jordan peterson does video calling nazis evil, gets rebuked by his fans in comments

[Deleted]

Monogamy itself is slowly waning though... more (usually guys) have multiple partners. Joe Rogan and Peterson talked about this in their latest podcast.

To what extend are we talking here? Because I have to admit, being from the late 70's this isn't exactly a completely new concept, and we've managed to go down in violence in men.

It does seem to be a rather large societal change, to merit a very small minority, that likely is themselves to blame as much. I mean heck, the existence of men that are simply not marriage material is not new either.

[Machismo]

Not just cheating... but having open relationships as well. Which means, usually, that one guy gets more than one girl, though that is not always true.

- - - Updated - - -



You can stick to your dogmatic thinking "as a libertarian" I won't.

Well, loving freedom is a pretty wonderful thing. Enjoy your moral relativism.

[Endus]

I don't hate them, I just think in the long run society becomes destabilized if too many people act out:

Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0124093142.htm

The root problem is that, via the magic of bad science reporting, the actual source isn't actually talking about polygamy. It's specifically talking about polygyny, systems where one man has multiple wives;

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...9/657.full.pdf

They're specifically talking about practices that create a pool of unmarried males without real prospects. But this also isn't comparable to modern society, which is culturally monogamous, and using this study as an argument regarding modern society just does not work as a result.

They're also pretty darned free about drawing the loosest of correlations, like suggesting that monogamous marriage leads to equality of the sexes, even though in the case of Christian Europe, we're talking about a lead time of, oh, at least 1500 years or so, minimum. They don't have a ton of data so I can't fault them for raising the question, and they admit that it's a really flimsy connection at best, but that seems to be lost in translation between their study and the reporting you're quoting from.

[Dug]

Not just cheating... but having open relationships as well. Which means, usually, that one guy gets more than one girl, though that is not always true.

Well I don't know what to tell ya. You and Petersons fantasy world where people stop having casual sex isn't and likely never will be real. Also not so curious why its the women's burden to solve...

[Elegiac]

I don't hate them, I just think in the long run society becomes destabilized if too many people act out:

Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0124093142.htm

Couldn't have anything to do at all with the preponderance of Western culture which has tended to emphasise monogamy, could it.

No, law would be coercion. And I am not a dogmatic libertarian.

Aren't you complaining about political correctness precisely because you think it's culturally coercive?

[Musta]

World Journal - 2018

We STILL have to explain that nazism is evil.

[downnola]

Since when am I "PC"?

Ironically, my position has always been that it's the intent that matters, not the specific words. You guys apparently disagree.

But in this case even that's irrelevant, because "Uncle Tom" is not and never has been a racist slur. It's not even a reference to an ethnic group - it's a term referring to a kind of behaviour. You know, judging a person based on their words and actions as opposed to the colour of their skin...

Otherwise it'd make no sense for me to use it to refer to a Jewish person in my actual post...

The term Uncle Tom is a direct reference to an anti-slavery novel. The term evolved into a pejorative to describe supposed servile, brainwashed black Americans. So yeah, that whole bit about it never referencing an ethnic group is hilariously wrong.

Furthermore, it is a reference to a certain kind of behavior: people who "betray" their skin color, ethnicity, or religion. Those who are called Uncle Toms are not being judged solely by their words and actions, or you wouldn't even have to use the epithet. The entire reason to use the slur is to point out their betrayal and what their words and actions supposedly accomplish, otherwise it would be completely unnecessary to use the term.

It's reactionary garbage to the core. It implies that people of a specific skin color, ethnicity, religion, or creed need to conform to a single way of thinking. It's illiberal nonsense that should be shunned regardless of who it's directed at.

[Machismo]

You don't love freedom, you love your religion of "Libertarianism, as a libertarian".

And thanks, I will, though I am not a moral relativist. There are some axioms I won't break, but they are personal, and universal.

Nope, I do love freedom, quite a lot. Thanks.

Enjoy that moral relativism.

[Elegiac]

The root problem is that, via the magic of bad science reporting, the actual source isn't actually talking about polygamy. It's specifically talking about polygyny, systems where one man has multiple wives;

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...9/657.full.pdf

They're specifically talking about practices that create a pool of unmarried males without real prospects. But this also isn't comparable to modern society, which is culturally monogamous, and using this study as an argument regarding modern society just does not work as a result.

They're also pretty darned free about drawing the loosest of correlations, like suggesting that monogamous marriage leads to equality of the sexes, even though in the case of Christian Europe, we're talking about a lead time of, oh, at least 1500 years or so, minimum. They don't have a ton of data so I can't fault them for raising the question, and they admit that it's a really flimsy connection at best, but that seems to be lost in translation between their study and the reporting you're quoting from.

I'd also like to point out that in Heian period Japan where extramarital relationships were extremely common, women had it significantly better than contemporary Europe. So...

[Endus]

I'd also like to point out that in Heian period Japan where extramarital relationships were extremely common, women had it significantly better than contemporary Europe. So...

Should we also note that Western society is culturally monogamous? Hell, it's legally enforced monogamy; bigamy is literally illegal.

Extramarital affairs and premarital relationships don't factor into that, really, because those existed basically everywhere in history, too. They aren't some modern trend.

[Dug]

Again, he is not suggesting to use that as a solution. He has said he doesn't know what the solution is, besides the men themselves fixing their lives so that women actually find them datable.

Well that's all well and good because that is what these men should be doing. But for Peterson to even be "playing with the idea" or whatever it is you said earlier is dangerous. For such a smart guy I'm told he is, he surely doesn't know his audience and how they would react to such rhetoric. Why would they fix their lives when they can just point to that and say "SEE if Peterson's idea was a thing then everything would be okay"? Hell of a lot easier to rely on that and wallow than to actually make yourself a likable human being.

