I'm not even sure what your point is. Yeah I'd rather sleep with a dakimakura of my waifu Renge-chan than with some random 3D slut but that doesn't mean I'm desperate, it's the opposite, it implies that I have standards.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Seizing the means of reproduction? Say it ain't so Lobsterman!

Peterson really backed himself into a corner here tbh. I don't know if he's trying to pander to his base or what, but this was hard to watch.

He just rides the whole individualism idea too hard while trying to promote his brand of traditionalism which requires a lot of collectivist ideals. It just ends up being a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too kind of deal.

i mean, not really. he dropped the ball when he used the sociological term 'enforced monogamy', without telling the rabid femoid sphere that it means 'when society pushes you to be monogamous'. he's usually more careful than that.

in reality, people are pretending that he's pro-government-mandated-gussy or anti social redistribution of wealth (aka charity) or both.

Oh look, it's a KiAtard defending Memerson. Bears do shit in the woods after all.

🙄 there are so many funnier terms than kiatard, c'mon

Yeah, but that's the most basic one. Which kinda suits you.

it is almost ugg and pumpkin spice season 😋

KIAtard just sounds like someone who loves KIA cars, why not just call them a plain ol' retard?

i mean, not really. he dropped the ball when he used the sociological term 'enforced monogamy', l

Not a sociological term

It originated in anthropology (I believe) but is certainly commonly use in sociology. The reason why Peterson sounds stupid talking about is because it should only *ever* be used in a descriptive sense, and Peterson is sort of teetering on the edge of using in a normative sense - which just sucks ass.

It originated in anthropology (I believe)

No it didn't. That's just what Peterson claims

but is certainly commonly use in sociology.

Go find me some papers in sociology academic journals using the term

Took about 3 seconds m8 (a combo of soci and anth journals) https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=enforced+monogamy&btnG=

Earliest use I can see is 1967. Brander, R. B. (1967). Movements of female ruffed grouse during the mating season. The Wilson Bulletin, 28-36.

Ouch for you bro.

...did you actually read any of those papers bud?

They're discussing de jure enforced monogamy. ie state enforced

Literally the thing Peterson claims the term doesn't mean.

You claimed the term did not originated from Anthropology and is not sociology. Did you need to re-read your own comments?

The term how he claims it 100% doesn't. It's not used by anyone but him

When it's used it means the opposite of what he claims and means exactly what his critics have interpreted it to mean

Which of we're being real is exactly what he actually meant before he backpedaled because it sounds insane

Go back to my first comment. I explained why I disliked him using the term, but it's not incorrect. It's a descriptive concept that is commonly used. He understands what it means, but he was teetering on using in a normative sense - which, if it is his intention to do so, sucks ass. But it is not like he doesn't understand a rudimentary anthropological concept.

Go back to my first comment. I explained why I disliked him using the term, but it's not incorrect. It's a descriptive concept that is commonly used.

No it's literally the opposite of correct. The only time it's used regarding humans in the literature refers to state enforced monogamy. The opposite of his claim

And considering his past statements about how he thinks liberalizing divorce laws was bad I'm inclined to believe he meant it completely literally

But it is not like he doesn't understand a rudimentary anthropological concept.

Why the hell not? His whole gimmick is based on not understanding rudimentary concepts in philosophy, semiotics, competitive mythology, literary theory, and friggin math (Godel proved god exists el oh el), why not add anthropology to the list?

If you wish to intentionally misrepresent something then that's on you and your own intellectual dishonesty. I actually am starting to wonder if you understand what I'm saying when I point to the difference between the descriptive and normative uses of a concept, so let's do a 101 on that first. Descriptive - an example: children of divorced parents have lower educational attainment compared to 2 parent households VS normative - parents shouldn't get divorced because children of divorced parents have lower educational attainment compared.

Liberalizing divorce laws has led to large increases of single mother households and this is an especially unaddressed problem for single black US mothers.^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/18/the-unbelievable-rise-of-single-motherhood-in-america-over-the-last-50-years/?utm_term=.4e4b098ff51f The literature on single mothers is conclusive, it's not a good thing . Jordan thinks the left dropped the ball there. There's a difference in pointing out what liberalizing divorce laws literally, inarguably led, and saying "let's get some really strict laws about divorce back in". Why someone pointing that out would piss you off so much is bizarre to me.

No, you cannot be a professor in psychology and not understand such a concept. You are being ridiculous. The concept is so basic. He knows the concept. But as I've said, 3 times now, why people are so offended by his position is because he used the descriptive concept in a borderline normative fashion. Please fucking tell me you understand that.

Christ. https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Dude later in that very article he gives tacit support for normative applications of enforced monogamy. Not much use in tiptoeing around "Oh he didn't mean that!"

I said 3 times I don't approve of him teetering on using it in a normative way, you can't fucking read bro. But the accusation from Craine was that A. it's not a anthropological or sociological term and B. Peterson doesn't understand what it means. Now may Allah strike me down now if I have not shown undoubtedly that both of those claims are false.

