Comments by "TheDionysianFields" (@TheDionysianFields) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

@ADerpyReality Peterson never said any such things. He tells men quite clearly that it's their fault if they're being rejected by every woman. Entitlement thinking is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything Peterson stands for.
9
@ADerpyReality Yes but on nearly EVERY OTHER ISSUE these two guys are in complete agreement. That's what people here don't understand.
6
@wabznasm9660 Re-distributive policy? Not even close. He's talking about cultural enforcement of an idea that he believes will create the best environment for children to grow up in. And that idea is monogamy, which already exists. So all he's saying is, "Let's keep that theme going. It's important for our children and their future." I tend to agree. The (hypothetical) example he gives is admonishing his son for cheating in a marriage. That's enforced monogamy. It's just sad how hard people work to misconstrue and misrepresent this man and his ideas.
4
You talk about some projecting!
4
@justanothernick3984 I don't get what you're implying. The new Gillette ad is a marketing gimmick directed at women because they drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing. You probably think Nike really gives a shit about Colin Kaepernick's cause, huh?
3
This is you not wanting to admit Joe Rogan's a solid thinker.
2
@yannis_2757 Peterson's not opposed to equality of outcome, in fact he would probably tell you it's ideal. He just doesn't think it can happen without a lot of destructive intervention. Why he didn't put that together on this issue is beyond me but it's cool that Rogan wasn't afraid to call him out. The whole monogamy deal is mainly for the benefit of children, not leveling the field for incels (who still wouldn't get laid). It's a topic that needs addressing and while Peterson was off base here, I believe his heart was/is in the right place. He's very much about the children.
2
@justanothernick3984 In what way? I didn't even know who Jordan Peterson was until a few weeks ago. I also spent the majority of my life on the far left (around 30 years). I'm not rationalizing for JP, I'm giving you my honest take on things. And since writing these comments 2 days ago, I've come to agree with him on enforced monogamy. It makes sense. It's what women want. It's best for the children. I say that as a man who currently turns away more sex than he engages in. Tell me where my bias is?
2
@justanothernick3984 Listen more closely. Peterson isn't opposed to equality of outcomes, only to artificial manipulation of the system (aka social engineering) to create equality of outcomes. Monogamy is obviously an ideal. All Peterson's saying is that it's worth striving for. And that the way to keep monogamy mainstream is basically to hold each other accountable...for the sake of the children (his exact thought). It's a cultural issue not a political one. We can do better. If Peterson likes the status quo, why is he out making waves and basically leading a revolution? The left is pushing the regressive policy...we were collectivists before we were individuals (don't you agree?)
2
@atropabelladonna First of all, Gillette has tons of women's products now. And as for married men, their wives know very well which products they use. The fact is that women drive 70-80% of consumer purchases. But I suppose it could also be directed at feminist or "white knight" men...although I'm still hoping those aren't too prolific. Am I being naive?
2
@redmed10 Well, you have to have some standards, don't you? One visit to this show and your image is irreparably damaged.
2
@Direksone I'm a critic of capitalism but I can still see that it's the best thing we have to work with. And cultural Marxism is nothing more than Marxism that's permeated the culture. And CLEARLY, it has. People are pushing it as a viable ideology by which to re-structure society when we already know that leads to very bad things.
2
@DjViceroy It's mostly social media that's misrepresenting him but please do tell how Peterson's take on Marxism is off-base. I think Peterson's referring more precisely to Post-structuralism (rather than Postmodernism) but it's the "post" prefix that's the central problem.
2
And this is the kind of cheap misrepresentation that plagues the internet.
2
This is the most biased podcast I've ever seen.
2
@krissmitchell8513 Generalizing is not "overgeneralizing".
2
@krissmitchell8513 Don't you wish you knew.
2
@bfkc111 Instead of just rambling, why don't you point out a position that Peterson holds that you think is off-base? Then attempt to back up your claim. Even on the issue that Rogan is addressing, which happens to be the only place I disagree with Peterson, he still makes a reasonable case. Society would be healthier if monogamy was the ironclad norm. JP backs that up quite adequately. Rogan is only disputing the idea that it should be enforced. Toward your argument, one doesn't have to pass any course to be a philosopher. Philosophy doesn't claim to be a science and in some ways you're better off if you haven't "poisoned your own well" by studying previous philosophers. All you really have to do to be a philosopher is have some human contact and think about things. JP's ideas are in fact very coherent and cover the ground that's been neglected for the past 40-50 years. What else do you want?
