Jim Jefferies is a terrible comedian, I’m ashamed that he is Australian as Peterson is of Trudeau being Canadian. I also watched the enforced monogamy thing.


This is all everyone’s upset about? 🤷🏻‍♀️
The incels of PW that all happen to be in relationships or Maynard James Keenan in disguise don’t understand the uproar?

System, there you go listening to his actual words instead of just taking a journalists opinion on him. You are supposed to only listen to inflammatory outrage.

That clip doesn’t reconcile with this quote:

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

That video clip of his explanation of forced monogamy is so out of synch with the original statement, he's either outright lying about what he meant originally, or he is just a terrible communicator of his own ideas. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's the latter. I don't think he meant "monogamy at gunpoint," and I don't believe most did either (Peterson seems to exist mostly in strawmans like that, with his notion of his being a NY Time pariah because he's pro-monogamy being the most lol worthy). I truly think the reason Peterson is taken "out of context" so much is because he's terrible at communicating his half baked ideas. Like he's basically saying peer pressure forces monogamy, and this is generally a good thing. Fine. I still don't know what any of this has to do with the Toronto Killer, though. Nobody does, quite possibly Peterson even. If this society of essentially peer pressure of monogamy is the one we live in, and I think we do, and I think Peterson thinks that too, surely the Toronto Killer lives in that society too. So his being an incel means what exactly? I don't know.

I think Peterson might just be attempting to pander to conservative morality, like the breakdown of traditional monogamous relationships is why incels exist, is why the Toronto Killer exists, and this is slowly making society as a whole more violent like he's some old lady talking about everything going to hell because things are less traditional. If that's what he's saying, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Violence is at all time lows in most places. For an extreme example, look at the Medieval Era, where most people were married, and divorces rarely happened, and it was an exponentially more violent time than now. I don't know if that's what he's saying, and I think that's the biggest problem with him. He's taken "out of context" so much because he isn't really saying anything at all. I really think more people are just confused by what he's saying here because it doesn't make any fucking sense. Less hazy ideas, or even better communication of those hazy ideas, and there'd be way less confusion about what this moron is trying to say.

Kilgore,minor note. First off, lots of good points. At his lecture he referenced the book Progress by Johan norberg and it referencing the decline of violence. So in that instance he believed in a decline of overall violence.

Maybe he is referring to specifically male, individual violence increases with a decline of enforced monogamy. I dunno.

Jun 21, 2018 23:36:11 GMT theend said:

Kilgore,minor note. First off, lots of good points. At his lecture he referenced the book Progress by Johan norberg and it referencing the decline of violence. So in that instance he believed in a decline of overall violence.

Maybe he is referring to specifically male, individual violence increases with a decline of enforced monogamy. I dunno.

That’s not what he said. He explicitly said being rejected led to the violence, therefore we should push forced monogamy. That has much different context than the video posted.

I said maybe and I dunno. Do you work for channel 4?

Jun 22, 2018 6:08:15 GMT theend said:

I said maybe and I dunno. Do you work for channel 4?

Are they ones that don’t let people get by with mealy-mouth responses? If so, maybe I should apply.

Jun 22, 2018 6:08:15 GMT theend said:

I said maybe and I dunno. Do you work for channel 4?

Are they ones that don’t let people get by with mealy-mouth responses? If so, maybe I should apply.

Jul 3, 2018 4:07:37 GMT theend said:

Saw this earlier, I’ve only seen a few clips from it but might listen to the whole thing later, I listened to all of his last podcast with Peterson.
I agree he should stop doing edited interviews,

OT can’t wait to see Elon Musk on the podcast also.

Because of watching the two videos in this thread (plus one other), YouTube is now recommending me Peterson videos by the fucking droves. "The right wingers are being silenced!" What a crock of shit.

