Jordan Peterson

[Synobun]

Sure, but then you are talking lottery odds.

Not really. Don't project your own problems onto those you consider beneath your station.

 

[inthesomeday]

Or, for example, the house fire that burnt 70% of your skin off.

Oh, is this Peterson’s audience? We made a big miscalculation guys.

 

[Traitorfish]

Swamp Thing confirmed incel.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Or, for example, the house fire that burnt 70% of your skin off.

Oh, is this Peterson’s audience? We made a big miscalculation guys.

Yes, Darkman is Jordan Peterson's Target Audience.

 

[Kyriakos]

^80s Darkman was a cool movie. Particularly the evil guy, Durant!!!

 

[Broken_Erika]

It also had one the the best quotes i've heard
Geeky Bad Guy:I've told you all i know!
Darkman:Yesss. I know you did. BUT LETS PRETEND YOU DIDN'T!!!!!

 

[Kozmos]

Not really. Don't project your own problems onto those you consider beneath your station.

Not at all, I'm just remarking on what I've been told and shown. I was involved with a girl in defectology/pedagogic career and attended a couple of events. The really severe cases were in great mental anguish because of it. I still can't decide if it was worse for those who were at least aware of it or not.

 

[Synobun]

Okay, so where are you going with this? I'm not sure what this rebuttal is supposed to convey. An Incel/proponent of Jordan Peterson should be classified as severely deformed, and therefore their perspective on romance and women is fine? I'm not sure what pointing to the exception of the exception proves or otherwise points out.

How many people are there that are severely deformed to the point that not a single person on this planet would ever desire them? How many followers of Jordan Peterson are in that group?

But even if we assume that there exists a sizable overlap (I doubt this greatly, but let's assume), this still does not lead to a female conspiracy against you. There are things that make people undesirable. Sometimes those are things you have no control over. This is not a conspiracy. It is certainly not a targeted conspiracy bought into by an entire gender. And it's not a problem that can be solved with "enforced monogamy".

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It is certainly not a targeted conspiracy bought into by an entire gender.

No, it's certainly not a conspiracy. It's a matter of taste, among other things. Some men are just undesirable because of looks, attitude, or general wierdness. Some men just give us the creeps, to be quite honest.

I am, by the way, entitled to hold those opinions. Since the end of suffrage, I have a right to my body and my mind as a human being, and no little pipsqueak misogynist like Peterson or any incel punk is going to take that away from me.

 

[Synobun]

But Lemon, just think, by marrying someone who is a risk factor for mass murder, you could save their victims.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

But Lemon, just think, by marrying someone who is a risk factor for mass murder, you could save their victims.

Statistically, if a person is predisposed that way, he or she will find away to make that happen anyway.

 

[Kozmos]

Okay, so where are you going with this? I'm not sure what this rebuttal is supposed to convey. An Incel/proponent of Jordan Peterson should be classified as severely deformed, and therefore their perspective on romance and women is fine? I'm not sure what pointing to the exception of the exception proves or otherwise points out.

How many people are there that are severely deformed to the point that not a single person on this planet would ever desire them? How many followers of Jordan Peterson are in that group?

But even if we assume that there exists a sizable overlap (I doubt this greatly, but let's assume), this still does not lead to a female conspiracy against you. There are things that make people undesirable. Sometimes those are things you have no control over. This is not a conspiracy. It is certainly not a targeted conspiracy bought into by an entire gender. And it's not a problem that can be solved with "enforced monogamy".

Well I thought you were saying that romance was not a big issue for deformed people, so I just shared my experience. I don't hold any particular opinion on anything else involved. I mean besides that incels are a laughing stock. And that men without any social commitments feel like they have very little to lose and therefore easily radicalized to whatever flavour of insanity that is popular at the moment. Most self-declares 'incels' I've run into in real life are just really socially awkward dudes with very strong opinions. One went into a muslim community though, converted and got himself a wife that way with all the cultural connotations implied with it. Not what I'd call a good resolution to the situation.

 

[inthesomeday]

One went into a muslim community though, converted and got himself a wife that way with all the cultural connotations implied with it. Not what I'd call a good resolution to the situation.

How dare Muslims get married

 

[Kozmos]

In his words "My wife knows her place and is always available to me and my clan in every way".

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean besides that incels are a laughing stock. And that men without any social commitments feel like they have very little to lose and therefore easily radicalized to whatever flavour of insanity that is popular at the moment.

I don't know if it's useful to talk about the Incel identity in terms of "radicalisation". When we use that term in the context of, say, fundamentalism Islam or white supremacy, we're not just saying that young men get their heads filled with silly ideas, you're talking about a process by which individuals are isolated from mainstream society. The leadership of the radicalising groups don't merely take advantage of the alienation of their targets, they further it, they seek to draw their target away from their family, friends or coworkers and render them socially and psychologically dependent on the group. Extricating themselves from the group takes time and resources which may not be readily accessible, if they even exist, and they ultimately left trapped in the only community available to them. "Nothing left to lose" isn't just a tactic for gaining converts, it's a tactic for converting them.

I don't really see that with Incels; a bunch of lonely young men on Reddit congratulating each on their self-pity may, in the moment, feel like that sort of community, but it's an illusion. A hugbox. There's no structure, there, nothing that couldn't be shaken off in a single moment of clarity. Leaving the neo-Nazi movement is hard, but leaving the Incel "movement" means deleting a few bookmarks and unfollowing a few subreddits. Any barrier to that is self-invented and self-imposed. Whatever role the Incel "movement" plays in their personal and psychological degeneration is in providing a rationale for rejecting self-criticism or self-improvement, for rejected outside intervention, and staying on a course which they had, however consciously, set themselves on. Whatever sympathy or even encouragement for violent acts they might see, it's something they decide to do more or less freely.