BRO HE IS NOT TEETERING WHEN HE WRITES THIS:

"Normative monogamy seems to have important group-level benefits, and tends to reduce the kinds of harmful behaviors associated with greater intrasexual competition, among both males and females."

READ BETWEEN THE FUCKING LINES BRO, NORMATIVE MONOGAMY IS A GOOD THING, HE IS JUST TRYING TO HEDGE HIS LANGUAGE SO THAT HE CAN WEASEL HIS WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION FOR WHEN HE GETS RIGHTFULLY CALLED OUT ON IT.

It's still a descriptive sentence... wherever the fuck that quote came from. Hence, teetering on normative statements. And now I'm laughing because we've boiled it down so really, you're just so disturbed by a dude saying "normative monogamy is a good thing" which literally is the same as saying "men ought to get married". This is what you are so perturbed by, you absolute shovel. The only thing left for you do is admit you don't know what normative means

Dude, you don't know where that quote came from? From the very blog post that you provided, you complete utter retard.

On top of that, perhaps it is worthwhile for you to, as I mentioned before, read between the lines.

>When he used this sociological term, he dun goofed

>>That's not a sociological term, at least not in the way he uses it

>Uhh read your own comments faggot

Point to a three-digit IQ KiA user and I'll point you to a liar.

Him? Anyone who unironically likes Fraiser is high in the estrogen department. Is drama being raided by chapo or is the anti jerk jbp just so fun that logic is literally discarded. The backtracking is right there .

You're not making any sense, bucko. Lay off the pills.

Because your reading comprehension is low :((

Uh, sweaty. Take a look at what you wrote.

Yes. You literally confused who said what in your summary so maybe go over the thread one more time.

How do you manage to drink water out of a glass if you're this dumb?

He does that from time to time. He also rips on postmodernists for their ideas about cultural relativism, while simultaneously saying that culturally constructed Christian myths represent a form of objective truth.

of course he's gonna pander to the people signing his paychecks, why wouldn't he? Chad isn't giving him 800 dollars a month on patreon.

I really do not think Peterson is in it for the money. Someone that knows him well did write this article:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

I thought long and hard before writing about Jordan, and I do not do this lightly. He has one of the most agile and creative minds I’ve ever known. He is a powerful orator. He is smart, passionate, engaging and compelling and can be thoughtful and kind.

In the end, I am writing this because of his extraordinary rise in visibility, the nature of his growing following and a concern that his ambitions might venture from stardom back to his long-standing interest in politics. I am writing this from a place of sadness and from a sense of responsibility to the public good to tell what I know about who Jordan is, having seen him up close, as a colleague and friend, and having examined up close his political actions at the University of Toronto, allegedly in defence of free speech. When he soared into the stratosphere he became peculiarly unknowable. There is something about the dazzle of the limelight that makes it hard to see him clearly. But people continue to be who they are even in the blinding overexposure of success. I have known Jordan Peterson for 20 years, and people had better know more about who he is.

That article is retarded. It keeps making allusions to how deeply dangerous Peterson is, while beating around the bush and never really getting anywhere. Then we get to the meat of the matter, I guess:

But this next statement, from Heller’s article, is heartbreaking: “You have an evil heart — like the person next to you,” she quotes him as telling a sold-out crowd. “Kids are not innately good — and neither are you.” This from the loving and attentive father I knew? That makes no sense at all.

Okay, so a basic, fundamental analysis of human behavior as being self-serving, is sinister? I really wish the criticism of Peterson was better, because I increasingly find his schtick boring and bland, but the fact that every hitpiece on him is so pathetic maybe signals that Peterson's schtick is boring and bland because even boring and bland philosophy is deeper and more intellectual than the garbage most people are familiar with.

Try watching the actual interview not maliciously edited clips. It's still awkward so you'll probably enjoy it.

How dumb does your talking point have to be for Joe Rogan to call you out??

About as dumb as the typical feminist

lol, even a feminist isn't dumb enough to call for the return of socially enforced monogamy.

You have not spent enough time on r/GenderCritical

Are you kidding? I'm subscribed there so I don't miss anything good. I just think it's supremely dumb that young guys on Reddit fanboy a guy who wants to pied piper them back to the sexual mores of the 50's. It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen.

Yeah I am kidding. This is r/Drama, that's what you're supposed to do here.

And yeah, it's fucking dumb. But they're mostly a bunch of losers with nothing else to look forward to in life, so at least he's keeping them from offing themselves.

I guess when the present isn't working out for you, it's easy to idealize the past. I can see why young guys feel adrift but Jesus, they don't want to go back to the days when women didn't work and all that jazz.

they don't want to go back to the days when women didn't work and all that jazz.

They very probably do, it would mean women are more dependent on men and therefore much easier to seduce.

