Enforced monogamy; was Peterson right?

[Uxupox]

A matter of opinion.

Would you rather give a random stranger 50 dollars or have sex with them?

why would I give some random person 50 dollars. you know my answer.

[Dogmeat]

Women be shrill and nagging am I right? Eh? Eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*

I don't get why hyenas are demonized so much. They're so cute! And they actually score higher on group intelligence tests than chimpanzees.

It's probably because humans evolved alongside them as a competitor and occasional predator. Similar to the reasons why humans are instinctively afraid of snakes, and of places where leopards are likely to hide.

[Katganistan]

The opening post is somewhat muddled, but monogamy -- real monogamy, not serial monogamy -- does best promote the welfare of both sexes as well as children. Monogamy's alternatives sow angst and jealousy. The problem is that many human beings -- the exact proportion varies by culture -- lack the foresight and self-control to practice monogamy (cf. present bias). Therefore, for their own good, society must raise the benefits of monogamy (e.g., by romanticizing marriage) or raise the costs of non-monogamy (e.g., by opprobrium or by law).

"Yes, you're going to be stuck with this one person -- who has proven time and again s/he is unreliable and will cause you physical, emotional, mental or financial harm -- because MONOGAMY."

No thanks.

[Darussalam]

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

In most of the developed world, the threat of dying due to poverty is very minimal. "Income inequality" in those countries is hardly about the concern of survival, but more of status, chiefly among the competing brahmin-signalists.

[New Emeline]

You can survive without money. There are societies that exist that do not possess a form of hard currency such as coins or paper notes. In the West, this is much more difficult because we're used to our quality of living and purchasing things, but to suggest that you can't survive without money is in ignorance of those societies and communities that do so.

You're right. You cannot survive without money in our society. Happy?

[Galloism]

Look, I don't like Peterson for lots of reasons, but I don't know that he said "gender roles... are inherently good".

Peterson seldom outright says anything about what he actually believes, but sticks to implying it through innuendo and context. If you take a good sampling of various comments he's made through the years, it becomes clear where he stands when it comes to traditional gender roles: he doesn't think efforts to challenge them are much good because he seems to think we are naturally predisposed towards them (and he doesn't try particularly hard to keep it a secret that he thinks these traditional gender roles are more conducive to the sort of society he'd find preferable). Throw in his generalizations about career women over thirty and maternity, his passive-aggressive comments about feminists and sexual domination, his views on divorce and his rare comments about gay men...

So... it's a feeling for you.

He's explicitly said,outright mind you, multiple times, that he believes in equality of opportunity and that there should be no extra barriers for women to attaining high career status (aside from those incidental to everyone, including men), and that there should be no extra barriers for men to be caregivers.

You have notions vs explicit statements.

Honestly, if you didn't know him, or that he was a professor and a psychologist, and you saw him speaking wearing a Catholic priest's clothes, would you have any doubts as to what his ideal society would look like?

I'd think it was a Monty Python skit.

[New Emeline]

I don't get why hyenas are demonized so much. They're so cute! And they actually score higher on group intelligence tests than chimpanzees.

It's probably because humans evolved alongside them as a competitor and occasional predator. Similar to the reasons why humans are instinctively afraid of snakes, and of places where leopards are likely to hide.

But we don't demonize leopards. Hyenas are almost universally viewed as evil, dirty, and sneaky.

[Cedoria]

It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

It isn't, because generally people who don't like what other people are saying don't pay attention to what they're saying, but get focused on one or two words and lose sight of the bigger picture. Especially if you have a narrative to maintain.

No, it's more like he's a smart guy who understands the connotations people will draw from his words, so he then changes them to insist he didn't mean what everybody knows he really means, so he can't be pinned down to any firm position.

It's intellectually dishonest and completely useless as a point of discussion, but it's Peterson's whole shtick. That and the whole thing about whining about not wanting to do what the Canadian gender bill didn't actually say he had to do.

It's Peterson's whole reason for popularity, nobody can disprove his argument, because he never really makes one.

[Liriena]

One can be left wing economically and still be socially conservative. Such views are not mutually exclusive.

It's also worth noting that Peterson isn't right wing - he's pretty centrist, a classical liberal even.

He's pretty centrist... but also thinks no-fault divorce was a bad idea.

kek

In favor of universal healthcare, against compelled speech.

Friendly reminder that the Canadian Bar Association was pretty blunt about how full of shit he was about the whole "compelled speech" thing.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

A matter of opinion.

Would you rather give a random stranger 50 dollars or have sex with them?

Depends upon the stranger, and the reason for sex and/or the 50 dollars.

. . .

No, it's not hypocritical to contemplate casual sex and deterrence thereof when others are having it anyway. It's all game theory. If I didn't impregnate a single mother, someone else would. It's a factor in such a decision, but not the be-all end-all.