Anyway, how many times is he going to clarify the same idiotic statement? Hitting play, and it starts with him once again whining about his definition of "forced monogamy," and how it was cherry picked and taken out of context. Always a victim, this fucking guy*. I'm hoping he addresses how even by his definition, it still doesn't make any goddamned sense. It is an enforced monogamy society, by his definition, and holy shit, Rogan actually challenges Peterson. Peterson comes back with the absolutely idiotic response, "To the degree that we deviate from that, we tilt towards a more violent society." That's it. Your boy is straight up a moron. That is empirically wrong. Once again, Rogan challenges that as unrelated. Good for him, although he does call Peterson an intellectual. lol. Peterson counters with the Sam Harris Special, a thought exercise, because reality is too hard, and his thought exercise is of a polygamist world that would make it harder for incels to get laid. So we're now inventing a Candyland that does not exist where Peterson's theories might begin to make sense, and the goal posts have been moved not only from the original discussion of monogamy = less violence, but we're hundreds of miles away from his original equating this nonsensical point as a reason for the Toronto killer. I don't know how much more I can take. There's 10 more minutes of this faux intellectual garbage. "But that's not what we're talking about," says Rogan. Holy fucking shit, Joe Rogan is the more rational and intellectual of the two. Rogan talks about how this contradicts Peterson's sort of libertarian worldview of everything else, which is another good point. This is why libertarianism is such bullshit, it's always so selective. Peterson comes back with, "To the journalists credit, that is the point she was making, apart from pillaring me and caricaturing my perspective." This dude. He's as much of a snowflake as most college students.

And now we're a thousand miles away from the original discussion with more talk of hypothetical polygamist world. It would be bad for the children, Peterson keeps repeating, even though Rogan keeps countering it with, "What if people don't want to have children?" Peterson has nothing. The simplest counters baffle him. He's really just not that bright of a guy. Six minutes to go. Please kill me. Now they're talking in circles, both making the same exact points from before. And now hypergamy discussion. We're now on another planet from the original discussion. They go on to talk about woman marrying safe men who are monogamous to them and then they cheat with a more successful man. Rogan even says, "This is a common thing." Peterson agrees. I checked out a study on infidelity, first study that popped up because I don't care all that much, but I was curious how "common," and it found that married woman cheat between 11%-16% of the time depending on age range (18-40 year old women cheat at 11%, middle aged women at 16%), before shrinking down to almost nothing when they become old bags. I think "common" is probably an overstatement. And with one minute to go, Peterson clarifies forced mangomy for the upteenth time, with the same sort of peer pressure explanation he has given every single time, which still doesn't clarify the much bigger point that this is all irrelevant to violence. Last ten seconds, Peterson is taking on the gender pay gap! He moonlights as an MRA too, I guess. Nothing has been clarified, and I'm laughing imagining what awful videos will be recommended to me next after that shit show. 

Tl;dr

Peterson is not a dangerous man, just a fucking idiot. He still hasn't clarified the initial statement because it doesn't have any correlation to violence, and even he is barely trying to make the case that it is anymore.

I'd like to officially retire from Jordan Peterson videos, as I don't find him even smart, let alone enlightening, and I'm a little confused as to why anybody does. So it goes.


*

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}This Tweet of Peterson once again playing the victim about the big bad NYT taking him out of context is hilarious.



I watched the video:



It is literally what he said, and there is no other context to take it. This high pitched fraud is like the boy who cried wolf. It's also hilarious his tough guy act, like around crazy men he's able to just overpower them with his manliness. This dude is a skinny middle aged man who has spent his entire life in classrooms. What a beacon of masculinity. Canadian Lee Marvin, this guy.

Anti Jordan Peterson folk are kind of like some atheists. They don't believe in god but at the same time spend a ton of energy trying to dispel god.

Like a lot of these social commentators I personally got bored of JP and his interviews and such. It's the same 20 talking points over and over again. I will likely read his book. I got bored of Milo got bored of Jordan, really quickly got bored of Rubin quickly, Gavin Mcginnes etc.  I don't need 3 hours of Rogan a day.  Seder is too much of a joker.  Harris and Prager just have annoying delivery.

Some of the others just produce too much content. I do have Gavin Mcginnes old book, before he got radicalized. I am curious to see if I can pre diagnose him.

I think with Peterson there's a certain absurdity where people are just like, "This is the guy?" That lends itself to people wanting to dispel. He's kind of a silly person, basically half a step above a self help guru, talking mostly nonsense. I see it more like trying to convince Mom the Long Island Medium isn't actually communicating with dead people. It's pointless, but there's something that compels you.

I am sure KJ will jump in here soon enough with some one sentence filled with fuel and anger.

Jul 4, 2018 2:07:43 GMT theend said:

I am sure KJ will jump in here soon enough with some one sentence filled with fuel and anger.

You rang?

You got bored of him but paid to fucking watch his lecture, you mark.

