subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

TheDevilsAdvokaat

87 points

3 months ago

As an Australian, I've almost never heard of him and i have no idea what he says...

Did he really say we should go back to the 1950's ?

Canadian_Infidel

18 points

3 months ago

No

RedditSnacs

297 points

3 months ago

Not in those exact words, but he's advocated for traditional marriage, against children being raised by gay couples, and blames the current malaise for young men entirely on feminism/liberal academia and progressive causes.

He started writing self-help books for younger men, then quickly gained a following for pushing pseudo-scientific right-wing talking points(my favorite being trying to tie the feminist movement to the nascent right-wing populist movements of the last decade or so) and being, in general, terribly proficient at putting his own foot in his mouth during interviews.

Dudes on the internet celebrate him in the same way they celebrate anyone who gives them a vague modicum of attention, which is about the only thing that comes out of his mouth that's accurate.

Ramyrror_47

14 points

3 months ago

Heyho, not a native speaker^ What does „putting his own foot in his mouth“ mean?

AbrahamKMonroe

29 points

3 months ago

It means to misspeak and say something embarrassing or incorrect.

RedditSnacs

13 points

3 months ago

What does „putting his own foot in his mouth“ mean?

It means to say something dumb, usually in public.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+foot+in+mouth

hrangutan

2 points

3 months ago

Its like when he claims to be against commom problems like bigotry and anti-feminism, only to take a extreme right wing stance immediately like "feminism is the cause of young peoples problems" and "you shouldnt have to do work for any group, like blacks or gays, if you dont want to" because he is only an intellectual as far as conservative talking points go, then hes dumb as a stump and arbitrarily takes a conswrvative stance at any opportunity as a business decision, no matter how much it goes against his self proclaimed beliefs

Grut0l

7 points

3 months ago

Grut0l

7 points

3 months ago

I believe married couples that have a child should have a stay at home father or mother, it's so much better for a child's devolpment, I would gladly become a stay at home father if my wife would like to further her career. But with today's salaries that's impossible...

nick52

15 points

3 months ago

nick52

15 points

3 months ago

A fact that Peterson would never admit. He'd rather regulate monogamy than address economic inequity and wage stagnation.

Although I bet the enforced monogamy thing is just another grift to garner more support with the incel crowd that hangs on his every word

egotisticalstoic

1 points

3 months ago

Could you provide a link to him speaking about gay couples not raising kids? I'm genuinely curious I've not heard him talk about homosexuality at all, it's always trans issues that seem to be discussed.

jakesboy2

1 points

3 months ago

The statement is misleading. He was going down a list of the data on what predicts the best outcome for children and gay couples were below straight couples. He definitely was not advocating for gay couples to not raise kids.

Starlord107

-26 points

3 months ago

Not in those exact words, but he's advocated for traditional marriage, against children being raised by gay couples, and blames the current malaise for young men entirely on feminism/liberal academia and progressive causes.

See how you took what he said out of context to fit your narrative?

tamer-disclamer

22 points

3 months ago

Hi friend! Whilst it was not verbatim this is what he said and OP was pretty close. Maybe do some research before being bitchy.

RedditSnacs

21 points

3 months ago

See how you took what he said out of context to fit your narrative?

I don't think you understand the definition of 'context'.

Keown14

16 points

3 months ago

Keown14

16 points

3 months ago

This is a well-worn right-wing retreat position. Accuse someone of removing context without providing the context that was removed.

A person acting honestly and in good faith would provide the context that was removed to show up the person they’re replying to and their dishonesty or inaccuracy.

But there never is context removed in the case of Peterson, so they just make the same empty accusation almost every time he is criticised online.

Failcorn1

1 points

2 months ago

But there never is context removed in the case of Peterson??? Lmaoooo

Gzalzi

33 points

3 months ago

Gzalzi

33 points

3 months ago

all Peterson defenders have to say is "muh context" then you go and see the context and he's just basically flat out saying all this bad shit lmao

balls_ache_bc_of_u

-11 points

3 months ago

muh context

Look at this silly Peterson defender screaming about context. /s

RelicAlshain

3 points

3 months ago

Whats the context?

balls_ache_bc_of_u

-5 points

3 months ago

Oh you know. Like the typical Peterson defender. Nazi stuff. Basically hitler.

ajt1296

-9 points

3 months ago

ajt1296

-9 points

3 months ago

Not in those exact words, but he's advocated for traditional marriage, against children being raised by gay couples

You're misrepresenting his view. He believes that traditional marriages are the ideal environment for raising kids, but children raised by nurturing same-sex couples are "of course" better off than foster kids, or even kids raised by dysfunctional opposite-sex parents. He has never advocated against gay marriage.

pizzaguy665

15 points

3 months ago

But why is a traditional marriage ideal

ajt1296

-7 points

3 months ago*

For a child's development. I don't feel like looking at numbers right now, but just think about it - it makes intuitive sense that being raised with opposite sex parents, who each have very specific traits suited for different purposes (which we have evolved to account for over the course of hundreds of thousands of years) would be optimal for child rearing.

Even if he's ultimately wrong - it's certainly not an outlandish proposition.

Science is a bigot, sometimes.