2
The only thing that's clear is that YOU don't understand Peterson's argument. He's never argued that equality of outcome is a bad thing and he's not arguing for equality of outcome here. This is about creating a more balanced opportunity for men to find a mate, by increasing the (already existing) cultural enforcement of monogamy. He's essentially thinking about the healthy development of children and you would know that if you watched the real video.
1
Some of us never expected JP to be perfect. He's a liberal at heart functioning as a conservative, that's bound to lead to a conflict of ideas at some point. He's also a man who can admit when he's wrong...like when he dismissed the MGTOWs out of hand. Or when he indirectly propped the incels, failing (initially) to point out that it's their fault they're alone. JP self-corrects and he'll get this one figured out too. That's all some of us followers can expect of a man. AND...if you listen closely, you'll see that his ideas about monogamy make perfect sense...even if his proposed solution is impractical and contradictory to the hierarchical model.
1
@theforsaken4489 So name one person who's more influential.
1
The yin-yang encompasses all opposites so we have to ascribe chaos to one side or the other. Since yin = emotion, I say it makes sense to place chaos on the feminine side. I don't care about the double helix issue but it's safe to say Peterson has an active imagination. In a sense, he's created an entire mythology for us to work with and it seems consistent unto itself (which is what matters). I personally find his message of responsibility refreshing, yet I remain in awe of his ability to get people on board with it. Americans aren't generally drawn toward such a message. Anyway, I'm not sure what your overall complaint is with Peterson but maybe that's something you should spend some time with. Personally, I assess each of his ideas independently, and more of them resonate with me than do not.
1
I guess you must hate Joseph Campbell, then? To my awareness, the yin-yang does translate into order and chaos, light and dark, apollo and dionysus, masculine and feminine. Not that Dionysus was effeminate, lol. I'm a Taoist myself and would like to see Peterson lean more in that direction than the Judeo-Christian one. But I'm impressed that he was able to include Taoism at all in his conception. Anyway, I don't mean to imply JP is infallible, in fact I criticize those who deify him. But he's onto something big and seems to have good intentions. That's all I care about.
1
Yes, people don't realize that these guys are essentially on the same page.
1
Why is it insane?
1
But he's really not. Only equality of opportunity. Even 100% monogamy doesn't ensure a given man will get laid.
1
@giveryourall5413 I never said I was 100% on board with enforced monogamy. But like Peterson says...it's what women want! (or what they say they want). The best plan is certainly to take the lower tier men and teach them social skill, flirting, hygiene...whatever's necessary. I personally have no problem with competing for the women I'm interested in, even though I'm below average in looks and don't have many masculine features. It just makes things more challenging. Anyway, I'm not sure if I understand your full position so feel free to elaborate. As far as pseudo-philosophy, I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't need credentials to be a philosopher, that's the beauty. And philosophy will never be a hard science, if it's a science at all! As a human being, I feel a responsibility to express things I observe about life that may be illuminating to others. If something I say is false, it probably won't stick..or it'll be challenged by a *contrasting viewpoint put forth as a cogent argument or rebuttal*. That's how it works.
1
@Papershire He never said that men were order, or that women are chaos. He's acknowledging the concepts of yin and yang and their universal influence. The world is out of balance. Peterson hopes his book will help restore the proper balance of masculine and feminine energies.
1
@kg356 I never said we shouldn't. We should continually strive to assure that all members of society have equal opportunity and equal access to the resources necessary to make themselves more valuable to the community.
1
I've tested in the 130s for IQ. I'm not an idiot and this guy is, yes, smart AS fuck.
1
@giveryourall5413 Peterson's words weren't contradictory. He's saying that a fraction of men end up with all the women based on an inequality of opportunity . Below average men aren't even being given a chance. JP feels that this hurts the family unit, hurts children. Enforced monogamy would help equal out opportunity and hopefully have an effect on outcome as well (but no guarantees). There's no such thing as pseudo-philosophy. Time and time again Peterson tells us that he's simply trying to communicate what he believes in a clear and honest way. That's the most we can ask of anyone. Throughout the process, JP adhere's to the psychological truths that HE has discovered and uncovered. These truths are a fusion of the works of many, including Jung, Freud, the existential and humanist psychologists, Rogers, Maslow, etc. In your eyes, Peterson is pretending to be the end-all authority on life and existence. Ha...no more so than you or I when we post our comments on Youtube, Facebook, etc. If you say something and people listen, you keep talking. It's not complicated. By your thinking we should call Nietzsche and Kant pseudo-philosophers and ask every minister to step down from the pulpit and shut up.
