These harpy women
Jordan Peterson explains the tragedy of why men can’t control women: it’s because they’re not allowed to hit us so it’s all just hopeless, hopeless. It’s fatal for the culture, is what it is.
Tip Jar
Jordan Peterson explains the tragedy of why men can’t control women: it’s because they’re not allowed to hit us so it’s all just hopeless, hopeless. It’s fatal for the culture, is what it is.
Yeah, and women aren’t allowed to murder abusive men in their sleep. Or poison them. Or lop off bits when they’re passed out drunk.
Life is so unfair.
/sarcasm
Peterson is just so full of shit. He pretends like he’s ready to throw punches in any discussion with another man, but I’m sure that his scrawny, 55-year-old academic ass would be running for the nearest cop if faced with someone who was a real physical threat to him. (As would mine, of course — the difference is that I’m not posing as a tough guy or wistfully complaining about not being able to punch women.)
And this is one of the Brave Heroes who is supposedly defending the right to free speech? A guy who moans that it isn’t socially acceptable for him to beat the shit out of a woman who said things about him he didn’t like? If one of the university professors who Bari Weiss tried to get fired had threatened to punch her, we’d never hear the end of it.
How does one keep “intellectual” credit when one takes the threat of force as the normal basis of rational discussion? He’s taking it as a given that the model of polite discourse is essentially the same as when the mugger argues that you should redistribute your wealth to him because he’s got a gun on you and is willing, as an alternative, to use it.
Not being allowed to do that to women isn’t being barred from discussing things with them effectively – it’s being bound, by civilization, to engage them as fellow being with personal autonomy and a perspective that merits rational consideration. That’s not a bug, Gangsta Shrink – that’s a feature.
And slapping the men, that’s bad too. Sheesh. For a man going on about standing up straight, cleaning your room, and generally acting like you can listen to the instructions aimed at 10 year olds, he doesn’t seem to have mastered kindergarten behavior standards himself.
The rest of the review is also gold:
https://johannesburgreviewofbooks.com/2018/04/04/richard-poplak-sets-jordan-b-petersons-house-in-order-a-scorching-review-of-12-rules-for-life/
Dear Whatever, what pitiful, self-pitying, ignorant, whining rubbish. Peterson’s the one who needs to be told simply to grow up and stop believing in fairy-tales, to throw away the little key to everything he supposes he possesses and to pay attention to how the world actually functions, and how people actually relate to one another. Men respect other men because underlying any intercourse between them is the threat of mutual force… whereas with crazy women, the poor men are at a loss, because… although being at a loss does not in fact seem to stop a great deal of violence against women at the hands of men. Perhaps Sam Harris could do be persuaded to do a pod-cast with him — founded firmly on that mutual respect that alpha males have for each other.
Ahahahahahaha he’s way ahead of you.
https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/
Plus you know they’re a stage act – these guys run around sharing stages with each other every few days now.
Well, from what our Sam had to say about it, it wasn’t exactly a meeting of minds, and he is rightly critical of Peterson – but in a peculiarly pussy-footing way that really does not broach the disgusting and dangerous nature of what passes for thought in Peterson’s mind. He seems to take him seriously – but the man’s a very nasty little charlatan.
I doubt they’re a very interesting stage-act! – one huge defect in both men seems to be that they are totally lacking in a sense of humour. The spectacle of JP putting on his earnest act (he clearly knows how persuasive it is with certain kinds of audiences) is, really, risible… Here I am, a tough alpha male, and I can’t deal with those crazy women, and the fault is all theirs since they won’t recognise their biological place in life, and they even try to prevent my freedom of speech!
Maybe Peterson has covered this somewhere (I’m not interested in him enough to check), but does he believe this implicit threat of physical violence exists between women, the way he says it does with men? If not, what does it say about men that they’re biologically incapable of interacting with each other without an underlying threat of violence being present all the time? To me, it would suggest there’s something dangerously wrong with men and that they’re biologically less suited to civilized life than women, but I expect Peterson wouldn’t follow his own logic to that conclusion.
And, according to Michael Shermer (was it?), these people constitute a new Enlightenment thinkers… I think of Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire, Hume… Oh, what a fall is here, my friend… And I think of genuine thinkers like Pierre Bourdieu, Tony Judt, Bernard Williams and Derek Parfit. Diawl! (Welsh for ‘the devil!’)
‘Enlightenment thinkers’ – remove ‘thinkers’!
Tim Harris @12: … and ‘enlightenment’.
And if the meany organizing against his show were a man, he’d beat him senseless? The only thing stopping JP from beating someone protesting his event is that it’s a woman? Is JP married? Maybe he could get his wife to do the deed. When I was in grade school one would sometimes find a representative of the opposite sex to champion one’s interests.
There are so many kinds of wrong in everything he says that it’s his audience that has me terrified.
“I doubt they’re a very interesting stage-act!” Understatement of the century. Sam Harris is like fingernails on a blackboard to me: that dreary humorless grinding drone. Kermit has more variety and energy, but he talks like Kermit, so…
When I first watched this video I saw Peterson’s point as this:
Most men know that if he’s debating another man he can only push his opponent to a certain limit before it will get physical, so therefore he will contain himself from saying anything he wants, as he knows it can have serious consequences. But since women know that men are being taught that you shouldn’t hit women, certain women know that they can say practically anything without any serious repercussions. And yes, I am obviously aware that certain men cross that boundary with women, and yes, I am also obviously aware that certain men cross that boundary with other men ONLINE (since there can be no repercussions), and also in real life even, but in real life most men know there’s a limit to how far you can push things, whereas certain women know they can go further before there are serious consequences.
I don’t agree with everything Peterson says, and he’s simply mistaken about certain things. Other things he’s too obsessive/paranoid about, and other things yet again he comments on but really shouldn’t. Lastly, I wish he would stop yakking about religion all the time. I read his book, but was disappointed. It’s not bad, but it’s just a long rant of not much content, unfortunately (I had really hoped it was otherwise).
However, at no point have I understood anything he said as a desire to become violent with either men or women, nor have I understood anything he said as a condolence of violence, or “I will physically fight anybody” – I simply see his message as “men know there are limits to what you can get away with before it will have physical repercussions, whereas women know that they can push it further because men are not allowed to hit women, and certain women (only certain women) take advantage of that fact”.
I might be mistaken about this, but I consider Peterson a person who’s willing to talk about anything as long as his opponent keeps a respectful tone – but not everybody does, and in Peterson’s own words he was cursed with a temper, so when certain people push it too far he gets upset. But he doesn’t hit them or say that he will, nor does he say that anybody else should.