The enforced monogamy thing keeps getting repeatedly misinterpreted. As someone on reddit recently put it....."enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The enforced monogamy thing keeps getting repeatedly misinterpreted. As someone on reddit recently put it....."enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”
Usually is. That's why I've stopped taking twitter seriously.
If he said that then I would very much disagree with him.
I've noticed that Peterson in particular, is repeatedly smeared and misinterpreted (deliberately or not), so the best way to get to the bottom of it is to actually watch and evaluate his presentation on the merits, as opposed to be spoon fed random things by his critics.
Even then it's still contradictory and fairly hypocritical - someone who repeatedly bangs on about individualism arguing that society should try to culturally impose an ideal upon its citizens for the supposed good of wider society. Is that not the sort of thing he'd typically argue against? Or is it somehow different when it benefits a certain group of people?
That was just one example. He's got plenty of dodgy statements and comments that people are right to ridicule him for. Like the time he tried to get into an argument with a Chomsky quotes account on Twitter.
Couldn't agree more. I have noticed the same.
An easy way to not get "smeared" by people pointing out the stupidity of things you've said would be to stop saying stupid things.
Or I suppose you could do this.
A real marketplace of ideas we've got going here
Or I suppose you could do this.
A real marketplace of ideas we've got going here
He's evoking this it as a historical/anthropological reality in human social systems that have been successful. In essence, he is arguing that the opposite of polygamy has been very good thing for us. There's no nexus between that and free speech.
Its likely down to the fact that he has become popular very quickly and his views are generally contradictory to the identity politics culture that has become the orthodoxy of the present. The feverish hen pecking to find a contradictory statement from him is just a testament that some are concerned that his ideas are challenging the existing power structure that privileges identity over agency.
Irrespective of that he's still arguing that wider society should impose a moral/social idea upon its citizens for their own good. I'd say that runs counter to the sort of individualism he typically espouses.
But, anyway, the wider idea that he's somehow smeared all the time strikes me as a bit silly - he's got a myriad of daft and stupid comments for a supposed intellectual, and people regularly point out those daft and stupid comments and highlight some of the areas in which his ideas fall short or are exposed as being nonsense.
As has been pointed out he's also very good at obfuscating - he'll lightly suggest something, and then when people call him out on it he'll say he's been misinterpreted and that's not really what he meant, meaning he can't really be held to account for anything he thinks, even when it's clear what his view is.
There's nothing wrong with advocating for something that has already worked in our favor for much of our history. He's simply popularizing a scientifically accepted norm.
I'm not saying there is. I'm saying it's hypocritical according to his own viewpoint though. If he's so far personal and individual freedoms, why's he saying society should be morally trying to encourage its citizens to go in a certain direction?
There is no linkage between the two. You can advocate for a societal norm and still advocate for free speech. He isn't advocating for any law that promotes one and impinges on the other.
scientifically accepted norms like, uh, ancient paintings secretly being being people seeing DNA on mushrooms trips, far out, man
He's not just advocating for that norm though - he's saying it should be strongly encouraged by the government to the point where the individual is expected/strongly encouraged to take up a certain norm even if it's not what they desire. Sounds fairly anti-individualist.
Its none of the above. If you live in a country that prohibits polygamy then you are already living in a construct Peterson talks about. And chances are your freedom of speech isn't restricted because of it.
people who worry about the manliness of future generations are weirdos who should be driven from public life
its crazy how people take peterson seriously. him being known at all in public can all be traced back to a simple law he either deliberately misunderstood to advance alt right talking points or is too thick to understand
that law was clearly written by black chaos
Agree with you yet again. Articles and critiques of him, at least from the mainstream press, are generally driven by ad hominem and hyperbole. It is very difficult to find a balanced and informative critique of his opinions. Which is why I choose to go to the source instead.
he's just popularising the scientific consensus...
Direct me to it and I can give an opinion when I get home.
Edit: and just to clarify, I disagree with Peterson on several topics! I understand why many do not like him. And I also understand why many like him. I try to remain objective.
All the links Silva and I have posted of peterson in his own words in the last page or two
My opinion really isn't that interesting you know... haha. I will take a look and listen to the arguments and provide my POV.
Best to actually read one of his books or watch one of his lectures in its entirely than these one off drive by tweets or clips that don't contextualize his views properly.
I'll admit I haven't given Peterson's work a full-read and so can't judge it fully, but even a list of quotes attributed to him from his works reveal him to be fairly bloated and stating the obvious through disguised means. This is one of his most-liked quotes on Goodreads...
He's basically saying you should always be looking to learn stuff. But in a way that's badly written and overly long.
He's basically saying you should always be looking to learn stuff. But in a way that's badly written and overly long.
Edit - apart from the obvious criticisms of this, I want to add that Marx's "opiate of the masses" full quote is actually somewhat sympathetic to religious belief. He was clear that removing religion would not alleviate suffering. I think @Synco had a good take on this in some other thread.
I'm generally not a fan of his. Not for the substance of what he says, which after looking into them are generally accurate, but rather because he's long-winded and spends 10 minutes talking about something that could be easily fleshed out in 2 or 3.
some of my best friends are things I dont know
That's just one. This is another amusing one...
Actions have consequences. So does inaction. Or something like that.
Isnt that a rush lyric?
Absolutely agree with this. He's far too wordy. When speaking, he also jumps around so quickly and it makes him very irritating to listen to. Couldn't ever imagine paying to listen to such a guy. He needs to work on being an effective communicator, although I assume his fans like that aspect of it, as if they are part of an exclusive club that has a greater understanding of the topics.
He's too much of a lecturer and not enough of a presenter imo.
Going off the hype, you'd think he had mastered the latter. Far from it, and I wondered what I'd been missing when I eventually bothered to check out one of his talks.