Unless you quote what you're talking about I don't have anything to say other than I don't recall this. I remember him talking about enforced monogamy as opposed to polygamy in terms of pragmatic affect, but not him saying women shouldn't be able to choose the lifestyle they want to engage in. I think he just believes one of those is a better basis for our society.



Haven't read the Bell Curve so I have no opinion on that either. But yes I think it's basically the self help/call to personal responsibility that makes him appeal more to young men. Incels would have to specifically ignore what he says about their own responsibility in driving women away in order to think he was advocating they are just victims of society, which is what they actually believe.

I already did but here's the whole thing.

Have you read the Bell Curve Frown?

I mean... That sorta sounds like he's talking from a biological pov rather than a specific policy that is meant to restrict sexuality.

Only the free will part

Philosophers should communicate their ideas beyond a sorta. That's my key issue with Peterson.

Anyways, saying that there's a biological justification for restricting women's rights isn't really any better.

That's really not what I'm getting from him though. I think he favors monogamy on a pragmatic level as a way to structure society. That doesn't require any actual restrictions imposed on sexuality, if the mechanism by which it is "enforced" is by cultural norms. That basically describes the society we already live in, for the most part.

I don't even really value monogamy that much myself, but I just think what he's actually saying is less sexist than you're reading into it.

I haven’t either.

So what informed your opinion?

You know how easy it would be to just up and say straight out all of these things people are supposedly strawmanning him for? The fact that he doesn't and actively seems to avoid coming to the ****ing point implies that it's intentional, possibly either because his real beliefs are more right wing than he's comfortable admitting, or because he's got nothing and is just floating sensible sounding BS to sell books to rubes.

Or maybe he calls it like he sees it and a hypersensitive subculture extrapolates their own conclusions and then gets worked up about **** he never even really said.

Bro I know leftists **** on your for calling black people monkeys but that's your damage.

I like monkeys.

That's what it seems like to me. There are plenty of real points to criticize him on but it seems like virtually everything he says gets put under the microscope and intentionally misinterpreted.

If it's so easy for him to just say the things you think he is saying, and he already gets blamed for saying them, then he really has no reason not to say them. Unless that's not what his real position is.

I tend to give him the benefit the doubt cause I'm so used to his critics misrepresenting everything he says.

I think you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt cause the people criticizing him are leftists.

You can think what you like. I think I'm more familiar with him than you are.

It's the Cathy Newman style of attack that strikes me as phony. And it's the same tactic being used by m many others.

Not all leftists. I saw an interview of him by some feminist lady where I sided with her more than him. Because she didn't spend the entire interview cynically trying to reframe his views as more inflammatory than they are.

Ja I know, nothing that isn't completely unambiguous can't be racist or sexist.

Racists hypersensitively defending it as research gospel and the general reactionary nature of the passages that I've read.

Maybe. Extrapolating one's own conclusions and getting worked up about something that was never actually said seems more like Peterson's field though.

I dunno, you seem pretty good at it yourself.

Rubber glue fallacy

That's what makes me so good at spotting it.

I think Frown and jwb know that the first person to engage in earnest debate with the other is the loser and so they just semantically circle each other like two cats pretending everything's cool.

I don't even necessarily mean that Peterson isn't guilty of it too - I would need whatever example you're thinking of to say.

I just mean that his critics are certainly guilty of it from what I've seen. Even your boy Matt Dillahunty said as much in the beginning of the debate you cited.

I think we just had more of an earnest debate in the last few pages then I've seen from you since I came back to MB.

jwb be like

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/a7...cd0e79c163.gif

I would have to agree. He spouts incomprehensible jibberish and dresses it up as Marxism. He hangs posters of Stalin on his wall ffs.

Very earnest attempt at debate underway

I've just noticed that you two tend to trade a few posts promising some kind of debate and then you try to force the conversation into whatever alley you want it to go into and then Frown's like "Nope, wheeee!!!" and then just mocks you while you both jockey for some kind of semantic victory that the other will be forced to honestly respond to for fear of looking like a coward, at which point the person who made the other blink is in control and presumably wins.

We already had the debate. You were watching it fizzle out.

His last reply was half hearted so mine was too. I think we both spelled out what we think on the matter in the previous posts.

Chomsky does a better job ****ting on post modernist nonsense

they speak in incomprehensible jibberish intentionally so that no one understands it

As opposed to the rest of this convo?

You both tend to be pretty half hearted after the first few rounds. We need Chula back.

I think my response before the last one was anything but half hearted. I explained exactly where I am coming from. Maybe you didn't read it or didn't care.

I'd call it 75% hearted.

Nice

I don't expect you to be self-aware about your intentions tbh.

Here's your boy Chomsky ****ting on the whole enterprise



As I recall he debated Foucault and later called him "the most amoral man I've ever met"

You're always playing pop psychologist. You should try forming a few genuine human relationships before you start diagnosing people.

And here we see the wannabe alpha much as he dicksucks the capitalists and authoritarian American presidents in hopes that he can one day rise above his humble status of community college dropout to "make something of himself".

:laughing:

U mad?

I've been nothing but nothing but nice to you, bud. What's the matter?

I was going to say that.