Jordan Peterson hates compelled speech, loves compelled marriage

[Dextroden]

Are you leveling that accusation against Jordan Peterson? Because that's cute, if you are.

- - - Updated - - -



I really don't care what "people" say. I haven't said that. In fact, I made it explicitly clear in my first post or two that I understood Peterson was referring to social norms, not actual marriage.

Okay, "Prejudiced".

Then get on telling people talking about marrying incels they are incredibly wrong.

[Vathoren]

I think this one fits the topic perfectly

I've seen this bandied around and it's complete bullshit, those videos are all from one 'red pilled' youtuber called Voltaire, look:







And the claim that he's liked by the alt-right, oh my days. He's absolutely against collectivism and racial identitarianism, he's completely antithetical to their positions. So much so he's mentioned more than once how happy it makes him when he gets an email from a young person informing him that his material drove them away from the Alt-Right.

[Dextroden]

I said, verbatim, enforced monogamy will not solve the issue of incels because women are still going to choose to not be with incels even if society is 100% monogamous. It is pointing a giant hole in his idea that "enforced monogamy" will solve the issue of lonely assholes becoming violent. It isn't saying he wants forced marriages.... seriously you can't be a native english speaker if you are missing this distinction.

Then you and others in this thread wouldn't need to keep saying "marriage to incels" if you didn't mean that.

[RyanEX]

Because they NEVER took what he said and edited to make it seem like he was saying something different....ever. Pinky swear.

If you want to disagree with what he says feel free. It's still a "somewhat" free society.

[Moralgy]

Then you and others in this thread wouldn't need to keep saying "marriage to incels" if you didn't mean that.

You are seriously missing something here dude. You are off the rails right now trying to make a point that isn't there.

Can someone that speaks Dextroden's language explain this to him, because he seems to be off on some tangent due to misunderstanding something very simple.

[Slybak]

Knowing more is pointless if half of it is shit or wrong, what matters if knowing the right things, which you proved you don't.

Not sure why you need Peterson, bro. I thought that wildly undeserved and stupid confidence is what all the ladies crave.

[LedZeppelin]

Lmao this is about that NYT hit piece isnt it. Never seen such a bullshit article in my life. Enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Dextroden]

You are seriously missing something here dude. You are off the rails right now trying to make a point that isn't there.

Feel free to dictate it for me. The fact that people think anything will happen because Peterson said something is hilarious.

And just to get you ready. I also disagree with Peterson. Outside of a small fraction of people who a meaningful relationship sould help, the kind of people that are incels would find some new inadequacy to be mad about. Plus, no one is going to the "Date mad guys so they'll stop being mad" boith at the job fair.

But I do enjoy the panic Peterson causes. Apparently, him and his army of incels will be mate hunting soon. Maybe Trump will sign it into law.

[Slybak]

Lmao this is about that NYT hit piece isnt it. Never seen such a bullshit article in my life. Enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you think it means.

Plot twist: It doesnt actually mean anything, because Peterson never means anything, because its more profitable to keep his arguments abstract and contentless.

[downnola]

No, because nothing there is "compelled speech". The only thing that's "compelled" is not being abusive and discriminatory to people based on their membership in a protected class.

Would you say it's "compelled speech" that a professor can't shout at "dirty niggers" in his classroom bringing the intellectual level down? Because that's the equivalent kind of thing we're talking about, here.

Objecting to using non-binary pronouns is not anywhere near the same level as shouting racial slurs in a classroom. That's quite a leap in logic, especially considering if you asked most people what a non-binary gender pronoun is, few people would know what the hell you're talking about. Pretty much everyone would be appalled if a Professor called someone a "dirty nigger."

[Mumba]

Peterson is probably one of those people who considers Thanos to be a good guy.

[petej0]

It absolutely is. You can't meaningfully and effectively enforce monogamy without people losing agency.

How is that an argument for slut shaming, financial dependence, acceptance of violence against the unfaithful, marital rape etc.

[Swalload]

Not sure why you need Peterson, bro. I thought that wildly undeserved and stupid confidence is what all the ladies crave.

I don't need Peterson. You're just doing your identity politic bullshit by automatically putting me in that group because I don't fit in yours. There's more than "Peterson fans" and "Peterson haters" out there bro.

[Deleted]

Thanks for mentioning him. I am watching his youtube clips now for the last couple days and i learned some nice things. Will continue listen to the guy. Thanks again for introducing me to this guy.

[downnola]

Peterson is probably one of those people who considers Thanos to be a good guy.

Do explain.

[Voidwielder]

It's an academic term which has been used for two decades now.

[Amnaught]

The real solution here is for men to man up and pick up the slack and start handing out brojobs. Choo choo!!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think any of you are understanding what he means by "enforced monogamy". IIRC he means culturally enforced, like it has been in the past and isn't now. He isn't actually advocating for state mandated/enforced marriage. The context he is speaking in is strictly biological/sociocultural and nothing more, but as usual, people who dislike him generally latch on to the first thing they can find that finally confirms there preconceived biases.

The goverment should not be able to tell me how many dicks I am allowed to suck. The people who suggest otherwise can just suck my dick. Seriously, if men want sex, there are plenty of men around, get cracking!

What he is advocating is not forced marriage, but it's just as fucking wrong.

[Slybak]

Do explain.

Thanos doesn't care what group you belong to; his coin-flip genocide is based purely on your individual chance to live.

[downnola]

I don't see why he say socially enforced monogamy would work when it hasn't. There's always been dregs of society. It just seems like Peterson is speaking out his ass

No, he isn't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/

The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolute wealth differences have expanded. Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Please, consider for a moment that Peterson is referring to the fact that over the past century less and less people are getting married, and that he's not seeking some Handmaiden's Tale scenario that the majority of far-left cranks on this board are claiming he is.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanos doesn't care what group you belong to; his coin-flip genocide is based purely on your individual chance to live.

Yeah, that sounds like something Peterson would be into .

[Endus]

Objecting to using non-binary pronouns is not anywhere near the same level as shouting racial slurs in a classroom. That's quite a leap in logic, especially considering if you asked most people what a non-binary gender pronoun is, few people would know what the hell you're talking about. Pretty much everyone would be appalled if a Professor called someone a "dirty nigger."

And in this comparison, we're talking about a professor talking to Mary, a girl who was born and named "Mark" originally, who's transgender, and the professor is insisting on calling Mary "him" to her face, and insists on calling her "Mark", not Mary.

Which, yes, is as crass and insulting as the use of racial epithets.