Oh. Jordan Peterson again.
looks around
Hey everybody! …and hi, all you new people.
(Think I’ll go watch a pancake bot video.)
10 Likes
For reference from the clearinghouse thread:
His conclusion, based largely on Peterson’s opposition to the legal institution of divorce (esp. no-fault divorce) combined with his other views:
You and I likely use the word monogamy to mean “only 2 partners in a relationship”. That usage of the word allows for the possibility of having more than one relationship in your life time. I don’t think Peterson is using it that way. I think he’s using it in the way biologists use it to categorize the behavior of different species. Which is to say “only one relationship for life”.
[…]
what he’s actually advocating when he says we need “enforced monogamy” is that he thinks we need social norms that discourage people from having more than one romantic relationship ever.
[…]
As many have pointed out, it’s unclear how socially discouraging promiscuity and infidelity would benefit incels, since it’s not like women are going to suddenly want to be with them
He’s pointed out plenty of times that most divorces are instigated by the woman. When he says divorce laws shouldn’t have been liberalized, and that somehow this will help sexless men, he’s saying “it should be harder by law for women to be allowed to leave marriages they don’t want to be in” and that socially we shouldn’t permit women to leave any relationship they don’t want to be in
15 Likes
And again. We have been through all this in the other threads.
8 Likes
They really are, though.
Hey, Saint.
*waves
Yep here we go, yet again.
14 Likes
In what concevable way does one discourage polygamy more than it already is discouraged? What mechanism, what means? This is already pretty strongly the norm.
So he’s advocating for the status quo (bold!) or he’s backpedaling because he got pushback
The first one is right. He is, so to speak, advocating the status quo when it comes to monogamy. Since, you know, monogamous societies decrease male violence. So I just don’t see the point of your comments at all – as if Peterson claimed to be bold for supporting monogamy.
My comment was obviously about slapping in the face the easy-to-pick-apart allegations Peterson has received over the enforced monogamy thing. As if the journalists ignorance of standard anthropological terms proves Peterson is a sexist. Please. Peterson’s imagined sexism isn’t even up for debate.
1 Like
Are you sure you wouldn’t rather beat their heads with a hammer? Punch them in the balls, maybe? How about crushing their spines in one of those automagic lumber splitters?
I mean, I know you love violent language, and presumably actual violence too, but why be so unimaginative? Oh, and since you clearly love violent language while “debating,” I again imagine you like it in real life too – who are you hitting and otherwise physically abusing these days?
10 Likes
Amateur mistake. That’s how people like PJ get you. If you listen to what they actually say, you’ll get brainwashed into thinking it sounds reasonable.
5 Likes
Seems like it miiiiiiiiiight be. Very pesky, those things he has said.
15 Likes
Well, I still don’t get it. It’s hard for me to imagine thinking a video or article is not worth my time but the forum thread on it is. If i was going to for some reason go to creationist book club I’d do the reading for that week. To each their own way, I guess.
I read this as sarcasm, but if you replace “people like PJ” wish “con artists” or “cult leaders” you get an actual, valid, non-sarcastic warning that would be good for a more people to heed. Not saying that he’s a con artist or a cult leader, just commenting on the form of this point (assuming I’m right about the sarcasm).
13 Likes
Sad thing is that Peterson buys his own bull. So not only is he rewarded for what amounts to as a scam, he really believes his own words. If he was someone that had half the integrity of a legitimate academic he would take a step back and think very hard as to what he’s doing with respect to his public persona and how it affects others. You just don’t go full bore with loose words and vague conceptions without thinking someone will take it the wrong way. The fact he refuses to take the time to do research on subjects far outside of his discipline to address issues (unlike Alan Sokal for example) makes this so much worse. It would be fine it he was just selling some vitamin supplements or throwing crap up against the wall about the future like Kaku or Kurzweil because at worse folks buy mostly innocent bunk. But he really wants to address complex social/institutional issues with folksy nonsense. You’d think for someone who’s a psychologist he’d know better. Obviously that’s not the case, but it’s something that needs to be noted anytime his true believers pop up.
11 Likes
First, the term “leftist” feels like you would rather throw barbs than have a productive conversation here.
Second, did you even listen to that clip?
“Enforced monogamy is how you keep male agression - especially the aggression of young men - under some degree of social control”
I’m not sure how this even works. It’s certainly not clear to me. Sure we can say that monogamy is a good idea for most people, most of the time but the implication here is that the aggression of young men is being kept under control by making sure that women have sex with them, even if they don’t want to through “social control.”
13 Likes
We could say that, sure… but it wouldn’t necessarily be accurate.
Monogamy is the social norm that’s most promoted by current society, and that’s why many people are automatically conditioned to seek out one exclusive mate.
