In interviews Peterson makes it clear that “enforced monogamy” means the enforcement is less by rule of law and more by social mores. He’s saying that society strongly prefers monogamy = enforcement.
I know, I’m curious if @gaboman comment about Peterson being wrong about many things stems from a general dislike because he is critical of the Progressive left or genuine observations of things he has said that are patently false.
I’m not sticking up for him or being critical, I get the criticism he states the obvious and the counter argument people need to be told the obvious. I even get he can be vague, but “wrong about many things” seems to be a resentment of the guy, but not really factual.
I never said Peterson was wrong about many things.
My reading comprehension might need improving.
Emphasis added is mine.
Let’s be honest, you don’t like him because he is critical of the progressive left. I get it.
You’re right about someone having some resentment but I don’t think the glass house you’re in is sturdy enough to withstand those stones.
Did I see this headline months ago and subconsciously absorb it, or is it a coincidence?
If you want to understand why some people attack JP for vagueness, this article is for you!
I think I got accused of the same thing the other day. Wait! What if I’m JP’s alter ego?
It’s very long. Highlights:
My favorite part:
Still, I disagree with Nathan’s thesis. Current Affairs bills itself as “a magazine of politics & culture”, so no surprise that its editor sees JP primarily in political/sociological terms and therefore finds it easy to dismiss most of what he says as nonsense. Yet JP is a psychologist, and a heavily Jung-influenced psychologist at that, so I don’t think he can really be understood without an analysis that takes Jungian psychology (/philosophy) seriously.
See what I mean?
Nathan also has a book out, whose cover shamelessly mocks JP.
More about the lobster thing:
The pop star comparison isn’t about stage presence (much less common sense). He may well want to retire soon, but I’m betting he will still have a following devoted enough to be willing to spend money on his products/services in future decades, regardless of cultural trends. Not as big, but still something.
I’m just stating the obvious, the progressive left hates this guy.
I’ll give you an example, one he used recently. some guy going by the name “Count Dankula” taught his girlfriends pug to salute to phases like “gas the jews”. He thought it was funny, plenty of people thought it was offensive, I get all that, no one has more distaste for Nazi imagery than myself. But he was prosecuted and fined 800 pounds I think and that is what is obscene.
Look the bottom line is you have a group going around calling everyone racist, sexist, homophobic, nazi, white supremacist. All day every day, a right they wish to maintain while at the same time regulating what other people can or can’t say.
Okay, and you see me on forumosa thinking Jordan Peterson is lame and somehow equate us to one another. Don’t you see a problem there?
So, if we entertain the possibility that Christine thought she was raped but actually wasn’t, should we not also entertain the possibility that Brett thought he didn’t rape her but actually did?
You don’t need to be a Simpsons fan to see the gaping whole in that argument, but it helps.
You know what’s a pretty big stretch? Being selected for the Supreme Court of the world’s most powerful state. That’s a stretch for anyone. The (de facto) standards are (supposed to be) high for a reason, higher than the standards for civil trials or criminal trials. Once again, Caesar’s f***ing wife!
It’s pretty funny when “huge problems” turn out to be mostly or entirely rumors.
While we’re at it, Nathan also has a take on Brett vs. Christine, a very, very thorough take.
Whew, I’m all caught up now!
Just in time for the Nazi stuff.
Okay, bye y’all!
I have no problem with you thinking he is lame. No explanation needed, everyone has a right to an opinion. Personally I have no feeling one way or the other. If you say your dislike is not being swept up by genuine progressive left dislike for the guy, because if we are being honest he is being critical of their ideas, then I believe you.
That Ford has had more than 35 years to file civil suit in the people’s republic of Maryland for sexual assault? Maryland, a state where Democrats are only slightly less powerful than they are in California? Say for US$1 plus court fees plus attorney fees? As a way to achieve the justice that she claims she was out to achieve before Congress?
That she could still file that suit today - yet will not?
Now that’s a stretch.
I think NJR’s dissection of Brett’s PR show was thorough enough, so I’ll just recommend reading it and leave it at that. After all, this isn’t IP.
If the 1 click counter is accurate, I’m the only one who actually read it.
I read it.
Which is exactly why I don’t care which one of them seemed more “believable.” I care about evidence. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh did anything. Absolutely zero. Not a single supporting witness. Not a single scrap of physical evidence. Nothing.
You think it makes sense that he would stick his neck out with that claim? This, of course, isn’t any sort of evidence. I didn’t present it as such… but if we are going to allow the “Why would she put herself out there to be attacked?” argument, I think Kavanaugh stuck his neck out way more by claiming he was a virgin. At least that is a claim that COULD be debunked. Ford was so vague in every single one of her claims that it is literally impossible to disprove them. Literally EVERY SINGLE tangible claim she made was discounted by the people she named.
The standards ARE high…and he never broke any of them. There’s no evidence that he lied or committed any crime.
Now about that Canadian psychologist guy…
I’m sure some of you will be interested in this:
I hope Auckland is not relying on “Auckland Peace Action” for peace or anything else. He sounds like that android in I, Mudd
An interesting blog post, this seemed like a good place for it