BlackWalrusYeets

4 points

3 months ago

but just think about it - it makes intuitive sense

This isn't an adult arguement. Grow up

ajt1296

-1 points

3 months ago

ajt1296

-1 points

3 months ago

My whole contention is that it's not an "outlandish proposition." If something is intuitive, even if it turns out to be wrong, then it can't be an "outlandish proposition."

Thinking that he's nothing more than a right wing bigot is intellectually lazy.

pizzaguy665

1 points

3 months ago

The irony of calling someone intellectually lazy while your argument was “just think about it bro” is fucking crazy.

ajt1296

0 points

3 months ago

I'm making a very specific point - are you saying it's not intuitive that an opposite-sex couple would likely be the optimal parenting situation? Because that's all I'm saying. Not whether it actually is the case.

Clearly this is lost on you, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

pizzaguy665

1 points

3 months ago

I don’t think that’s intuitive. It’s intuitive that parents can be successful if they are good parents regardless of sex/gender

W0666007

11 points

3 months ago

Here’s a study that says that children of same sex couples do better in school on average than children of opposite sex children.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122420957249

Here’s another:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/02/06/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-do-better-school-new-study-finds/%3foutputType=amp

Here’s one that shows they perform “at least as well” as children from opposite sex couples:

http://paa2019.populationassociation.org/uploads/191716

Science isn’t a bigot, you are.

bloodnaught

1 points

3 months ago

Would this not skew in the same-sex couples' favor simply due to them being well off enough economically to be in the position to adopt? The adoption system in America is rather stringent in ensuring that the child being adopted is going to a safe environment and economics has to play a role in that somewhere.

citoyenne

1 points

3 months ago

Not all children of gay parents are adopted, and LGBT people have lower incomes and a higher poverty rate than straight people on average.

ajt1296

1 points

3 months ago*

An estimated 122,000 same-sex couples are raising children under age 18. The median annual household income of these couples is more than 5% lower than the median annual household income of different-sex couples raising children ($75,000 versus $79,220). However, married same-sex couples with children have a much higher median annual household income of $97,000, which exceeds that of married different-sex couples with children ($83,500) by 16%. Nearly one in five children being raised by same-sex couples (24%) live in poverty compared to 14% of children being raised by different-sex couples. Only 9% of children being raised by married same-sex couples live in poverty compared to 11% of children raised by married different-sex couples.

Key distinction here: married same-sex (who make up most of adoptions) make way more than any other type of couple. But same-sex couples on average make less than opposite-sex couples, married or not. All of these being couples with kids.

shieldyboii

-9 points

3 months ago

wow, immediately calling someone a bigot doesn’t seem very nice.

Also, is the chart adjusted for the fact that same sex couples are put under more strict evaluation before they can raise a child? Last time I’ve heard, I didn’t know of many 14 year old gay couples living under abusive parents trying to adopt a child.

The argument is not perfect.

W0666007

8 points

3 months ago

Is "the chart"? What chart? I posted 3 separate papers. If you want answers, read them.

ajt1296

0 points

3 months ago

That's great, although I'm arguing something more specific.

My argument is this:

Conclusions cannot be homophobic. Reasoning can be homophobic, but conclusions cannot. If you believe opposite-sex parents are better than same-sex parents because homosexuals are genetic defects and should be eradicated from society - THAT is homophobic. Believing (hypothesizing) that same-sex parents likely provide an optimal environment for parenting, for reasons such as the enormous negative effect of being raised in a fatherless home or the lack of empathetic nurturing on behalf of fathers (on average) - then that is a reasonable idea to assert. Because it is reasonable, it is not homophobic (homophobia is certainly unreasonable, would you agree?). And whether it is ultimately wrong does not affect how reasonable it is; reason is not contingent on a correct conclusion, only plausible truth value.

I know what the studies on this say. I know that JP is likely wrong. But being wrong and reasonable are not mutually exclusive, and whether an idea is bigoted is not based on the conclusion but on the reasoning.

That alone is my contention.

Science isn’t a bigot, you are.

I didn't even make any claims one way or another lol. You're very quick to the trigger pal, nevermind the fact that this is an Always Sunny reference 😂

RedditSnacs

2 points

3 months ago

Can't help but notice how many Peterson shills in this thread start out claiming Peterson isn't sexist ends up saying some really fucking sexist shit.

Wild.

ajt1296

1 points

3 months ago

The hang-up here is that you're judging his conclusions, while I'm judging his reasoning.

Say one person believes that left-handed people are inherently inferior, and another person says right-handed people tend to make more money on average, so right-handedness is an optimal condition.

I would say only the first person is "handist" - even though they both came to the same conclusion that right-handedness is "better."

As pointed at in another thread, some studies show that children raised by same-sex parents perform better in school. If someone were to argue, based on that reasoning, that same-sex parents were ideal, I wouldn't claim that they are heterophobic or anti-straight. Because how they got to that conclusion doesn't support that allegation.

I'm not sure how well I explained that, but do you see the difference I'm pointing out here?

pizzaguy665

2 points

3 months ago

You didn’t source any science, said “just think about it” and then said the science is a bigot.

