The intellectual dark web

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are clear examples of Marxist politics in modern goverments. They inevitably end badly. There is no large scale example in modern history of a Christian theocracy - not even close, in spite of obvious pandering to Christians throughout the 20th century. Moreover, Christianity is a religion first, not a political philosophy. It's a bad analogy.

Hmmmm, some might argue that and say the systematic protection of pedophiles within the Catholic church, and other Protestant denominations, is just as egregious. I would also say that the history of the church must be judged, and yes, the crusades and the inquisition are front and center to the crimes of the church. Do we also get to hold the barbaric practices the church employed, including torture and murder, to convert the natives of the Africa, Asia, North America, South America, and Australia, where missionaries were sent to "spread the faith?"

Originally Posted by Cain

You are a challenging person to have conversations with between little snide comments like this and the inability to see your own hypocrisy. I think many people in here have been both critical and supportive of some aspects of Peterson's style and content but I guess you see what you want to see.

Yes, I am, because I think for myself and don't let snake oil salesmen con me. I also don't consider myself a victim, nor like people who play the victim card. So yeah, that's me, and I am difficult to discuss things with because I won't get fooled by a line of bull####, no matter how well it is stated or articulate the person who delivers it. I think you fail to see that you a member of the cult of personality and have bought into his victimhood garbage. Even the slightest critical eye can see through Peterson for what he is. It is not surprising that people are highly skeptical and critical of him. When you put yourself up on the cross like Peterson does, don't be surprised that some comes at you with a hammer and nails.

[CliffFletcher]

Some more observations from the Star article:

He is a biological and Darwinian determinist. Gender, gender roles, dominance hierarchies, parenthood, all firmly entrenched in our biological heritage and not to be toyed with. Years ago when he was living in my house, he said children are little monkeys trying to clamber up the dominance hierarchy and need to be kept in their place. I thought he was being ironic. Apparently, not.

This is where today's academic left betray their ignorance. It's not Darwinian determinism to recognize the influence evolution and innate traits play in behaviour - it's mainstream science. The denial of human nature is not modern thinking - it's ideological dogma. The question isn't nature or nurture, it's how much nature and how much nurture. And a fairly uncontroversial estimate among the scientists who study these things is about 50/50.

The more the ideological left refuse to acknowledge the role of human nature in behaviour, and vilify the research into it, the more they'll come to resemble the religious right in their hostility to modern science.

His view of life, as nasty and brutish, may very well not be an idea, but a description of his experience, which became for him the truth. But this next statement, from Heller’s article, is heartbreaking: “You have an evil heart — like the person next to you,” she quotes him as telling a sold-out crowd. “Kids are not innately good — and neither are you.” This from the loving and attentive father I knew? That makes no sense at all.

It makes perfectly sense. Children are not innately good, they need to be made good by loving parenting.

It may be unfashionable in the circles the author travels in, but the tragic vision of human nature is hardly some fringe belief. It has a long intellectual and cultural pedigree going all the way back to Hobbes. It tends to be associated with conservatives more than liberals, but people like Steven Pinker have demonstrated that it's not at all incompatible with liberalism. You don't need to believe humans are innately good in order to believe a compassionate society is possible. Of course, Pinker gets vilified by the dogmatic left too, so it looks like Peterson is in good company on that front.

That the author of this piece - someone who spent his life in academia - should be either unaware of the tragic vision of human nature, or be shocked by it, is a sad indictment of the intellectual orthodoxy of the modern campus.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by New Era

I think you fail to see that you a member of the cult of personality and have bought into his victimhood garbage.

You presume an awful lot without actually knowing, and unfortunately it seems like this may happen a lot with you.

I've been both critical of peterson and found some of his ideas thoughtful. Not sure how that makes me a member of this "cult" you seem so perturbed about. For clarity, I think he is clearly out of his depth on some topics and flat out disagree on many. I think he also has some genuine and interesting points as well. Does everything have to black and white?

Interesting how quick you are to label and pat yourself on the back for seeing through all the "bull####" though!

[lambeburger]

Jordan Peterson AMA on reddit if anybody cares to check it out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...essor/?sort=qa

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

A quick peek indicates that there are a number of good examples of people who don't agree with Peterson making thoughtful and well-reasoned criticisms of his viewpoint and asking him to respond to them (which he does, satisfactorily or not). That's a breath of damned fresh air right there. Well done Reddit.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A quick peek indicates that there are a number of good examples of people who don't agree with Peterson making thoughtful and well-reasoned criticisms of his viewpoint and asking him to respond to them (which he does, satisfactorily or not). That's a breath of damned fresh air right there. Well done Reddit.

Yeah, I was actually reasonably impressed with people taking him to task for misrepresenting/misunderstanding certain philosophers, etc., and then providing examples of why he was wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yep. User "besttrousers" did a real number on him as well.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Jordan Peterson disagrees with someone: this guy is an idiot.

A Reddittor disagrees with him: what a breath of fresh air.

I enjoy the push back and challenges from all sides, but you guys can be hilarious sometimes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yep. User "besttrousers" did a real number on him as well.

This exchange is also pretty illuminating.

[–]RedHermit1982 336 points 3 hours ago
Mr. Peterson, in the NY Times article, you referred to "enforced monogamy." It was later clarified that you meant "normative monogamy," wherein monogamy is enforced by cultural norms.

So if that's what you meant, then how is that a solution to the problem if normative enforcement of monogamy already exists in our society to a degree?