But conditioning alone does not shape or define our species; there will always be exceptions, variations, and “anomalies” to whatever behavioral systems that society may choose to impose.
It’s only recently that the reality of same sex couples has slowly become more socially acceptable… let alone different ideas about sexuality and gender which extend beyond the mere binary.
I know a polyamorous trio that have been together for nearly two decades, and the relationship they have works well for them. I know a few others with ‘alternative’ sex lives who don’t have quite that much longevity, but they are still also quite content.
Meanwhile, I also know more than a few married folks who cheat on each other regularly; which often makes me wonder just how practical monogamy actually is for some people.
Needless to say, that’s all mere anecdotal evidence at best, but it leads me to my point - that just because something is what people are ‘used to’ doesn’t mean it’s the best possible way; different strokes work for different folks.
And now if you’ll excuse me, I need some more music if this thread is gonna keep dragging on and on… despite the fact that’s all been said before, ad nauseum,
"Swag sauce on full drip..."
15 Likes
That video was fuck rad.
3 Likes
If you want to see an “overwhelming strawman” of Peterson, you should skip forward to around 8:30. She puts a Jordan Peterson mask on a store dummy and takes it into the bathtub with her. It’s really funny.
I think she gets more direct about explaining things around 15:30 - 19:50. I liked her recap of the distinction between the various trends of thought that get all lumped together - marxism, social justice, feminism, identity politics, postmodernism, etc., and why this monolithic grouping is not really plausible.
12 Likes
Leikeli47 is one of Brooklyn’s dopest right now, IMHO.
3 Likes
ContraPoints is awesome. She nailed it here. Peterson himself is a conman, but, as she alludes to, some (not all) of Peterson’s supporters are confused neckbeards trying to figure out how to be an adult. Because of that, and because the guy isn’t actually a literal fascist, it’s worth considering his words on their face and debunking them. Also, hilarious skits are hilarious.
9 Likes
The bit starting at 20:30 is very similar to a critique Sokal makes in Beyond the Hoax, which he directed at some of the dodgier postmodernists of the time.
The basic trick being critiqued is:
Make a statement where the meaning is ambiguous between two alternatives, one of which is true but trivial while the other is controversial but false. Then, build your arguments on the implied controversial meaning, but retreat to the trivial if challenged.
It’s rhetorically effective but utterly bullshit; it does nothing to advance knowledge. Peterson does it, so did Latour and others before him. It became popular in the late 20th C amongst some of the dodgier bits of left-identified academia, and now it’s been adopted by the right.
In many ways, Peterson is a mirror-universe right-wing caricature of the worst facets of postmodernism. Which is ironic, given his self-declared opposition to the best of it.
21 Likes
I couldn’t resist. You’re certainly right. It’s why I stay out of the Scientology office even though I’m super curious to hear whatever it is they say to get people hooked (people I assume must be less mentally secure than me but maybe not…).
At the same time, the Peterson comment threads usually devolve into one-upmanship over who can come up with the snarkiest way to refer to Peterson, his ideas, or his fans; something which doesn’t require actually watching his videos. Those who do admit to it usually fall into one of to groups: those who think he sounds intelligent and reasonable (if not on every point) and those who speak of it like they had been handling plutonium.
The usual group of defenders didn’t show up this time, so I feel the need to pipe in.
1 Like
A related point here, as has been pointed out by others, is that the specific term “enforced monogamy” doesn’t seem to exist in the titles or summaries of any peer-reviewed anthropological or psychological or sociological papers. The term is used in biology papers, but the only non-experimental case (i.e. one where the researcher isn’t doing the enforcing) cited frequently is in regard to a certain species of cockroach.
I can understand why the term is avoided in a non-experimental context, especially as applied to mammals and humans: “enforced” is a loaded term that gives rise to all sorts of questions about who is doing the enforcing and in what manner while still giving a weasel some wiggle room to walk it back. Given his M.O. of pandering to the toxic manosphere, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Jordaddy alone would jump to use (or indeed coin) such a term for his own and related disciplines that focus on humans, especially in the context of his views on divorce and traditional marriage.
Has anyone done a deep dive into this question and found actual peer-reviewed papers that use the specific term “enforced monogamy” in anthropology, sociology, or psychology? Perhaps one of Jordaddy’s staunch defenders can provide citations for us.
I fall into the first group, but also understand that someone who sounds intelligent and reasonable can simultaneously be neither. It quickly becomes clear what his radioactive schtick is in the non-academic lectures after watching a few.
15 Likes
This must be a party. Look at all these new piñatas!
On a more serious note, @AndreaJames, is there any way you could get together with the other editors to ensure this is the last thread about this misogynist charlatan? He’s not worth the bits or the pixels.
15 Likes