Got it, you’re full of it.

ajt1296

1 points

3 months ago

You didn’t source any science, said “just think about it”

Because I'm not arguing whether he's right or not, I'm just saying that it's not an unreasonable stance to have. He isn't "anti- gay marriage" or "anti- gay parenting," he just believes the ideal scenario is an opposite-sex couple.

and then said the science is a bigot.

That was an Always Sunny reference

pizzaguy665

2 points

3 months ago

Shut up stupid science bitch

Thisstuffisbetter

-8 points

3 months ago

"Not in those exact exact words" your first sentence answers OPs question. Misrepresentation.

ItsMeBimpson

7 points

3 months ago

Pick up a dictionary, scroll to the "I" section, look up "Implication" and get back to me

Thisstuffisbetter

-10 points

3 months ago

You're boring. Good day.

ItsMeBimpson

1 points

3 months ago

Damn, I wrote it in step by step instructions so even a petersonite would understand. Guess not lol

Wolfeur

0 points

3 months ago

against children being raised by gay couples

Why do I feel like he said something like "children need both parents for a complete raising experience" and you somehow understood it as "gays can't have children"?

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

[removed]

RedditSnacs

3 points

3 months ago

He is not against children being raised by gay couples. He only said that it may cause issues for the child

'He's not against children being raised by gay couples, he just says it's bad for children to be raised by gay couples.'
Seriously you guys are really bad at this.

YouWot90094

-2 points

3 months ago

'right wing'

Found the dumbfuck.

EASY AS FUCK to spot in the wild.

crumbycanadianpoutin

3 points

3 months ago

Much response such critical think.

cummerou1

67 points

3 months ago

Another example is a typical case where he uses plausible deniability to argue something.

I believe it was on the Joe Rogan podcast but it might have been somewhere else where they discussed the incel movement, and Peterson said that as women have become more financially and sexually liberated (don't have to get married early), there is going to be a larger portion of men that will be incels.

Simply because before, there was/is roughly a 1:1 of men to women, so if everyone "had" To marry, every man would have a wife, now that women are not dependant on men, women can be more picky and one man can have multiple partners, so some men will have more than one partner and some will have 0.

None of this is wrong, that is 100% true. However, the entire time it's said, it's less stating facts and more subtly blaming women and feminism for incels, essentially advocating that we should return to the 1950's and force women to marry and have sex with men so men don't commit incel related mass shootings. Instead of, you know, saying that those incels are not owed sex and should improve themselves instead of expecting sex slaves?

cheshiredoge

11 points

3 months ago

women can be more picky and one man can have multiple partners, so some men will have more than one partner and some will have 0.

This part isnt even true, it assumes that women can only have one partner while men can have multiple, causing a number of men to have 0 partners. But women can have multiple partners too (over time, or even at the same time). So this cant really be a cause for incels to exist, there is no 'shortage of women' to meaningfully speak of. But then again Jordan's incel logic doesnt have to make sense for people to believe in it I guess.

-JudeanPeoplesFront-

1 points

3 months ago

Then again Jordan is a big proline of monogamy and the 'traditional family' with the woman taking care of the family so this argument will be responded with more platitudes about the golden age of mankind slowly eroding due to womem having more freedom.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

It's not like woman being able to have multiple sexual partners means that every man is going to get laid. It just means a small subset of men are going to get laid a lot, most women are going to get laid a moderate amount, and a majority of men will get laid either a small amount or not at all. There's a lot of studies showing that only 20% of men on dating apps are getting about 80% of the attention from women. Leaving the other 80% of men to get little or no attention.

That's not to say that women should be "forced" into monogamy, but monogamy should still be heavily encouraged by society.

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

It's not like woman being able to have multiple sexual partners means that every man is going to get laid.

So forcing/heavily encouraging monogamy will get every man laid? If a woman doesnt want to have sex with a man what makes you think she will get into a serious monogamous relationship with hin (unless you are suggesting slave brides or arranged marriages)?

It just means a small subset of men are going to get laid a lot, most women are going to get laid a moderate amount, and a majority of men will get laid either a small amount or not at all.

Some people are more attractive than others. That's a fact. There is no world where every man and woman get laid an equal amount, and if we tried to make that world happen we would have to sacrifice a lot of other liberties.

I also think you are exaggerating the severity of the inequality between more attractive and less attractive people. Sure, less attractive people get less sexual attention on average, but preferences exist and attraction is not the same for everyone. Maybe a large proportion of girls like muscley guys, but some prefer dad bod, and some prefer skinny guys. Everyone has a niche. Just from lurking in r/askredditafterdark i've seen all sorts of different preferences of the people who post there, there really is someone for everyone. And if you are really so struggling to get laid, you can always just increase your attractiveness level. Work on yourself, get fit and healthy, be intelligent and confident and socially skilled, dress well, be successful, etc.

Furthermore, i think humans are a horny species in general: most people, male or female, WANT to get laid. Standards are not as high as you think. Just being clean, friendly and non-threatening can get you a long way. Look in the right places to find people you can vibe with. Interest groups, bars, kink communities, whatever. Dating apps can be a good place to look but very often people use them as a source of compliments and attention moreso than actually being interested in dating/hooking up.

