Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

you guys are just uncontrollable, its like you sign in just to argue with each other and throw the point of this thread to say about that man away in a corner

 

Be ungovernable

 

I do not pretend to know why Peterson did not answer the question, he may have had good reasons. You brought up one reason yourself. I can imagine many explanations. But, if it was the case that he did not answer out of a concern that he might be called racist, then it would be a sign of weakness of character. If I were in the same position and did that, then it would be a sign of my weakness of character. My own imperfect character would not change my value judgment.

 

I agree with you about the makeup stuff when we are talking about everyday life (for the most part), but I do also think there is a little more to it than wanting to look "attractive."

It might be difficult for men to understand this, because you aren't living with the same societal expectations as women. But makeup has become so commonplace, that it's pretty odd to see someone not wearing it, especially in a professional setting like an office. It's not just about looking "attractive," it's about looking put-together, clean, and professional.

And also, keep in mind that very often when you men think a woman isn't wearing makeup... she is. You just can't really tell, because she's not wearing very much of it. Other women can tell, so the standard is still that it is normal to wear makeup if you are trying to present your best self, which is typically what you are doing in a professional setting.

For a lot of women, not wearing makeup would seriously feel almost akin to wearing pajamas to work. They wouldn't feel like they are put-together. They would feel like they are walking out the front door with half an outfit on, which is not professional.

So I disagree that in a professional setting, makeup is about looking attractive. It's about looking put-together and professional.

I am someone who doesn't wear makeup like 90% of the time, and I would still feel pretty uncomfortable going to a professional job interview or working in an office without wearing at least a little bit of makeup. Has nothing to do with wanting to look more attractive.

A similar thing could be said about high heels, although I think there are other shoe options that are still professional looking. But heels have become the standard, so it does feel a little less professional to wear something else.

I think something men don't really get is the standards that have been put in place, and that to tell women not to wear makeup or high heels would be telling them to intentionally dress less professionally than what the standard is. Some places even have a dress code that pretty much requires high heels. I've definitely heard of women having to make a bit of a fuss about not wearing heels, because they couldn't for health reasons, but they were part of the dress code.

 

Excuse me? I am allowed to express my thoughts.

This is a thread about freaking Jordan Peterson. Did you seriously expect nobody to have debates and disagreements?

It's also quite ridiculous to quote me literally saying that I'm not going to argue about something, and then accuse me of always arguing. Smh.

Stop acting like the debate police. I literally just said that I am not interested in arguing that particular point, becasue I don't really find it important enough to debate about. I don't need you to police and monitor my behavior. I'm fully capable of doing that myself, thanks, as I just did in the very post you quoted. I also hit the ignore button on She-D because she always pushes my buttons and I'm done talking to her. So it looks like I'm pretty capable of managing myself, sir. I don't require your assistance.

 

Well that's your opinion, not a fact, and I just disagree. Guess that's all that can be said about that.

 

Why do you feel the need to control people? Someone posted a thread asking what people's thoughts are on one of the most controversial people in the media... and that's exactly what people are discussing. The topic is inherently controversial, and people are going to disagree and have a discussion about it. If you don't like seeing people disagree and debate, then there are plenty of other threads about topics that don't have anything to do with debating the merits of controversial ideas. You don't need to control what everyone else is allowed to discuss.

As long as everyone is being civil, I enjoy debate and discussion. So kindly stop trying to force me to stop having discussions I enjoy just because you don't enjoy them. You don't have to enjoy them. You are free to ignore discussions you don't enjoy. I do it everyday on this forum.

 

That didn't fly over my head, be reassured. However, the very fact that he brings the victims' appearance in the context of sexual harassment at work, without any further dissection of the perpetrators' entitled mindset is the real problem at play.

No amount of double speaking can erase this. His later claims only came to cement the future plausible deniability that will protect his mask, and guarantee his opportunities for public exposure

 

Lol yes, it's a tough truth to swallow.

It's also quite odd that some people can hear that line and still claim that Peterson blames women for everything or puts all the responsibility on women. It's like the total opposite of what he teaches.

 

Yeah, I totally get your point, is not exclusively an attractiveness in the sense of attracting the opposite sex, a better word may perhaps be appealing? yeah, it's actually about being seen as well put together etc, presentable, and that makes sense specially in a work environment, more so if it's one where you face the public, but looking more well put together and presentable in turn tends to make yourself more appealing and possibly attractive, but that's a byproduct, not the motive.

