Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Joe Rogan - Jordan Peterson Clarifies His Incels Comment" video.

Setting aside the strict hierarchy he asumes, the fact that he doesn't prove the harm he claims, and doesn't consider many other solutions to the problems... What he describes isn't enforced monogamy, it's encouraged monogamy. This is part of a pattern where he regularly redefines terms to mean things we already have perfectly good words for (from his nonsense definition of truth on down) and only reveals what he really means when pushed (which he often resists). If you can't figgure out why, let's try taking his advice and looking at the results: He's become nearly impossible to debate as he can squirm out of nearly every argument he wants because it his opponent needs to take upwards of at least 10 minutes per word to pin down his actual position on an issue and then to actually debate him on said issue they need to basically work around the fact that he's functionally working with a third of the dictionary changed. (Something few have the rhetorical skills to do on the fly even when in a format where they have time, and when they do we find the underlying arguments so full of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies that it borders on solipsism) He's also amassed a large following (and a bank account to match) of emotionally vulnerable men, many of whom are at least slightly sympathic to Nazis because JP also uses their fucked up vocabulary as part of his. What motives seem most likely given what we know?
2
@giovalladares1022 even Rationality Rules overly kind critique of JP (focused almost entirely on exposing logical fallacies) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkcIPV7s4KSBe8iCczxI0GwLhyOa1O2TN proves that his language (deliberately or not) is incredibly imprecise (pay special not to the frequency of the equivocation fallacy) and that those "mistakes" go down all the way to the core of his ideology.
2
Scribble Man The Art Of Barcraft I first found JP through his lectures, with no priming in any way. After several hours of listening to just that, concluded that he was full of BS. Just in this clip not only did he make several unsubstantiated assumptions (which we'll ignore for not), but he once again redefined a term to mean something we already have a perfectly good word for. What he describes isn't "enforced monogamy" but "encouraged monogamy" and once again his twisting of language appeals more to right-wing, (at least mildly) bigoted, emotionally vulnerable men. Let's try an experiment of judging JP by his own standards when intent is in question. If someone repeatedly and flagrantly twists language to appeal to a specific demographic, what can we presume about their intent? If they typically do it in such a way that they only give a semi-reasonable definition when pressed (and that differs from the definition the language most appeals to) what more can we presume? If that language is not uncommonly the same as used by neonazi propaganda, what more can we presume? Even if we take the most charitable (and IMO most likely) conclusion that he's just a for-profit charlatan, he's still gathering a group of emotionally vulnerable men and neonazis into the sam community which is a recipe for disaster (more neonazis).
1
@Bubblemation aw is the little boy triggered because people are talking truth about his daddy? Guess what? It doesn't matter how smart you are if you work backwards from your conclusion and only use your intelligence to cover up your logical fallacies. When adults are talking, that's called sophistry. Since you're not smart enough to see through his BS without having your hand held like I did when I watched his lectures, try watching this critique by Rationality Rules (don't worry, he doesn't think your daddy is dumb or call him on misrepresenting Canadian laws, so his fairly gentle critique shouldn't get you too triggered) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkcIPV7s4KSBe8iCczxI0GwLhyOa1O2TN
1