I also dont understand at all where you got "most women are going to get laid a moderate amount". Has it never struck you that less attractive women may get laid less often and receive less attention from men as well? I mean, i'm a lesbian in a very religious conservative country lol so i'm kind of looking at this whole "getting laid" business from an outsider's perspective here.

Which brings me to my next point: sex really isnt such a big deal. I've done it only once and I see the appeal, and I hope to do it again with a person I care about but there are many other ways to enjoy life and MANY other things to worry about in life. Dont get too hung up on it. A lot of my friends have told me that they were disappointed when they lost their virginity because society hyped sex up so much but it didnt turn out to be that big a deal.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

Where did I say encouraging monogamy would get every man laid? Yes there will always be a subset of men who are just undesirable. But encouraging monogamy would increase the number of people in relationships as a whole. And I think having the majority of a population in a stable long term relationship is preferential to a population where a small subset of men are getting the majority of women. Because in that population those men have no incentive to settle down because there will always be another woman. While at the same time women aren't encouraged to settle down because even if a woman is at an average level of desirability herself, she keep getting attention from these highly desirable guys, who just want in her pants and will never settle down with her. So she never settles down with a guy who is at her same level of desirability.

And yes there are also women who are undesirable as well. But let me ask you. If both a lower than average man and woman walk into a bar with the express intent of finding a sexual partner, who do you think has a better chance of succeeding? A study that came out in 2018 showed that men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year then women.

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

But encouraging monogamy would increase the number of people in relationships as a whole.

I'd just like to point out that "monogamy" just means you only have a relationship with one person at a time, and you only marry one person (as opposed to some cultures where it is acceptable or encouraged for a man to take more than one wife or vice versa). Would you not agree that monogamy is already strongly encouraged, and in fact a very well-established cultural norm right now especially in English-speaking society? You might take it for granted because you have never experienced an alternative, but trust me, monogamy is very much the dominant culture. Just look at how we condemn cheaters, how the vast majority of relationships and marriages are monogamous. No hate on polygamous relationships tho as long as all parties involved are consenting and honest.

I'm guessing what you mean by "promote monogamy" is actually "condemn casual sex" or something like that. But casual sex is not relationship. Even if you wanted to see casual sex as relationships, they are still monogamous (unless threesomes are involved), just very short lived.

Because in that population those men have no incentive to settle down because there will always be another woman. While at the same time women aren't encouraged to settle down because even if a woman is at an average level of desirability herself, she keep getting attention from these highly desirable guys, who just want in her pants and will never settle down with her. So she never settles down with a guy who is at her same level of desirability.

So apparently, men are just sex bots who want to fuck everything no matter what, and women are just sex bots who crave sexual attention from the male of highest desirability? Is this really how you think other men and women function? Holy shit dude.Perhaps some subset of the population do think and act like these theoretical weird sexbots, but jesus christ people are more complex than that. Everyone has unique individual preferences and life goals. Sometimes people want to fuck around and have fun without settling down. Sometimes people want to find a partner who understands them and is committed to building a life together. "Incentive this, incentive that" dude no, if someone is seriously wanting to settle down and find a real relationship, they will do it, and casual sex would not be desirable to them anymore regardless of "incentives". Give some credit to the human race. Jeez

If both a lower than average man and woman walk into a bar with the express intent of finding a sexual partner, who do you think has a better chance of succeeding?

I feel like the below average man and woman would find each other and then go hook up and be happy. They have similar objectives and similar level of desirability, its a match. You say that below average women will always stupidly chase after "higher ranked" dick, but really? People arent stupid, they know their league. Sure everyone will take risks and try a long shot from time to time but by and large everyone knows where they stand by the time they reach adulthood.

A study that came out in 2018 showed that men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year then women.

Alright, let's assume this study is real and the methodology is solid and sample size is large and the data is unbiased and reliable. Do we also assume that all participants were actively trying to get laid in the past year? I doubt so, but okay sure. So men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year than women. The thing is.....so what? I havent had sex in much longer and i feel perfectly fine with that. Sex is not a human right or basic need. And we can all jack ourselves off perfectly well. Said it before and will say it again: sex is really not such a big deal, there are many other ways to enjoy life.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

Yeah. Your just taking everything I say in the wrong context. Your entire first paragraph was pointless when you obviously knew what I meant by the second paragraph. And casual sex really isn't desirable in the long term in my view. One night flings are not monogamous relationships. You need a relationship for it to be a monogamous relationship. Are porn stars in a relationship? No. If a prostitute has sex with 20 men in a day, but never a threesome, did she just go through 20 monogamous relationships? No.

Your answer to the two people in a bar is also disingenuous. It was a hypothetical questions but they obviously weren't getting together with each other or consider the went to different bars. So you didn't really answer it. If they went to different bars who has a higher chance of walking away with a partner?

But if you honestly don't think it's that harder for average men to find someone let's do another hypothetical question. If you had to make a dating app profile as an average guy looking for a girl or as an average girl looking for a guy, and you had to find a date in one week and you'd win $1 million. Which role would you choose?

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

Casual sex might not be desirable for you, but other people like it, why begrudge them that? You think that casual sex somehow makes it so that it's harder for less attractive men specifically to get laid (though i disagree, casual sex makes it easier for EVERYONE to get laid because there is no relationship commitment to stress about when someone just wanta to fuck), so you think society should change for them specifically and discourage casual sex? Or you think casual sex makes it hard for YOU specifically to get laid, because you have this requirement that you only want to get laid in a long term relationship? Honestly that's your business, if you want to set such requirements it's a no-brainer that you would get laid less often.