I think part of it is me buying those tickets a while ago and then getting over exposed. The other bit is just being a compltionist. After I saw him it died.

Similarly after I saw GGG fight my interest in him fell.

Jul 3, 2018 21:01:03 GMT Kilgore said:

Because of watching the two videos in this thread (plus one other), YouTube is now recommending me Peterson videos by the fucking droves. "The right wingers are being silenced!" What a crock of shit.

Anyway, how many times is he going to clarify the same idiotic statement? Hitting play, and it starts with him once again whining about his definition of "forced monogamy," and how it was cherry picked and taken out of context. Always a victim, this fucking guy*. I'm hoping he addresses how even by his definition, it still doesn't make any goddamned sense. It is an enforced monogamy society, by his definition, and holy shit, Rogan actually challenges Peterson. Peterson comes back with the absolutely idiotic response, "To the degree that we deviate from that, we tilt towards a more violent society." That's it. Your boy is straight up a moron. That is empirically wrong. Once again, Rogan challenges that as unrelated. Good for him, although he does call Peterson an intellectual. lol. Peterson counters with the Sam Harris Special, a thought exercise, because reality is too hard, and his thought exercise is of a polygamist world that would make it harder for incels to get laid. So we're now inventing a Candyland that does not exist where Peterson's theories might begin to make sense, and the goal posts have been moved not only from the original discussion of monogamy = less violence, but we're hundreds of miles away from his original equating this nonsensical point as a reason for the Toronto killer. I don't know how much more I can take. There's 10 more minutes of this faux intellectual garbage. "But that's not what we're talking about," says Rogan. Holy fucking shit, Joe Rogan is the more rational and intellectual of the two. Rogan talks about how this contradicts Peterson's sort of libertarian worldview of everything else, which is another good point. This is why libertarianism is such bullshit, it's always so selective. Peterson comes back with, "To the journalists credit, that is the point she was making, apart from pillaring me and caricaturing my perspective." This dude. He's as much of a snowflake as most college students.

And now we're a thousand miles away from the original discussion with more talk of hypothetical polygamist world. It would be bad for the children, Peterson keeps repeating, even though Rogan keeps countering it with, "What if people don't want to have children?" Peterson has nothing. The simplest counters baffle him. He's really just not that bright of a guy. Six minutes to go. Please kill me. Now they're talking in circles, both making the same exact points from before. And now hypergamy discussion. We're now on another planet from the original discussion. They go on to talk about woman marrying safe men who are monogamous to them and then they cheat with a more successful man. Rogan even says, "This is a common thing." Peterson agrees. I checked out a study on infidelity, first study that popped up because I don't care all that much, but I was curious how "common," and it found that married woman cheat between 11%-16% of the time depending on age range (18-40 year old women cheat at 11%, middle aged women at 16%), before shrinking down to almost nothing when they become old bags. I think "common" is probably an overstatement. And with one minute to go, Peterson clarifies forced mangomy for the upteenth time, with the same sort of peer pressure explanation he has given every single time, which still doesn't clarify the much bigger point that this is all irrelevant to violence. Last ten seconds, Peterson is taking on the gender pay gap! He moonlights as an MRA too, I guess. Nothing has been clarified, and I'm laughing imagining what awful videos will be recommended to me next after that shit show. 

Tl;dr

Peterson is not a dangerous man, just a fucking idiot. He still hasn't clarified the initial statement because it doesn't have any correlation to violence, and even he is barely trying to make the case that it is anymore.

I'd like to officially retire from Jordan Peterson videos, as I don't find him even smart, let alone enlightening, and I'm a little confused as to why anybody does. So it goes.


*

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}This Tweet of Peterson once again playing the victim about the big bad NYT taking him out of context is hilarious.



I watched the video:



It is literally what he said, and there is no other context to take it. This high pitched fraud is like the boy who cried wolf. It's also hilarious his tough guy act, like around crazy men he's able to just overpower them with his manliness. This dude is a skinny middle aged man who has spent his entire life in classrooms. What a beacon of masculinity. Canadian Lee Marvin, this guy.

[

The amount of conservative FB pages and YouTube channels that get deleted or unpublished with little or no explanation is astounding.
The God Emperor Trump page on FB gets zucced all the time.

It’s a fact and undeniable truth that the right are silenced, it’s not up for debate.