What they probably aren't considering is:

1. In the modern global economy, that would mean they'd need to work twice as hard to make ends meet

2. During the time when women weren't working in the labour force, men were dying en masse every few decades (if that) because war was just an assumed constant of life.

Sounds like someone forgot to take their alpha brain

onnit that’s O N N I T

all you have to do is insult his Magical Plant That Cures All Diseases And Ailments©™® and Joe will flip his shit

Imagine being so stupid as to take Joe Rogans view of any matter. There was never anything to call out. He wasn't advocating anything. He was just explaining differences in societies with polygamy and monogamy, and why we have likely settled on the latter in most places.

Thanks for the interpretation of Peterson words, Cathy Newman.

There's nothing to interpret, all you need to see is the parts just before and after the misleading edits.

Okay Cathy Newman.

Oooh sick burn mate! Yeah I'm really putting words in his mouth disingenuously.

Truth hurts Cathy.

Yes, I'm sure the truth does hurt Cathy.

It's good that you admitted to being wrong. The first step to recovery.

Yeah, I never did that, but hey at least your complete lack of reading comprehension is consistent.

Again, don't be a Cathy, Cathy.

Now look who's whining about retardedly vague anthropology terms.

10 mins

Can someone tldr pls?

imagine being so obsessed with lobsterman that you spend 9 minutes critiquing 30 seconds of dialogue

tl;dr - lobsterman said that government mandated equality of everything is bad, and that society functions better when people are monogamous, guy says aha gotcha for 9 minutes

This take is not hot

seriously do people actually need this self-own spoonfed to them this blatantly? like its a 2 min video tops

It's not about avoiding to watch a 2 min video, it's about having a canned dismissal of the arguments.
In simpler terms, it's about letting someone else do the thinking.

a gamergator is a Memerson fan

Who would've thought

Is this Pacman guy the left wing version of Ben Shapiro?

hes an off-brand majority report

Memerson used the term 'enforced monogomy' which retards are taking to mean gussy slavery.

Not that this isn't a bad idea, but what he means is basically 'returning to the social convention that divorce is bad'.

Basically, I was dissapointed. I am unironically pro femoid slavery. Those sandwiches are not going to make themselves.

but what he means is

lol, why is every thread on lobster man and/or trump full of people saying 'okay said he SAID ____ but what he actually MEANT was like totally different...okay? so like get off his back!'

every fucking time.

"you cant judge him by what he says, you have to judge him by how his followers have twisted his words around!'

I think you can totally judge people by what they say, but you certainly have to make an effort to understand what they said.

If you dont know what a word means can you claim that it means something else in an effort to misrepresent something?

Because enforced monogamy isn't just a term he made up. It has an explicit meaning that you have decided to ignore and replace with your own meaning.

A literal straw man attack.

Memerson has plenty to criticise... Like his pathetic stance on God and "truth" but you morons choose this hill to die on?

Because enforced monogamy isn't just a term he made up

Yes it is.

okay he SAID ____ but what he actually MEANT was like totally different...okay?

I'm not a lobster fan myself, but in this case you're being retarded. Enforced monogamy literally means that polygamy is not allowed, but ill-intentioned idiots try their best to twist it into meaning that celibacy is not allowed or something, I don't even know, you tell me what do you think peperson ACTUALLY MEANT exactly.

He pointed to enforced monogamy as way to end involuntary celibacy you fucking moron. And even if women had to choose between a monogamous relationship and celibacy you'd still be a virgin

He pointed to enforced monogamy as way to end involuntary celibacy you fucking moron.

Yes, and? Can you articulate in your own words what do you think he meant, instead of beating around the bush as if there's an obvious meaning that's too horrible to put into words?

Enforced monogamy is an actual sociological term. It means that a society will generally discourage cheating and promote monogamous relationships.

4:12

4:50

5:53

These are the important bits, they add up to around 2 mins at most.

Real tl;dr is that Lobster Daddy, who keeps talking shit about forcing equal outcomes, wants society to force everyone to mate with only a single person. He doesn't realize that this is forcing equality of outcomes.

Dude used a psychobabble word that means people generally discourage cheating on each other, and a bunch of people flipped their shit saying that he wants to force women into being sexual slaves to incels.

You expect me to watch all of this?

In this world people are dying in wars and slavery still exists but instead of tackling these issues, we have amassed thousands of hours of media both criticizing and dicksucking a Canadian professor with a funny voice. People rather care about this nobody than saving the fucking planet. This is how humanity signed it's own death warrant.

Who cares lol

shut up nerd

The video is way more boring than the title suggests zzz.

bussy>gussy.

supporting gussy

Friendship ended with Lobster Daddy.

Isn't this a reduction to absurdity argument?

Why should I watch a video of these two gamergoobers talking for 9 minutes?

Iirc, wasnt the point that socially encouraging monogamy leads to decrease in male violence therefor those values would help incels?

I know the point is to trash on the op I'm just trying to remember the whole part of that interview.