Well said. I think calling someone racist, sexist or homophobic means little anymore because in most cases these days it's used to mislabel a person usually over politics
Why Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson's debate didn't go too well?
Yet all the people who come to my page and criticize my style and stuff use name calling as part of their argument lol..
If they supposedly like him so much why do they still resort to a petty form of argument they've seen cut off time and time again lmao... It's just unintelligent as hell
Yeah I saw that, she had quite the chip on her shoulder lol
Jordan Peterson release a response on this. It sounds to me like "enforced monogamy" is forcing men to be monogamous, not women. jordanbpeterson. com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
Thank you for sharing this. I know his views were very much misrepresented in the media, with people suggesting he meant forcing women to commit to an incels in the vain hope of trying to reduce violence. I know that "enforced monogamy" is not a violent policy so much as an anthropological term that scared the hell out of people. My concern is that the lack of a partner is a certainly a contributing factor to male aggression, but it is not the only factor. I don't believe that getting a monogamous partner would suddenly make men less violent from one day to the next (and I doubt that this is what Peterson meant), but the way that he put out these views could so easily be interpreted by many in that way. The possibility that potentially violent men could start looking to women as being almost responsible for preventing them from being violent is a recipe for disaster.
In short, my issue with the whole "enforced monogamy" debacle was not the content itself, so much as how he wasn't nearly careful enough in avoiding being misunderstood on such an important issue. The last thing is that I did have a look at the study he referred to a while ago, and I couldn't see how he was able to draw a conclusion from that. I certainly saw a correlation, but not causation. Do let me know your thoughts on this because I could very well have missed something :)
I think you're so used to scripted content that you expect everything to be watertight before it reaches you. Jordan Peterson is so compelling because he's thinking as he's talking. It's an honest, open flow, and he follows where the ideas take him, and that means that sometimes, his idea is only partially formed before he has to verbalize it in order to develop it further. This results in him saying things that people can then take out of context and twist in weird ways. This is why I verbalize my ideas by talking to myself when I'm alone, but in my experience, having other people there helps prevent you from getting stuck in a bubble, and the more people you share you're thoughts with, the less prone you are to ignoring something important because of bias or human error.
It's also important to note: Jordan Peterson is not, and does not claim to be, infallible. He openly accepts that he makes mistakes and can be wrong. He has refused to answer questions on the grounds that he doesn't know, is unsure needs to think about it, and even on the grounds that he's too tired to think of a good answer to the question.Should he have used psychological jargon in an interview like that? Probably not. But everyone uses jargon and assumes the person they're talking to understands. (Look at my use of the word jargon. If you don't know what that means, this is gibberish.)But that's part of being human, and it's not fair of us to expect Peterson to be better than a human simply because he's really good at thinking.
I think that's probably a fair assessment. The other thing that slightly put me off him was the mysticism. All that talk of witches, dragons and whatnot. I have to assume it's a metaphor for a point that he's trying to get across to an audience that probably doesn't include me, because otherwise it's a bit wishy washy.
It would be more accurate to say that they're symbols, not metaphors.He talk a lot of mysticism because he's spent a significant amount of his life and career studying myths from a psychological perspective. I'd say most of the time, when he talks about myths, he's either explaining or analyzing the symbolism.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Now you have
I don't trust people I agree with 100%. I think they're telling me what I want to hear instead of being honest.
@IgottaQuestion2 Fuck off, punk ass bitch
LOL Even better. Such wisdom ;)