Odd trivia. I used to follow the channel for The Tommy Edison Experience. A blind guy who would talk about being blind and such. No political slant. He would complain that his videos stopped getting views like that they used to. That his subscribers weren't getting notifications. And how it hurt his income from youtube. So, I sometimes wonder if youtube is just slop. Like, never attribute to malice in what can be explained by stupidity.

Secondly I have seen Teresa Caputo live as well. My wife digs that stuff. Teresa is good at her parlor show of reading people. I have seen James Van Praagh twice. His after life theories are much better and more well rounded than Teresa's but his parlor show is lacking. Boy did the second audience really want to match with whatever he said. They were so desperate to have a connection. It is quite eye opening. A man who wore a brass ring and had a foot injury is coming through. Women in audience me, my uncle charlie. Well it was a gold bracelet and sprained ankle but it sounds just like him! Desperate I tell ya.

Racism, bigotry and sexism are stifled. I won’t deny that.

It just so happens those have become pillars of the conservative movement in the US.

Jul 4, 2018 16:08:02 GMT KJ said:

Racism, bigotry and sexism are stifled. I won’t deny that.

It just so happens those have become pillars of the conservative movement in the US.

This.

I can't speak to the American laws/constitution but here in Canada, the right to free speech does not protect you from saying whatever the fuck you want and being criticized/censored/charged/etc.

You can't say racist shit and then cry free speech. It doesn't work that way up here, and I'm thankful for it. It's why Jordan Peterson's following is primarily in the United States and why the only people up here that even pay attention to him were already racist and sexist.

Jul 4, 2018 16:59:00 GMT RT said:

Jul 4, 2018 16:08:02 GMT KJ said:

Racism, bigotry and sexism are stifled. I won’t deny that.

It just so happens those have become pillars of the conservative movement in the US.

This.

I can't speak to the American laws/constitution but here in Canada, the right to free speech does not protect you from saying whatever the fuck you want and being criticized/censored/charged/etc.

You can't say racist shit and then cry free speech. It doesn't work that way up here, and I'm thankful for it. It's why Jordan Peterson's following is primarily in the United States and why the only people up here that even pay attention to him were already racist and sexist.

People want freedom from consequences here. It’s a real issue.

Jul 4, 2018 14:38:35 GMT System said:

Jul 3, 2018 21:01:03 GMT Kilgore said:

Because of watching the two videos in this thread (plus one other), YouTube is now recommending me Peterson videos by the fucking droves. "The right wingers are being silenced!" What a crock of shit.

Anyway, how many times is he going to clarify the same idiotic statement? Hitting play, and it starts with him once again whining about his definition of "forced monogamy," and how it was cherry picked and taken out of context. Always a victim, this fucking guy*. I'm hoping he addresses how even by his definition, it still doesn't make any goddamned sense. It is an enforced monogamy society, by his definition, and holy shit, Rogan actually challenges Peterson. Peterson comes back with the absolutely idiotic response, "To the degree that we deviate from that, we tilt towards a more violent society." That's it. Your boy is straight up a moron. That is empirically wrong. Once again, Rogan challenges that as unrelated. Good for him, although he does call Peterson an intellectual. lol. Peterson counters with the Sam Harris Special, a thought exercise, because reality is too hard, and his thought exercise is of a polygamist world that would make it harder for incels to get laid. So we're now inventing a Candyland that does not exist where Peterson's theories might begin to make sense, and the goal posts have been moved not only from the original discussion of monogamy = less violence, but we're hundreds of miles away from his original equating this nonsensical point as a reason for the Toronto killer. I don't know how much more I can take. There's 10 more minutes of this faux intellectual garbage. "But that's not what we're talking about," says Rogan. Holy fucking shit, Joe Rogan is the more rational and intellectual of the two. Rogan talks about how this contradicts Peterson's sort of libertarian worldview of everything else, which is another good point. This is why libertarianism is such bullshit, it's always so selective. Peterson comes back with, "To the journalists credit, that is the point she was making, apart from pillaring me and caricaturing my perspective." This dude. He's as much of a snowflake as most college students.