There are some comparable standards for us men, like keeping a well groomed beard etc, so I totally get your point and I agree.

I could have phrased my position about it in a more precise way, as I tried to do above, and it makes sense for a work environment, for the rest, is a personal choice, and then is when my appreciation of doing it for your own self steem, presenting yourself in a well put together and in consequence likely more attractive manner to others.

The opposite would be the classic suit and tie attire for men in some professional settings.

All this said, and the reasons being more complex than simply being sexually provocative etc, some things were invented with the entire purpose of enhancing certain features, that just cannot be denied, the reason why those are being used, is an entirely different discussion, being it, a light undiscernible makeup to look more fresh and rested and well put together in your office or daily life, or a more taunting makeup on a night out in the club, those things are tools, with a purpose, the reason why people use them and to what extent is a different thing.

 

I am not doing an ethnographic case study on the man. I did make a conditional value judgment. Clearly you can say many things about value judgments. Peterson has made many public value judgments not related to his research and people here have not had any trouble discussing them. If people do not want to talk about value judgments then that is fine.

 

Yes, this is what he says right after his senseless talk about 'enforced monogamy', which is full of contradictions in it's every corner. So, to re-assess everything :

• First he talks that the incel problematic can be solved by some 'enforced monogamy'
• Second, he defines the 'enforced monogamy' as something akin to the monogamy we all know and is already seen as norm

Let's do a simple chart and analyse this rhetoric, shall we ?

​

Let's leave aside his claims about incel 'personal responsibility' for a moment.

Supposing there's a logical, coherent line of thinking that may make this rhethoric more acceptable, other than refuting the orginal defense statement.

How can we solve this puzzle ?

I don't ask for much, only this little effort.

 

That wasn’t English lmao.

You joined on your own too and you’re calling everyone a kid when you’re 16 !!!!

Jajajjajajajajajajjajajan

 

It's quite simple really, and it's about the moral values that compose the fabric of our societies, if a shared common value in our societies happened to be that polygamy is morally reprehensible, monogamy would be, as a consequence of that, "enforced" to people as the moral standard to accept, on opposition to accepting polygamy as an alternative option.

Wow, that puzzle was quite easy, now please create a chart where "akin" doesn't mean "equal", your chart it's flawed and the puzzle was bollocks.

Do I agree with this? not really, would it solve the problem? I don't think so no, not by a long shot, but I haven't dedicated much thought to the issue myself to be entirely fair.

 

You didn't answer anything at all. It doesn't explain how he would advocate to solve a problem by implementing a solution that is already in place. It's not me who came up with akin means equal, it's JP by his explanation about enforced monogamy by defining it as simply monogamy, that we all know and consider as norm.

I'm only trying to follow his line of thinking and it simply doesn't add up no matter what, the paradox still stays pending. And the only way to resolve it, is to refute the original assumption.

 

And even more if we dive a little deeper into his rhethoric :

 

Excuse me dear it is not obvious to me that it is already in place and it's the norm, when people have many extramarital relationships, and polygamy is somewhat deem acceptable in our society.

So there is no social pressure enforcing monogamy, monogamy is the same term in both cases, enforced monogamy is just monogamy being enforced as a good value in opposition to polygamy at a societal level.

Where your logic fails is that you consider monogamy and enforced monogamy as two complete different things, when they are extremely similar as one of them is just the same thing but under a different societal values framework.

Again, I don't precisely agree with the idea that enforced monogamy is a solution, it's very contradictory to our biology, but it may hold some value, I would certainly have to reflect deeper on this to make an elaborated personal opinion.

 

Please stop making flawed charts, they are cringing the hell out of me.

 

Thank you for showing us you did neither understand the basics about this topic, nor what Jordan Peterson said. What you did was to claim he said A, while he never said A. You are the problem.

 

No, 'enforced monogany' as he did define it is already a norm; it is the practice of marrying or state of being married to one person at a time, or having one partner at a time. Hence cheating is seen as cheating, and is judged very negatively as it violates an already established cultural norm.

Cheating is deemed automatically immoral and cheaters are shamed for their behavior. This in and out of itself can already be seen as pressure, and if it doesn't count as such, then what is the exact type of 'pressure' we need to add in order to transition from regular monogamy to JP's 'enforced monogamy' ?

It looks like everything JP attributed to 'enforced monogamy' is already in place under the norm of regular monogamy. So, by extension his 'enforced monogamy' would be no novelty, but he does sell it as novelty and that's core of the problem and the heart of this paradox.