When we speak of what is to be done about X issue, we are usually speaking in terms of policy. So the question is: What specific policy suggestions do you have that would "enforce monogamy?"

permalinkembedsavereportREPLY

[–]drjordanbpeterson[S] 166 points an hour ago
Cultures tilt worldwide toward the normative enforcement of monogamy, partly to ensure long-term care of children by both sexes, partly to moderate the potential for violence characteristic of young men. There is nothing remotely controversial about this: it's a virtual truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists and has been for a hundred years.

This does not mean

(1) that human beings are reliably (that is, deterministically) monogamous, because they're not, although they tend strongly in that direction;

(2) that enforcement means "at the point of a gun" (so to speak) which is what those who are purposefully and maliciously misinterpreting my comments appear to be suggesting (despite the fact that there is literally no one, with the possible exception of a handful of ISIS terrorists, who would ever or who has ever advocated such a thing). Implicit enforcement (through the application of accepted social norms) is far more effective than explicit enforcement.

If you disapprove of your married son or daughter's extramarital affairs (which I would say is a normative stance), that's enforced monogamy. The fact that polygamy is illegal is enforced monogamy. The fact that you don't want your own romantic partner sleeping around (with very few exceptions) is enforced monogamy. The fact that the majority of single people want to be married (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/) is enforced monogamy, as is the fact that a very large percentage of those who aren't married are still living together with a single partner in a sexual relationship.

What should we enforce if we're so firmly on the side of women if it's not monogamy? (although I would say the same for men and even more importantly for children).

permalinkembedsaveparentreportREPLY

[–]I_was_serious 97 points an hour ago
Since western society is already set up in the way that you're defining enforced monogamy, how would that solve the incel problem? Why is that being pointed toward as a solution if it's just describing how things currently are, because the problem clearly isn't being solved and there seem to be (relatively) large numbers of men who women outright reject--and in many if not most cases, for very good reason.

permalinkembedsaveparentreportREPLY
load more comments (19 replies)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It is for sure. I do appreciate Peterson spelling out what he meant by that. I still think his original comment was wrong even given that explanation about what he meant, but that is a cogent and understandable position that I simply don't agree with.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I enjoy the push back and challenges from all sides, but you guys can be hilarious sometimes.

Hah, within less than a page I have been accused of being a "disciple" of Peterson and "hilarious" in my obvious bias against him. This must be how Maajid Nawaz feels...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Jordan Peterson disagrees with someone: this guy is an idiot.

A Reddittor disagrees with him: what a breath of fresh air.

I enjoy the push back and challenges from all sides, but you guys can be hilarious sometimes.

What? Congrats on completely missing the point and going off on whatever weird strawman you've landed upon.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hah, within less than a page I have been accused of being a "disciple" of Peterson and "hilarious" in my obvious bias against him. This must be how Maajid Nawaz feels...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.psyc...cissism%3Famp/

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What? Congrats on completely missing the point and going off on whatever weird strawman you've landed upon.

Fair enough, I guess we are even on completely missing the point.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile. I can agree to the notion that forcing someone to do so is considered compelled speech, but being the guy who won't refer to a transwoman as "she" or "her" makes you kind of a dick.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Fair enough, I guess we are even on completely missing the point.

Yep, and I corrected myself and pointed out the example that the author of the tweet was actually referring to. Nice try, though.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yep, and I corrected myself and pointed out the example that the author of the tweet was actually referring to. Nice try, though.

And I’m accepting that I jumped to a conclusion. Bonus, I learned a new phrase I had never heard before.

[CliffFletcher]

Since western society is already set up in the way that you're defining enforced monogamy, how would that solve the incel problem? Why is that being pointed toward as a solution if it's just describing how things currently are, because the problem clearly isn't being solved and there seem to be (relatively) large numbers of men who women outright reject--and in many if not most cases, for very good reason.

I'd say that although modern society in the West still idealizes and encourages monogamy, there's effectively far less monogamous that there was a couple generations ago. People increasingly get married later or not at all. The lower classes often have unstable and temporary sexual unions, and the educated marry late in life and until then have polygamous relations.

These decisions make sense on an individual level, but they have bad outcomes collectively. Fewer children raised in stable families, more young men who are untethered from healthy social networks and values, women faced with what they regard as a scarce supply of marriageable men.

I don't know what policies we could enforce to address the problem. We could probably start by simply recognizing the tradeoff between individual decisions and social breakdown. We could speak out and make it clear that there are real costs, economic and social, of turning our backs on enduring pair bonds. That marriage as an institution is the bedrock of a stable and prosperous society. I know that's the stance social conservatives take, and thus it's anathema to many liberals. But by ignoring the social ills of family breakdown, which affect the poor and low-status to a greater extent than the affluent and secure, liberals are betraying their principles of compassion and better outcomes for the poor.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't know what policies we could enforce to address the problem. We could probably start by simply recognizing the tradeoff between individual decisions and social breakdown. We could speak out and make it clear that there are real costs, economic and social, of turning our backs on enduring pair bonds. That marriage as an institution is the bedrock of a stable and prosperous society. I know that's the stance social conservatives take, and thus it's anathema to many liberals. But by ignoring the social ills of family breakdown, which affect the poor and low-status to a greater extent than the affluent and secure, liberals are betraying their principles of compassion and better outcomes for the poor.

Yeah, but it just doesn't work for some people. Your argument basically boils down to asking certain people to sacrifice their individual happiness for the greater good, and that doesn't really jive with the hyper-individualistic, neoliberal society we've cultivated.

[PsYcNeT]

Maybe men could learn to be less ####ty. That would probably help.

[PsYcNeT]

Lol.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Maybe men could learn to be less ####ty. That would probably help.

Isn't that what Pederson is Advocating at a very high level