And now we're a thousand miles away from the original discussion with more talk of hypothetical polygamist world. It would be bad for the children, Peterson keeps repeating, even though Rogan keeps countering it with, "What if people don't want to have children?" Peterson has nothing. The simplest counters baffle him. He's really just not that bright of a guy. Six minutes to go. Please kill me. Now they're talking in circles, both making the same exact points from before. And now hypergamy discussion. We're now on another planet from the original discussion. They go on to talk about woman marrying safe men who are monogamous to them and then they cheat with a more successful man. Rogan even says, "This is a common thing." Peterson agrees. I checked out a study on infidelity, first study that popped up because I don't care all that much, but I was curious how "common," and it found that married woman cheat between 11%-16% of the time depending on age range (18-40 year old women cheat at 11%, middle aged women at 16%), before shrinking down to almost nothing when they become old bags. I think "common" is probably an overstatement. And with one minute to go, Peterson clarifies forced mangomy for the upteenth time, with the same sort of peer pressure explanation he has given every single time, which still doesn't clarify the much bigger point that this is all irrelevant to violence. Last ten seconds, Peterson is taking on the gender pay gap! He moonlights as an MRA too, I guess. Nothing has been clarified, and I'm laughing imagining what awful videos will be recommended to me next after that shit show. 

Tl;dr

Peterson is not a dangerous man, just a fucking idiot. He still hasn't clarified the initial statement because it doesn't have any correlation to violence, and even he is barely trying to make the case that it is anymore.

I'd like to officially retire from Jordan Peterson videos, as I don't find him even smart, let alone enlightening, and I'm a little confused as to why anybody does. So it goes.


*

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}This Tweet of Peterson once again playing the victim about the big bad NYT taking him out of context is hilarious.



I watched the video:



It is literally what he said, and there is no other context to take it. This high pitched fraud is like the boy who cried wolf. It's also hilarious his tough guy act, like around crazy men he's able to just overpower them with his manliness. This dude is a skinny middle aged man who has spent his entire life in classrooms. What a beacon of masculinity. Canadian Lee Marvin, this guy.

[

The amount of conservative FB pages and YouTube channels that get deleted or unpublished with little or no explanation is astounding.
The God Emperor Trump page on FB gets zucced all the time.

It’s a fact and undeniable truth that the right are silenced, it’s not up for debate.

Independent media is silenced, political spectrum has little to do with it. Adpocalypse fucked over just as much independent leftist media.

Jul 4, 2018 16:59:00 GMT RT said:

Jul 4, 2018 16:08:02 GMT KJ said:

Racism, bigotry and sexism are stifled. I won’t deny that.

It just so happens those have become pillars of the conservative movement in the US.

This.

I can't speak to the American laws/constitution but here in Canada, the right to free speech does not protect you from saying whatever the fuck you want and being criticized/censored/charged/etc.

You can't say racist shit and then cry free speech. It doesn't work that way up here, and I'm thankful for it. It's why Jordan Peterson's following is primarily in the United States and why the only people up here that even pay attention to him were already racist and sexist.

In America you can just say racist shit. No need to cry free speech. We just have free speech. We have speech without consequences. Not that people want it like kj said, we just have it.

Podcast discussing red pill theories is kinda scary. Never thought things like hypergamy and the 80/20 AFBB rules would go mainstream.

There are clearly consequences to free speech.

On the opposite end of the spectrum Peterson has made a living off of social outrage.

Jun 21, 2018 17:06:14 GMT System said:

Jim Jefferies is a terrible comedian,

Can you expand on this thought? Why don't you like him?

Jul 11, 2018 2:55:01 GMT nazzer said:

Jun 21, 2018 17:06:14 GMT System said:

Jim Jefferies is a terrible comedian,

Can you expand on this thought? Why don't you like him?

Since Peterson is a whack job and Trudeau is a left-leaning person ... and that's the analogy he gave ... well ... it speaks for itself.

Jul 11, 2018 2:55:01 GMT nazzer said:

Jun 21, 2018 17:06:14 GMT System said:

Jim Jefferies is a terrible comedian,

Can you expand on this thought? Why don't you like him?

His comedy is terrible. Before he became a leftist shill his jokes we’re just standard vulgarity in Australia, just think George Carlin with the satire. He starts going on with a bunch of liberal nonsense and then he’s suddenly a success in the US? what a coincidence.
I like Bill Hicks and he was very left leaning 🤷🏻‍♀️.

How is Jordan Peterson a nut job? Trudeau sexually assaults women (as all Women are to believed 😒) and Peterson tells people to clean their room.