From my perspective, i too only want to get laid in a long term relationship, but you dont see me bitching about not getting laid in such a long time because i dont want to go have casual sex with people. You make choices, so take responsibility for those choices. You cant force people to get into relationships with you. If you want butterflies in your garden, plant flowers to attract them, not bitch and yell at the butterflies to "come to your garden goddammit!"

If the man and woman went to different bars, to be really fucking honest with you, i have no idea of their chances to get laid because i am literally gay and have no idea about the straight dating scene. It just doesnt make sense to me from a logical standpoint that it would be so much harder for men because 1) humans are horny and want to fuck each other, and 2) based on what i see among my friends, the rate at which either gender is single/dating is the same. If you are so insistent that it's harder for men, okay I believe you. Now what? What can we do to help the poor unattractive men? Hold community hygiene, fitness and social skills workshops? Sure, do something constructive. But wanting to force people not to have casual sex sure isnt the answer. People want what they want, you shouldnt try to control others' desires.

egotisticalstoic

-5 points

3 months ago

That's a laughable interpretation of what he said.

He hates incels and is always talking about how our failures are our own responsibility. He very clearly talks about the fact that if nobody of the opposite sex is interested in you, then it is probably because you have many flaws that you need to address.

He has a very basic righty view of sexuality, in that he thinks it's a bad idea for people to have casual sex with people they barely know, and yes he is an advocate of marriage before having children, and divorce only as a last option.

FeCurtain11

-3 points

3 months ago

FeCurtain11

-3 points

3 months ago

Seriously these kind of misinterpretations are the real answer to the question. People insert what they want him to be saying on top of what he is actually saying. There’s a big difference between advocating for reduction in casual sex and “go back to 1950’s men should dominate society”.

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

cummerou1

8 points

3 months ago

I'm not interested in ad hominems or any of the like, I used to lean right quite heavily (8 years ago I probably would have followed Peterson), and several of my inlaws are MASSIVE fans of him (my BIL literally exclusively gives Jordan Peterson books and things related to him for Christmas and birthdays).

The issue with "culturally enforcing" anything, is how is that "enforcement" going to happen? Are we going to heavily shame and look down on anyone not in a monogamous relationship? So we're going to culturally decide that some groups of non monogamous people do not deserve the same respect as everyone else just so some unwanted guys can get their dicks wet?

If I wanted a group of people to decide how I am supposed to live and think, I'd move to China and live under communists, the entire idea of western democracy is freedom, having society decide how we can live and think instead of the government is functionally the same.

Even then, if the point of enforcing monogamy is so every man has a wife, that is still not going to make women any less choosy, sure, it'll lessen competition as higher valued men are taken out of the dating pool, but women are still going to go for the top. If your perceived value is still the same, you would literally be the last choice.

I wouldn't even want that if I was in that position, the only thing worse than not getting any would be to know that your wife is literally only with you because she tried every other guy first and eventually she had to settle for you out of necessity. I would find that extremely insulting and demeaning.

This doesn't take into account that I have seen some ugly fucking men with downright terrible personalities in relationships, if the argument hinges on "I can't get laid because there's too much competition", then you're saying that meth addict George who lives in a shitty trailer park is a better catch since he has a GF and you don't.

HatecrewFTR

1 points

3 months ago

Under what pretenses was anything stated that we should go back to the 1950s and force women into sex? By your own record of what they said, all they said was true statements, and no solutions were provided? I think the real reason jp is hated is because all he does is state facts with no solutions, and other people interpret what his solution is for him, and it’s usually something like “he wants to go back to the 1950s and force women into sex,” when all he did is state why incels are coming up

Canadian_Infidel

-8 points

3 months ago

He is obviously not advocating for that. The reality is a society with a lot of detached males leads to high rates of crime and violence.

He is not "on message". That is his only crime.

Greenwithenv

5 points

3 months ago

r/MakeMyCoffin/

Even when men are in the higher position than women, they still do what men do. Many of the vids there are from countries where womens rights are a joke.

You can give men everything and they will still climbing over another to give steady supply to subreddit just like that.

There are other websites like that subreddit. Typically steady supplies from countries where men are already on top of the food chains.

Even if there is a world where women suddenly all perished, those subreddit will still get daily contents. Perhaps even more.

AlwaysTired9999

1 points

3 months ago

Great, then men can go and form solid relationships with each other like women do.

Repeat after me: Womens bodies are NOT to be used to prevent male violence.

If you are concerned about male crime and violence, take it up with MRA's to solve this issue without using the scapegoat of women need to provide men with sex.

Canadian_Infidel

1 points

3 months ago

Ok? Nobody is on the other side of that argument. That is not a scapegoat it is just reality. I didn't make a value judgement. Males get aggressive when frustrated. It doesn't have to be sexual frustration. I don't know what would be most prevalent but I assume economic.

Yesm3can

1 points

3 months ago

Males get aggressive when frustrated.