1
@giveryourall5413 When did he deny being a contrarian? "The far left should be afraid of me." -JBP
1
@atropabelladonna It doesn't change the content of the ad. All I'm saying is that they're taking advantage of the movement, not propping it.
1
@Direksone If we agree that both culture and Marxism exist, it follows that cultural Marxism -- in theory -- exists. And since Marxism itself is nothing more than theory, we must respect all theories on equal terms. Having said this, I have no good reason to promote capitalism. I've proven to be terrible at it. The reason I espouse it is because it's the system that keeps us closest to nature without precluding civility/civilization. But too be sure, it's an imperfect solution to an imperfect world! There is quite a bit to criticize but my firmest belief is the farther we stray from nature, the more social problems will arise. The mistake is to vilify capitalism, which is what so many leftists are doing today. It's like saying that the lion wants to kill the gazelle. There's no such thing as murder in nature. Capitalism is what it is, and it's the best system we've got to work with. Socialist programs, while often containing merit, should be a last resort and only peripherally applied.
1
Negative. Sam completely misrepresents 'equality of outcomes' and omits the part where Peterson explains it's true dangers.
1
@armandoaraujo7289 Could you please name for me a couple "serious opponents on the left?"
1
@veryfitting But that can also happen with a hierarchy, which is kind of what we're seeing. Except that it might not have reached a tipping point if we hadn't fostered an entitlement culture made up of spoiled juveniles in adult bodies.
1
Society can't compensate for "luck of the draw" without flirting with its own destruction.
1
I hope that's sarcasm because he already has. They are friends and believe in the same things.
1
@reichlinsmall9765 Yes, Peterson credits Rogan's podcast as what enabled him to rise to fame. The most recent one with JP is possibly the best discussion I've ever heard. These guys can talk about anything and go on for hours.
1
The problem lies with women. Every woman knows when she doesn't have a man all to herself. It's intuitive. But denial is a powerful thing. Of course this is essentially a self-esteem matter. Beyond that, every single woman I know admits to making the "worst" choices when it comes to men and relationships. Women seem quite gullible and susceptible to the somewhat obvious lies of men. You can argue that men need to be more honest (and you'd be correct, for the men's sake), but consider that women also like to be lied to. Furthermore, women are being taught to think it's okay to be promiscuous. Which it IS from a moral standpoint but not from a psychological one. Finally, most women lack self-control and don't make men wait long enough for it (this alone would discourage most traditional alpha who are only after sex). With that said, not every man will lose respect for you just because you sleep with him early in a relationship. But I guarantee you a man will lose respect for you if you sleep with him while he has something going on with someone else.
1
I do want to be very clear that I'm not suggesting women start dating beta males. Not at all. Men have a responsibility to try to move out of that category if they want to get laid. You know, grow a pair. Women will always want someone who makes them feel safe. So I guess it's a 2-way street here. Incels should be generally ignored by society and Peterson is dead wrong on this single issue.
1
I found the inane commentary even more jarring.
1
@redmed10 It's also a good way to take things out of context and remove the organic component of a complete thought or argument.
1
@atropabelladonna Women use shaving products too. Anyway, it doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that Gillette did the math and decided that the risk/reward ratio was in their favor. Period. Big business makes a living off fooling people and we need to not be so naive.
1
@atropabelladonna Gillette sells far more than just razors and one can argue that women buy/use as many razors as men. I'm not prepared to express my thoughts on the bigger issues at this time but I believe you've grossly oversimplified the ad.
1
@EvanCole My guess is that JP struggled with women in his younger days so he has a soft spot there. His ideas about monogamy aren't at all unreasonable or hypocritical, he just feels the need to solve problems and didn't think this one all the way through. If you listen to any of his longer interviews (including this one in full length), you'll see that this guy is a thinker and not to be trifled with. A rare lapse here.
1
So you watched the full video and not just this atrocity, right?
1
Kermit.
1