just kill/rape/enslave everyone". JP might argue that we are still doing that, just in different ways; that we are hard-wired to be killers/rapists/slavers, and the only way to get on is to accept that and take the social structures that have emerged based on those preconditions to run with it. Others, myself included, would argue that there are other ways. That reason is a process that takes a lot of time to effect change. And that such a process does not mean denying base drives and instincts, but simply involves transformation and sublimation. Saying "we're just made that way" is, to me, a cop-out, and any solution directly based on that assumption - such as JP's extolling of traditional/"naturally" emerged social structures - nothing but a band-aid solution. Yes, forcing monogamy on people will lower sexual frustration levels and prevent some violence. But it comes at the price of other violence, often more subtle but no less insidious. You may not get vans plowing into a crowd, but restricting people's choice and sexuality is no less damaging even if you can't reduce it to a simple body count; in fact it may very well be much, much worse in the long term.

JP can often be a bit naive in his assumptions. A core paradigm of his is the unspoken belief that if you just adhere to the true and trusted structures, you'll eventually not just accept them, but come to actively want to support them. I don't think that's ever going to happen. The genie is out of the bottle. People have seen that things can be different. It's one thing to maintain an oppressive status quo in an age of ignorance, which is how these things were kept up historically for the longest time (that's why they didn't want women or slaves to learn how to read, for example); but trying to ignore the existence of alternatives at a time where information flows boundlessly is quite another. That is why the outcry over "enforced monogamy" - despite the fact that nearly no one understood what JP actually meant by it - is not only justified but natural. You've given people a choice, trying to take it away now is not something that is easy to do. No matter the cost.

[Kathandira]

Before I pass judgement on this, I need to know what enforced monogamy actually is.

So far, i've gathered that it isn't suggesting that this be taken to the legislature, but somehow socially enforced. I don't understand what that actually means.

Can someone give a laymen's description of this for me? And please not from someone who is going to be sarcastic and half raged about it. I'm looking for non-biased honesty.

[Snorkles]

The assumption here is that the "involuntary" part of incel is true. It's not. These guys could, if they wanted to, go out and fuck. But they either 1) Refuse to do anything to actually make themselves attractive or 2) have incredibly high standards. If I refuse to work for any company that doesn't pay me $1b a year, am I involuntarily out of work?

Peterson's attraction seems to stem from people with self-diagnosed depression who have never actually bothered to go to the doctors to get it sorted. Instead of facing their issues they project it onto the world around them and lash out. He's playing a dangerous game where he purports to want to help these people, when in reality he's just reaffirming their warped view of the world.

[Vathoren]

[url]
Let me save the Peterson apologists some time: "what he meant was..." [insert long-winded waffle devoid of substance that doesn't make sense in the context of the original statements here].

'Please don't correct my ignorance of well established terms within scientific academia, I'm not done wanking yet.'

Sex robots seem a more likely solution to the "incels".

Actually someone on Bill Maher had a pretty good take, which is to de-stigmatize prostitution.

[Deleted]

Whenever you hear certain people making certain newsworthy statements, there is usually a book they need to promote/sell or something.

[Raelbo]

Sex robots seem a more likely solution to the "incels".

I doubt it. Because in the end it's not about the sex. It's about their inability to handle personal rejection. And therein lies the absurdity of Peterson's proposed solution: The problem lies with the incels, not with the people who won't have sex with them.

No one is entitled to get sex from another human being, it is something that has to be earned. And the person who gets to judge whether it has earned is the person giving it, not the person who earned it.

In other news: Is it really that surprising that a bunch of narcissistic mysogynists are have trouble getting women to have sex with them?

[Kathandira]

So, maybe incels can marry other incels then?

From what i've heard from incels (not that incel's actually exist in the context we hear about) i've spoken to, they want have too high of standards to date someone who is undesirable.

Which is exactly why incels don't exist outside of people who have gone through some horrid physical ailment which renders them completely unable to have sex.

[Deleted]

Before I pass judgement on this, I need to know what enforced monogamy actually is.

So far, i've gathered that it isn't suggesting that this be taken to the legislature, but somehow socially enforced. I don't understand what that actually means.