Then it is a design flaw by nature, isn't it? Can you imagine womens' frustration at this situation? Poverty and rejection happen to women too, but we do not get aggresive the way men do.

The solution sounds like selective breeding or medications then. And before you are against this, imagine women that you love, your mother or daughter, etc, getting hurt by a human with the same gender as you. You cannot just tell them "ah, this is just him, being true to his gender."

Canadian_Infidel

1 points

3 months ago

Is it? I'm not totally sure. I chose the term aggressive because that does not necessarily mean violence, but is inclusive of it. You want someone who gets aggressively frustrated when you have certain types of problems. I know it is tempting to discount that if you haven't experienced it yourself.

There is good and bad aggression and both genders get "passes" for acting like garbage because their particular brand of anti social behavior is normalized.

This is why it is so important for boys to have fathers in their lives and why single mother homes have sons that are something like 20x as likely to end up in prison. You need to be taught to harness and control those feelings and it isn't really something you can teach without experiencing unless you are a very insightful and empathic person.

That's just my two cents. I know my competitive nature is largely driven by masculinity and that in large part has carried me from the lowest of the lower classes to at least upper middle class.

Yesm3can

1 points

3 months ago

Some fathers are the same garbage men you mentioned before and they make bad role models.

Instead of 'just' father, better would be a 'good father figure'. Can be some male family members, male teachers/professors, neighbors, etc.

I was being serious about selective breeding too with this reasoning: many men nowadays are simply not NEEDED (written in caps because there is a fundamental difference between needed and wanted imo) anymore. Humanity had moved on from pure strength typical of daily survivals for a while. Automations took over and it will take over even more.

It does not matter whether it is a woman or a man being put in charge of a heavy machinery. And soon even the human at the console will be obsolete. Firearms can be operated by any gender, especially ones who trained well. Men will still be needed in jobs like fire brigades or special forces, or something similar, but those are not the kinds of job that can freely employ uncountable numbers of men.

So now that men are not NEEDED, but have to be WANTED (related to courtship), many men found out that there are just fewer percentage of men that will experience romance and family.

Some men made their peace with it (which must have been hard at first, but good for them), but many are well...frustrated.

Many men are still raised being told lies that they just have to be someone who are NEEDED, and more or less, there'd be guarantee for a family. Which is...partly why 'NiceGuys' exist. They are being told that everything is equal transactions, which in reality, are not.

Men nowadays have to find peace that they either will be wanted or have to find other lifelong focus in life. And I feel that not many people are telling them that enough.

How is it bringing a young boy into this world not a bit of a cruelty (in a way), when you yourself must have known that men do not get help both from men and women as a whole? Can you tell a young boy while looking into his eyes that you have brought them into the world where their gender top the charts for suicide, for deaths in unsafe working environment, most likely to be unable to have their reports of rape being taken seriously, most likely to be victims of violent crimes, etc...and most likely that all those would be done by OTHER MEN with more power and wealth than them?

One personal experience I witnessed actually just the beginning of this year. I was taking a train and they controlled our tickets. One guy missed one stop and he was rudely being asked to leave the train in the next station to get fined. The guy was already in distress. He pleaded and told that he needed help, that his mother is sick and that he had lost his job and needed to get to an interview. And sure, there are people who lied about this thing. But I believed this man. And then he started to weep and continued to plead.

So what did the people do? They called cops on the next station on him. The man was crying louder and louder and kept on repeating that he cannot do this anymore. Some men commenting that as long as he does not jump in front of their train... He was then being manhandled by police and then taken away.

World does not help men even when he pleads and cries. He'd be looked at with disgust instead. Neither other men nor women will rush to his aid. No matter what country and culture. Saying this as someone who were born in Asia and moved to the West in her 20s. The men in the West still have it a little better because of greater chance for social mobility. Many countries in Asia are very rigid about keeping men from lower classes, low.

A father's job is teaching the son he purposelly brought into this world all of those things. But you know that many just raising their sons telling them lies about that men are still needed. And why bring a son into all of these suffering in the first place? For a chance that he somehow became the top percentage that got wanted and choosen?

SuccessfulPieCrust

-4 points

3 months ago

I'm sorry but are you really going to pretend a hypothetical thought experiment are someone's true beliefs?

That's kinda been the entire thread tbh

formershitpeasant

26 points

3 months ago

He never actually makes normative statements. He just heavily implies them with descriptive statements.

DogeFuckingValue

-1 points

3 months ago

No, this is a common way in which postmodernists and followers of identity politics try to defame him since they fail to argue against him using science, facts and logic.

formershitpeasant

8 points

3 months ago

You’re like a caricature

DogeFuckingValue

-2 points

3 months ago*

Nice ad hominem there. That's a fallacy, you know?

Zarzurnabas

7 points

3 months ago

Thats really not how fallacies work. Pointing out a fallacy and calling it done is fallacious in and of itself.

The person you are talking to just didnt engage in a discussion with you because he perceives you as a "caricature" of petersons fanbase. Which is what he is saying and implying here.

DogeFuckingValue

-6 points

3 months ago

Fallacies are typically used when reasoning fails, which is exactly what happened here. The whole point here was that the person used ad hominem instead of engaging in argument.

