Yes you believe he said it. But you just said he did it because he's weak and got baited. You implied he doesn't normally think these things but he got tricked into the statements.
I don’t even like/agree with half of what the dude says. I listen to all kinds of shit and I happened to stumble upon him because I love first amendment issues. I studied it in undergrad, I helped a radical leftist constitutional scholar write a book about it, and I’ve litigated cases over it. I think free speech is one of our most fundamental and important rights.
You just seem to be bending over backward to defend what seems like a reprehensible quote on its face. It reminds me of when I rationalize the Nuggets trading the pick that became Donovan Mitchell. But at least I'm aware that I'm a fanboy
It's a disputed quote. He didn't mean it. If he did say it he only did so because the woman interviewing him was a cunt. Jesus christ
You said you’d seen him rant about disney movies and enforced marriages. Again, I’m happy to eat crow if you can point me towards any of these supposed rants about enforced marriages.
No, i didn't. I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding. Now what does that misunderstanding change about him as a person?
I don’t think he was “weak” or “baited.” I think he probably made a deliberately provocative statement to another journalist doing this:
Is that what super serious smart people do? Profess opinions that are insane because the reporter was mean?
That he’s likely not the rabid anti-feminist alt-right agitator someone who supports enforced marriages might represent.
I now understand your point is that what he said in great detail is something he didn't actually mean because the reporter was "being a bitch" I find that hilarious but you can keep on keeping on
Is it insane to suggest that the Toronto Killer might have positively benefited if he had a healthy sex life and/or effective mental health treatment for his objectively horrid views? This idea that Peterson ‘must have meant’ the guy should have enjoyed unbridled sexual access to any woman he desired is pure fiction.
Maybe I missed it, but has Pokes explained what political views make Peterson to the left of Bernie Sanders yet?
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” Peterson supporters: He doesn’t mean that.
He literally said that everyone should have forced monogamy. There's no question what he meant. Unless you're you, apparently
No, instead he posted a video of Peterson explaining how his transphobia isn’t actually transphobia while tongue-lashing the radical leftists in Canadian Parliament. The kicker: his intention in posting said video was to give an example of Peterson getting “deliberately provocative” in response to a “cuntish” reporter. Bonus: Pokes appears to have about as much respect for women as his Canadian First Amendment thought leader.
when you defend someone you claim to "not always agree with" by posting no sound logic for why what he said isn't abhorrent you come off like a fanboy idiot just fyi Why?Pokes
Nm just read it. Curious to hear what he has to say about the blowback from his statements. I find it pretty lame that the actual questions and answers aren’t included in the article. Obviously context is required in an interview like this and we don’t even get to hear the actual questions being asked of him? Either way, he has clearly misspoken here if those are real quotes. Convenient we don’t get the full transcript though.
Why do you think that someone that talks as much as he does for a living would be “misspoken” about his thoughts on the issue? Why would assume that just because you think what he said was awful that it isn’t what he believes?
Because anyone who speaks as much as he does is going to misspeak at multiple points. He’s stated multiple times that he doesn’t always feel comfortable about his ability to not put his foot in his mouth when he is constantly speaking on the spot and not getting to think over topics and questions longer. It’s very reasonable and part of the price you pay for the wave of fame he’s riding.
You seem to be very confident in the man and well read on his views. Any interest in explaining to me the frozen propoganda and how that's the mark of a sane person?
He has said previously that female sexual choice leads to more desirable males having multiple female partners and other men being shut out. Why do you feel that this so inconsistent from that?
Bc there’s a massive difference between that very true statement and him advocating for government enforced monogamy. I’m reading through the comments in this thread and it’s beyond laughable that people are acting like that’s what he was saying. He’s talking about society enforcing monogamy as a moral standard. Btw I think he has a loose grasp on this particular concept, and I don’t think he realizes the pathology that exists within these incel types who think they are entitled to women much more attractive than they are.
Aren't they a fairly large portion of his clientele? He counsels them 1 on 1 and several were part of the nyt piece. It's illogical to assume he doesn't understand their point of view.
i think the hang up for most people is choosing the word enforce, which is a mighty strong word just for hoping society promotes it
Whether it’s government or societally enforced, it’s still advocating for suppression of female sexual desire to make men happy. He’ll argue that it will make women happy too, but his own thought experiments on what would happen when given are allowed unfettered choice puts the lie to that statement. In any case, it’s foolish for you to argue for excuses that Peterson isn’t. At one point, he acknowledges his hypocrisy directly to the reporter but persists with it anyway.
Well that and the entire premise that there is something “wrong” with a system that allows the “very true” statement. Men are never entitled to a woman.
I don’t know this but I think there’s a chance he used that word as a way to differentiate from genetic monogamy in the animal world. (Which he has discussed before.) Again, he’s a clunky guy. He’s a massive dork that spends his life thinking in micro categories. Not all of it translates well in an interview. Especially when the person interviewing has such a transparent agenda against him.
i dont understand this incredible desire to defend him from his own words i mean I do, but its befuddling
It's amazing. On one hand he's this really smart guy who you just don't understand and on the other he's this guy who folds under pressure and says things out of character when the interviewer has an "agenda"
its almost like the psychological hug his rhetoric provides to a certain demographic is more important than ANYTHING else
It'd be weird for someone who speaks publicly as much as he does to choose the word "enforce" for the first time when talking to a NYT reporter. So yes theres a chance, but man he's being held to a low standard. The argument that "enforce" could just be "socially prioritized" smells like defending their boy from a problematic stance.
and has been pointed out, the removal of agency from women in this scenario is a non arguable abhorrent stance
Look I think you don't understand just how transformative to his life learning to wipe his own ass has been for jy