 

[Synobun]

I think radicalization becomes a valid consideration the moment there are heroes, villains, and manifestos involved. While the movement is mostly detached from that, the interest in adopting such a view is increasing within their circle.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's worth noting that Peterson has pointed to the liberalisation of divorce laws as one of the great ills of twenty-first century society.

He may not support forcing women to marry, but he seems comfortable forcing them to stay married.

Your point being...?

Mostly I'm making fun of the idea that preventing men from forcing women to be with them is a horrific evil that exists only to benefit women and their 'power'. You are describing the prevention of removing an entire gender's freedom as a deliberate evil against men. It is hilarious.

"preventing men from forcing women to be with them" is not what I am talking about. You claimed that, if monogamy were practiced, less attractive women would have lower quality pool of men to pick from. I pointed out that the same thing applies to unattractive men and that fixing the situation for women would just make the male side of the issue even worse. Is that something you support?

If nobody wants you, the problem is you, not everyone else. You aren't being picked because you are not worth picking,

Just substitute "if you are poor" and yes, this does seem kind of cruel and inhumane. There are lots of people out there with physical or personality issues they can't fix.

not because there is some female conspiracy to embrace a harem lifestyle with Brad Pitt and Hugh Jackman.

Natural sexual selection isn't a conspiracy.

Peterson helps you believe that it's not your fault when it explicitly is your fault.

That's the opposite of what he says.

It is extremely difficult to be desired by no one.

You actually think that things are okay for people if they are attractive enough for *some others* in the world?

Deformed people are still capable of being desired and finding a partner in life.

Yeah, other deformed people or people with a fetish. And even then, most of them aren't willing to set their standards that low. Watching attractive people walk by them on the street can be literal torture.

But even if we assume that there exists a sizable overlap (I doubt this greatly, but let's assume), this still does not lead to a female conspiracy against you. There are things that make people undesirable. Sometimes those are things you have no control over. This is not a conspiracy. It is certainly not a targeted conspiracy bought into by an entire gender.

No, it's certainly not a conspiracy.

I don't believe anyone other than the feminists here have mentioned a conspiracy.

*insert projection joke*

And it's not a problem that can be solved with "enforced monogamy".

It won't eliminate loneliness, but the problem of attractive people getting exponentially more sexual opportunity would be solved. Famines don't cause riots, a well-fed upper class AND a famine does.

It's a matter of taste, among other things. Some men are just undesirable because of looks, attitude, or general wierdness. Some men just give us the creeps, to be quite honest.

I certainly don't think forcing you to have sex with lonely men is reasonable, but you should acknowledge that this is pretty pure example of privilege.

Statistically, if a person is predisposed that way, he or she will find away to make that happen anyway.

The incel ideology probably isn't the catalyst for most of this violence. But it reflects the genuine suffering of thousands of people.

 

[Synobun]

"preventing men from forcing women to be with them" is not what I am talking about. You claimed that, if monogamy were practiced, less attractive women would have lower quality pool of men to pick from. I pointed out that the same thing applies to unattractive men and that fixing the situation for women would just make the male side of the issue even worse. Is that something you support?

Do I support everyone being able to choose their partner and not be 'locked in' to the initial choice for the entirety of their lifetime? Absolutely. Men and women alike. Nobody should have their choices artificially limited by "for the good of lonely angry men" policies.

Just substitute "if you are poor" and yes, this does seem kind of cruel and inhumane. There are lots of people out there with physical or personality issues they can't fix.

Sure, and those people with unfixable problems aren't in positions where literally not a single soul would ever desire them. Being desirable to no one is largely a self-inflicted curse. The demographic of people so woefully undesired by no action on their end is extremely small and doesn't overlap with Peterson's demographic or the Incels demographic.

Being physically unattractive or being a bell-end, even if the latter is by no fault of your own, are not insurmountable obstacles. Being deformed is not an insurmountable obstacle. This is a cop-out.

Watching attractive people walk by them on the street can be literal torture.

Guantanamo Bay is an inhumane facility, largely as a result of its tendency to show pictures of Jenna Fischer and Idris Elba to its prisoners.

 

[Mouthwash]

Do I support everyone being able to choose their partner and not be 'locked in' to the.initial choice for the entirety of their lifetime? Absolutely. Men and women alike. Nobody should have their choices artificially limited by "for the good of lonely angry men" policies.

Well, please quote me on wanting to ban divorce and remarriage because I am having a problem remembering that.

Sure, and those people with unfixable problems aren't in positions where literally not a single soul would ever desire them.

And I said being above that particular threshold isn't enough for human satisfaction. If you can get one single person on this planet, it doesn't follow that you'll be remotely happy with them. You seem to empathize with that lack of choice when it happens to women, and only them.

There will always be people in that position, but what Peterson is pointing out is that modern sexual practices are allowing lots of them to exist who otherwise wouldn't be.

Being physically unattractive or being a bell-end, even if the latter is by no fault of your own, are not insurmountable obstacles. Being deformed is not an insurmountable obstacle. This is a cop-out.

Just like being poor isn't an insurmountable obstacle, so those blacks urbaners need to STFU and take responsibility for their own lives.

 

[Synobun]

You seem to empathize with that lack of choice when it happens to women, and only them.

One is imposed by free choice, the other is imposed by an external force. It sucks that you can't get a date, but this is 100% your problem and 100% in your power to solve.