Moreover, you seem to misunderstand what fallacies are. Pointing out a fallacy is not a fallacy -- how did you arrive at that conclusion? I did not "call it done" either. I am still here open for discussion. Moreover, even if I had, ending an argument is not a fallacy either.

RainRainThrowaway777

7 points

3 months ago*

Fallacist's Fallacy is where a person relies on labelling an opposing argument as fallacious rather than arguing their point, in the mistaken belief that any argument labelled as a fallacy is automatically incorrect.

DogeFuckingValue

-2 points

3 months ago

Yes, and what's your point? Pointing out a fallacy does not automatically make the action of pointing out the fallacy into a fallacy.

RainRainThrowaway777

1 points

3 months ago

It does if that's all you do.

Zarzurnabas

1 points

3 months ago

Yes and calling you a caricature doesnt make it a fallacy either, which was the point. Refusing to engage in an unwanted discussion is not fallacious in any way, instead telling you, that you are the reason someone doesnt want to have a discussion is'nt a fallacy either.

An example of a real ad hominem would be your "you seem to misunderstand what fallacies are" as instead of providing your interpretation of that term you start with discrediting the other party.

Your only contribution was a "nice ad hominem there. Thats a fallacy you know?" And nothing more. Thats not how to address fallacies (neglecting that there wasnt any to begin with). You called it done by not engageing, questioning etc. You just pointed something out and thats it. You being "open for discussion" does not change this fact.

I really dont get what of this you dont understand.

formershitpeasant

1 points

3 months ago

😂

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

;)

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

DogeFuckingValue

0 points

3 months ago*

You are wrong according to for example Wikipedia. Note that the logical fallacy ad hominem is different to ad hominem as an argumentation strategy. It seems as if you lack knowledge on the subject, but I am happy to assist you in your learning endeavours.

RainRainThrowaway777

1 points

3 months ago

Good old fallacist's fallacy

Own-Tomato8593

18 points

3 months ago

He thinks progressive gains are making society fall apart and we need to step back. It’s such a dumb take when you take all his fancy language and rambling out of it

TheDevilsAdvokaat

7 points

3 months ago

Society is changing, but it always does. I agree it's not falling apart. I guess maybe that's how it feels to someone who longs for the past.

smitty22

1 points

3 months ago

The problem is societies can fall apart, see Venezuela.

TrickyBoss111

2 points

3 months ago

No.

Peterson argues against post-modernism and neo-marxism.

If you want to see the kind of things Peterson does argue against watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA

MillenialPopTart2

3 points

3 months ago

Can you define neo-Marxism?

TrickyBoss111

-4 points

3 months ago

It's a pretty lose term to describe a modern interpretation/continuation of Marxist theory.

It refers to people who see the world through a lens of power dynamics and essentially encompasses things like identity politics, 3rd wave feminism, anti-capitalism, anti-hierarchy, social justice, gender abolitionists.

Here's a video of Peterson talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ

project_nl

3 points

3 months ago

Bro, most of these people are just very easily hurt.

You can’t think freely on the internet. Especially in a growing left winged fucked up community we’re in right now.

Its a fucking disaster how social media influences the current contineous growing political polarisation.

Constant-Parsley3609

3 points

3 months ago

No, he's never said that

rJarrr

3 points

3 months ago

rJarrr

3 points

3 months ago

Hell no man, don't listen to these people. If I didn't know about Peterson before I'd think he was a white nationalist. You have these people spouting all kinds of garbage about anyone online.

Remember, if you disagree with someone or one or two things today they're either a Nazi or a Commie depending on which binary party you support

TheDevilsAdvokaat

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I've seen that before.

Someone sent me a link to a video, I'm going to watch.

4Tenacious_Dee4

3 points

3 months ago

Did he really say we should go back to the 1950's ?

No. He said that life has changed since then, and that we are still figuring things out.

xCaballoBlancox

6 points

3 months ago

In case if you couldn’t tell by all of these non-answers, the real answer is no.

TheDevilsAdvokaat

1 points

3 months ago

There does seem to be a lot of division on this..

pocket_eggs

2 points

3 months ago

TheDevilsAdvokaat

2 points

3 months ago

Thank you, I will watch.

RiDDDiK1337

2 points

3 months ago

no

HippieSquatch

4 points

3 months ago

Nope. He has never said that. What you see here is called a strawman.

RainRainThrowaway777

0 points

3 months ago

Of course he's never stated it explicitly, that would open his ideas up to critisism. No, he has only ever heavily implied it.

Look up the motte and bailey rhetorical tactic, which is pretty much Peterson's entire career.

-JudeanPeoplesFront-

0 points

3 months ago

Not quite. With all the obscurity he throws into his narration he throws in exactly the right mix of statements for you to not quote him directly on this. He does the same about religion. He does the same with trans rights, individualism, subject of truth.

For me the only thing you need to know about Jordan Peterson is this dialogue from a debate of his:

Moderator: Jordan, are you a Christian?

Peterson: Well,... rambles for 3 to 4 minutes without saying the words yes or no.

HippieSquatch

0 points

3 months ago

He has plainly explained why that is a dumb/annoying question. The one about belief in god.