Can someone give a laymen's description of this for me? And please not from someone who is going to be sarcastic and half raged about it. I'm looking for non-biased honesty.

Best example is religious enforcement. That you tell people that a god will become angry, if you sling dick somewhere else, and also if you do it before putting a ring on each others finger. In a modern sense, that would be heavily enforced shaming of anyone that would be unfaithful with their partner and also premarital sex.

Problem is... It isn't particularly effective.

[baskev]

https://www.indy100.com/article/jord...ls-men-8359431

He is specifically talking here about "enforced marriage" being the solution to violent incel murderers like Minassian.

Let me save the Peterson apologists some time: "what he meant was..." [insert long-winded waffle devoid of substance that doesn't make sense in the context of the original statements here].

Its JP. he is always like that. Kinda hate people like him.

But hey there are always stupid people to believe in him. Even though he has been exposed to be a hypocrite, who lie's, use out of context stuff. Use false facts or facts that have nothing to do with stuff etc etc. Who says things as vague as possible so he can back out of it on a later date. Man him , rubin, shapiro and all those extreme right "intellects" are a bane to common sense. All they do is talk fast, throw out a lot of words. And hope people believe in them.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, he isn't wrong.

But is that the kind of society we want to live in?

He is not right.

He says in short: man commit murder because they do not get sex.

Witch is bullshit. Proof it please...please give us scientific proof of it.
Because i know and was a person who was without sex for sometime. So that means i am a mass murderer?

[Deleted]

At least you'll admit its people not women.

It's nigh impossible to be a female loser as women are inherently valuable due to their uteruses -- the number of women in any given society is the limiting factor for its growth, whereas a lack of men isn't really a problem at all because a small number of men can successfully impregnate a large number of women. In the same vein men have no inherent value, only that which they create through their own efforts. Hence the 'male loser' trope, the 'women and children first' policy, etc.

[AeneasBK]

Best example is religious enforcement. That you tell people that a god will become angry, if you sling dick somewhere else, and also if you do it before putting a ring on each others finger. In a modern sense, that would be heavily enforced shaming of anyone that would be unfaithful with their partner and also premarital sex.

Problem is... It isn't particularly effective.

But is the implication seriously that as a society we aimed for those values as a way of stopping single sexless men being violent assholes not absurd?

- - - Updated - - -

It's nigh impossible to be a female loser as women are inherently valuable due to their uteruses

Hahahahahaha. I can't take that seriously.

[Aitch]

Because no penalties exist for cheating in the first place.

O.o what? Practically all western legal systems heavily penalize adulterers during divorce proceedings.

It’s weird to see people defend polygamy, a concept which, in practice, has done nothing but objectify women, almost to the point of slavery, just because Jordan Peterson said something about it.

[Spectral]

In other news: Is it really that surprising that a bunch of narcissistic mysogynists are have trouble getting women to have sex with them?

No, but it's also not surprising that a bunch of narcissistic misogynists have tons of sex. Narcissism is positively correlated with promiscuity, as are other dark triad traits. Anecdotally, I do not observe misogyny being inhibitory of acquiring sexual partners, although if someone had a study showing otherwise, I'd consider it.

What is surprising is that anyone would think it's narcissism that prevents incels from getting sex rather than status-correlated traits that result in women being disgusted by incels.

- - - Updated - - -

But is the implication seriously that as a society we aimed for those values as a way of stopping single sexless men being violent assholes not absurd?

The implication that societies aim for much of anything strikes me as absurd. Cultural values are evolved, not intentional.

[PosPosPos]

In other news: Is it really that surprising that a bunch of narcissistic mysogynists are have trouble getting women to have sex with them?

It really is, judging by the number of unabashed incel apologists in this thread who won't take no for an answer themselves.

The problem is always on others, and not their disgusting ugly selves.

[AeneasBK]

The implication that societies aim for much of anything strikes me as absurd. Cultural values are evolved, not intentional.

Okay, so for the exmple I quoted, was the church really going around promoting monogamy as a way of stopping single sexless men from being violent assholes?