Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.
Take away the focus on incel and use this same focus on communities with high incidents of single mothers that also has a proclivity towards violence and you get a better picture.
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling. What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on? If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners? He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.
I didn't watch this at all, so commenting in a vacuum here, but:
Doesn't society already do that to women? The fact there's a movement against "**** shaming" infers that women generally get **** shamed. We don't need to have society do this, it's already done.
As for men, I think it's the opposite.. We shame them for not being sluts.
I guess "virgin shaming".
That's one of my pet peeves about the left.. They're absolutely right to bag on violent losers, but they have no problem mercilessly shaming these same losers... And then they wonder why they lash out.
Gee, maybe the relentless stigmatizing from you is contributing to it? Maybe?
Originally posted by BackFire
This part is still potentially troubling.
Originally posted by BackFire
What does that mean? How do you socially regulate that? What does it entail? Does that mean society making women feel ashamed or embarrassed for wanting to have multiple partners? Or looked down on?
Originally posted by BackFire
If so, should men also be looked down on if they want multiple sexual partners?
Originally posted by BackFire
He implies also that our society already has these regulations in place, so if that's the case, it's an argument against itself, as these losers, despite the social regulations promoting monogamy existing, are still violent, and still unable to get themselves laid.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree because I actually agree with that, I've stated before on this forum that I don't think casual sex is a good thing and that I think it should be within the confines of a committed relationship.There is a fine line you can walk where you socially and culturally value monogamy, and express disapprove of casual sex while at the same time not treating the people who do it as degenerates.
I mean yes, Peterson has said before that men should regulate their own sexual behavior as well and even posted a study saying that men who hold themselves to that standard are statistically at reduced risk for being violent.
Well he's stated before that these regulations have been seriously weakened in recent years as a consequence of the sexual liberation movement with something leaning towards a societal and cultural embrace of casual sex in the west.
How do you determine if men self regulate, or if they're forced by circumstances beyond their control?
Is the difference between studs and monogamist' proof of man choosing behavior informing their nature, or proof that people's behavior is informed by their nature?
The elephant in the room on these sorts of issues, is whether man even gets to choose how they behave.. Whether free will really exists.
As far as I know, nobody gets to choose how they feel. But everybody acts on how they feel.. And that's the rub. Are you really making a choice, if you're reacting to an impulse that you didn't choose?
If not, then what is the purpose of these studies? To help people act right, or to identify people with a predisposition to act "wrongly", and.. then what? Regulate? Acceptance? Or what?
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with [paraphrase] saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.
In the video I posted of that he specifically goes on to explain what he meant. And note they also never answer his question:
Go to around 3:30, someone makes the exact same point you made and he responds to it and explains what he meant.
Originally posted by Robtard
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with [paraphrase] saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.
I watched the discussion and I do get his point.
I think the primary logic there is that we should prioritize the discussion of important ideas first despite the fact that it may be offensive. Essentially importance of topic > feelings.
But I think on the later part of the interview he was discussing that if the left is interested in everyone coming together, then they need to stop alienating Trump supporters by constantly attacking them/Trump. Because that is not how you convince people that they you are right or they are wrong.
That's how I understand it anyway.
Originally posted by Robtard
Only watched one bit on Peterson and he really shit the bed there. His recent Bill Maher appearance, he opens up with [paraphrase] saying that people need to not be afraid to be offensive in speaking; that being offensive is important as subjects and points that need to be heard are often offensive to others in their very nature. Okay, cool. I can overall agree with that. Then a bit later he claims people need to be kinder to Trump supports and watch what they say, as to not hurt their feelings and alienate them. Which is it, Jordan? Be offensive and not care about other's feelings or restrain yourself and worry about other's feelings.
I saw the same bit.
We took completely the opposite perspectives. I took the first part as "stop taking offense to everything." And the second part, "Stop alienating anyone who supported or voted for Trump with close-minded rage shout-downs because you're going to continue to drive more people away and empower Trumpers."
My overall takeaway: here's how you get "not-Trump" into office in 2020.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw the same bit.We took completely the opposite perspectives. I took the first part as "stop taking offense to everything." And the second part, "Stop alienating anyone who supported or voted for Trump with close-minded rage shout-downs because you're going to continue to drive more people away and empower Trumpers."
My overall takeaway: here's how you get "not-Trump" into office in 2020.
Bingo. Ever notice that once you really break down what he says, most criticisms of Peterson fall flat? Not to say he is perfect, but this is a trend. A funny trend.