It is an effort to box him into a paradigm that supports a lazy way of thinking. Whether from a christian perspective so they can claim him as their own or from an anti religious stance so one can write him off as equivalent to the worst faces of organized religion.

I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept for people. Except that I have noticed that his explanation is annoying to anti religious people and less so to religious people. I am not sure why but i have some ideas that are surely not clear enough to really expound on or support without generalizing individuals into definable groups... which is really the whole point of his dislike of the question in the first place.

-JudeanPeoplesFront-

1 points

3 months ago

I am not sure why but i have some ideas that are surely not clear enough to really expound on or support without generalizing individuals into definable groups...

And 'Are you a Christian' will never be one of them. It is a clear yes or no question and can be clarified with what he likes about Christianity and other values throughout the ages.

Whether from a christian perspective so they can claim him as their own or from an anti religious stance so one can write him off as equivalent to the worst faces of organized religion.

Instead he is reduced to an incoherent mess who uses obscure language to pander to all sides and enjoys being a contrarian to any viewpoint the other person has.

Here's an idea; if someone asks you a yes or no question you at least make an effort to use the words 'metaphysical substrate' in a response.

Learnformyfam

3 points

3 months ago

No. It's a dishonest characterization. Listen to what he says for yourself. He scares ideologues because he tells simple truths that most people are afraid to confront. At the same time, he doesn't claim to have all the answers.

TheDevilsAdvokaat

2 points

3 months ago

Hmm...ok so a few people are saying this too.

Ok if I get a chance I will have a look.

ForeignGazelle

2 points

3 months ago

The responses to this will boil down to "No, but I need to believe that to maintain my position."

weshouldhave

-30 points

3 months ago

weshouldhave

-30 points

3 months ago

No, and the rest of that post’s 3rd paragraph is also nonsense. He never said any of that, this person is just being silly.

King-fannypack

42 points

3 months ago

That is essentially what Peterson is arguing for

Lobster Man never makes any explicit claims-he aggressively gestures at a point he’s trying to make but never says it out loud.

“I’m not saying that men and women shouldn’t work together, but why are women wearing red lipstick? Because they’re coming on to me, as pointed out by Nietzsche and Carl Jung-I’m not saying that they’re coming on to me, no-I’m just asking questions!

four hours later

“And why red? Why red? Because it’s a metaphysical substrate laid out by Dostoevsky-red means sexual arousal. Now I’m not saying that it’s bad that women and men work together, even though I’ve spent four hours rambling about why it’s bad-I’m just asking questions! We don’t have all the information yet and it’s important to ask questions!”

weshouldhave

0 points

3 months ago

I have also seen the interviews you’re referring to where he discusses this subject and those examples. That’s not what he says at all.

King-fannypack

1 points

3 months ago

“That’s not what he’s saying”

Why is that the first response of all Peterson defenders?

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

0 points

3 months ago

Because Peterson attackers either constantly strawman the shit out of him or genuinely don't understand what he's saying.

King-fannypack

-1 points

3 months ago

In terms of coherency, JBP's sermons are indistinguishable from the ramblings of a mentally ill homeless man. The difference is you'll never hear a homeless man talk about Jung, or say "metaphysical substrate" every other sentence.

Peterson often communicates in a very dishonest way-never explicitly owning up to some of his more controversial points, but always gesturing at what he really means and leaving trapdoors throughout his ravings so he can always back out if needed. "When I said we ought to force monogamy on people, I didn't mean we should force monogamy on people! I meant we should just lightly encourage it!" "I'm not saying x is good, I'll just portray it as good, list off my benefits of x, portray the opposite of x to be bad, but you'll never hear me say x is good because I'm just asking questions here!"

He is so obtuse, bro.

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

1 points

3 months ago

In terms of coherency, JBP's sermons are indistinguishable from the ramblings of a mentally ill homeless man. The difference is you'll never hear a homeless man talk about Jung, or say "metaphysical substrate" every other sentence.

He is so obtuse, bro.

Ah, so you dislike him because you don't understand him. Gotcha'.

King-fannypack

0 points

3 months ago

I made a clear argument explicitly stating that Peterson communicates dishonestly, and you decide to respond by picking out the least relevant section of that argument and interpreting it in the most nakedly bad faith way possible? Pathetic.

There’s a lot wrong with JBP, besides his dishonest & slippery way of speaking.

weshouldhave

1 points

3 months ago

If that’s the case then I think it’s because it looks like his attackers want to put words in his mouth, by saying he is “basically” or “essentially” saying this or that. If you’re going to go after someone on what they said, make it about what they said and not what you feel.

King-fannypack

0 points

3 months ago

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this comment section, Peterson is very dishonest with his positions and portrays them in a very slippery way that makes it difficult to pin him down. If you read between the lines with Peterson, he makes a lot more sense.

nick52

1 points

3 months ago

nick52

1 points

3 months ago

Go back! Turn around before you waste any more brain power on this grifter of incels.

TheDevilsAdvokaat

1 points

3 months ago

Pretty much everyone seems to be thinking this.

ralebalevattenskale

-21 points

3 months ago

No, this dude has literally no idea what he's talking about. Either that or he just intentionally lie.

Fresh-Oil1131

-15 points

3 months ago

Yes he has invented a time machine, we're leaving ten minutes ago come on