[Elegiac]

Should we also note that Western society is culturally monogamous? Hell, it's legally enforced monogamy; bigamy is literally illegal.

Extramarital affairs and premarital relationships don't factor into that, really, because those existed basically everywhere in history, too. They aren't some modern trend.

Really, all I'm getting here is an incredibly well supported argument that unmarried men should have their driving and shooting privileges restricted.

[Elegiac]

Again, he has repeated this over and over, he was not suggesting that as a solution, only that it seems to be a matter of fact. His actual solution, the one he pushes, is for the men, the incels themselves, to "man up" and fix their own problems. If most women do not find them attractive, it is not the womens fault, it is theirs.

Something entirely undermined by the majority of his "treatise" being a condemnation of a supposed moral decay in society that just happens to coincide exactly with the advent of feminism that has resulted in these poor, innocent violent sociopaths taking out their frustration on others. The stated arguments do not support his thesis, at all.

And this man is supposed to be an academic. Feh.

[Strawberry]

Jordan Peterson is what happens when greatminds use the toilet and don't flush. His mental garbage is the crap that is left, seriously, and no there is nothing redeeming about him or Ben Shapiro or any of the other book sellers saying idiotic unoriginal stupid shit.

Seriously Richard Spencer could come out tomorrow condemning the KKK and Neo Nazi, and laying a fat juicy one on a photo of Beyonce's ass and it still would fool me into believing he has ever has even a small ounce of credibility in anything. The problem with all these jackass's is that some not most treat their bullshit as fact, and because they get enough attention like 5 car pile up on the expressway while driving home and being directed to drive around. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing fucking annoying is just like the Kardashians or most of moron Hollywood you always have someone announcing latest moronic droppings of these people.

And for the Record Jordan Paterson is a fucking fraud and a moron, it doesn't really much matter that he is a white supremacist, ir sexust piece of shit, despite what he says, if the reaction of his fans to him openly being critical of Nazis is what it takes for some to be clued into this shit, then that ought to tell you the perceptions of the people slow enough to care what this dude has to say, that most people have already figured out.

You're just mad because he's owning feminists who are trying to argument against him
There's like a shit ton of YT videos with Jordan vs the feminists.

[Deleted]

Well that's all well and good because that is what these men should be doing. But for Peterson to even be "playing with the idea" or whatever it is you said earlier is dangerous. For such a smart guy I'm told he is, he surely doesn't know his audience and how they would react to such rhetoric. Why would they fix their lives when they can just point to that and say "SEE if Peterson's idea was a thing then everything would be okay"? Hell of a lot easier to rely on that and wallow than to actually make yourself a likable human being.

To be fair here, we'd move nowhere if the possibility of our words could inspire faulty interpretations that inspire poor behaviour.

[Dug]

As a psychologist, and a professor playing with "dangerous ideas" is fine. I encourage it... so long as he is not going on about lawfully forced monogamy, killing people of various kinds, etc, he can think what he wants, from my estimation, no ideas should be off limits.

Of course he can but I think once you've achieved a certain... worship status like he has i.e "savior of the west", "father I never had" then you need to be more careful about what you say. At that point should his more devout fans start causing trouble then I will be placing the blame at Peterson's feet even if he's only "playing" with ideas.

[Dug]

To be fair here, we'd move nowhere if the possibility of our words could inspire faulty interpretations that inspire poor behaviour.

See my previous post to Connal

[Kasierith]

Something entirely undermined by the majority of his "treatise" being a condemnation of a supposed moral decay in society that just happens to coincide exactly with the advent of feminism that has resulted in these poor, innocent violent sociopaths taking out their frustration on others. The stated arguments do not support his thesis, at all.

And this man is supposed to be an academic. Feh.

Honestly, coming from a perspective of pharmacy where double blinded RCTs with established internal and external power and based on a provable and repeatable null hypothesis and clearly established primary and secondary outcomes are considered the entry level for validity, all you social science chaps are just running about on conjecture.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You're just mad because he's owning feminists who are trying to argument against him
There's like a shit ton of YT videos with Jordan vs the feminists.

Hahaha, yes and every one of those videos are worshipped by the same incels that think Kathleen Kennedy is going to get fired or that Star Wars Episode 9 is going to be canceled because anybody give a shit about them and their racist, sexist, critiques most actually make fun of and mock.

Peterson himself is another failure for this, non of his rhetoric is new, it sure shit doesn't defeat any feminist argument. Does he in your mind own some equally hysterical women, possibly.

Because I maintain for the most part out of watching enough to know who this assclown is, the garbage he spews and the frail man he is doesn't actually warrant anything beyond a short review.

[Endus]

Again, he has repeated this over and over, he was not suggesting that as a solution, only that it seems to be a matter of fact. His actual solution, the one he pushes, is for the men, the incels themselves, to "man up" and fix their own problems. If most women do not find them attractive, it is not the womens fault, it is theirs.

And his argument makes little sense, since modern Western society is culturally (and legally) monogamous, to begin with. The problem is that these particular individuals are repulsive, so repulsive that women would rather remain unmarried than marry them, because women have the capacity to support themselves these days.

That's the big change since yesteryear. That women won't be forced by circumstance into marriages with repulsive, abusive men they do not wish to marry. That's a good thing. This isn't a case where everything was great before and it's gotten worse. Women were facing far more abuse and lack of independence. At worst, we're trading harm for harm, and gaining in equality and freedom in the exchange. That's a net gain.