[Liriena]

Women be shrill and nagging am I right? Eh? Eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*

I don't get why hyenas are demonized so much. They're so cute! And they actually score higher on group intelligence tests than chimpanzees.

Nice!

[Bakery Hill]

How on Earth would you actually go about making this happen.

[Liriena]

Welp, figured there was something missing.

Alright, /thread, let's move on folks.

Nobody's missing anybody.

This is what Peterson does, he says something insane/stupid, when people get annoyed or point out he's wrong, he weasal's out by saying he didn't really mean what everybody heard him say.

It means he can talk at length and sound really smart about subjects which he knows nothing, while simultaneously never getting pinned down on any subject that would prove him wrong.

Guy's an intellectual fraud of the worst kind, one who uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.


It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

Hear hear.

[New Emeline]

I don't get why hyenas are demonized so much. They're so cute! And they actually score higher on group intelligence tests than chimpanzees.

Nice!

They also have what is essentially a monarchy. Baby hyena (if it's a female) inherits whatever position Mommy hyena had, barring a death or collapse of the pack power structure.

[New Emeline]

How on Earth would you actually go about making this happen.

I don't know, but it wouldn't be pleasant.

[Cedoria]

Nobody's missing anybody.

This is what Peterson does, he says something insane/stupid, when people get annoyed or point out he's wrong, he weasal's out by saying he didn't really mean what everybody heard him say.

It means he can talk at length and sound really smart about subjects which he knows nothing, while simultaneously never getting pinned down on any subject that would prove him wrong.

Guy's an intellectual fraud of the worst kind, one who uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.


It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

Hear hear.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fell for that crap he said about that Canadian law, when even a customary reading of it and the opinion of every noteworthy legal profession could tell you that it didn't say what Peterson kept insisting it said.

Anything for a narrative these days I suppose.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Welp, figured there was something missing.

Alright, /thread, let's move on folks.

Nobody's missing anybody.

This is what Peterson does, he says something insane/stupid, when people get annoyed or point out he's wrong, he weasal's out by saying he didn't really mean what everybody heard him say.

It means he can talk at length and sound really smart about subjects which he knows nothing, while simultaneously never getting pinned down on any subject that would prove him wrong.

Guy's an intellectual fraud of the worst kind, one who uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.


It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

But is there any proof that "enforced" meant legally enforced? If not it discredits those who misrepresented his remarks.

[Galloism]

Hear hear.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people fell for that crap he said about that Canadian law, when even a customary reading of it and the opinion of every noteworthy legal profession could tell you that it didn't say what Peterson kept insisting it said.

Anything for a narrative these days I suppose.

So you CAN'T be fined for using the wrong pronoun? Source?

[Dogmeat]

It's probably because humans evolved alongside them as a competitor and occasional predator. Similar to the reasons why humans are instinctively afraid of snakes, and of places where leopards are likely to hide.

But we don't demonize leopards. Hyenas are almost universally viewed as evil, dirty, and sneaky.

A product of evolution. Humans don't demonize leopards themselves, but rather the dark corners they reside in. Especially children (the most likely victims.) This is because if you have to see a leopard to be afraid of it, it's probably already too late.

Whereas hyenas are not subtle. You hear and see them coming.

[Darussalam]

How on Earth would you actually go about making this happen.

I don't know, but it wouldn't be pleasant.

Monetary/financial incentives in favor of monogamy/against polyamory might be unpleasant, but no more than monetary/financial incentives in favor of median income/against the rich.

[Seangoli]

It's probably because humans evolved alongside them as a competitor and occasional predator. Similar to the reasons why humans are instinctively afraid of snakes, and of places where leopards are likely to hide.

But we don't demonize leopards. Hyenas are almost universally viewed as evil, dirty, and sneaky.

Hyenas tend to live in large dens, and wreak to all hell of musk from the spray they use to mark territory. They are also avid hunters, to an even greater degree than big cats. Due to living in large clans, they need to kill a lot more than a Leopard, and are honestly pretty damn intelligent and adaptable. That said, they are also pretty trainable due to being a social animal, and it's not particularly shocking to see them playing similar roles as you would expect domestic dogs elsewhere. The native African folklore on hyenas is mixed, as they take on traits of 'good' animals in some traditions and 'bad' in others. They are known to actively hunt humans, as well, and we have evidence that this was the case going back hundreds of thousands of years.

[Uxupox]

But we don't demonize leopards. Hyenas are almost universally viewed as evil, dirty, and sneaky.

A product of evolution. Humans don't demonize leopards themselves, but rather the dark corners they reside in. Especially children (the most likely victims.) This is because if you have to see a leopard to be afraid of it, it's probably already too late.

Whereas hyenas are not subtle. You hear and see them coming.

not to mention leopards have a majestic roar while Hyenas literally sounds like a demon exorcism in progress.

[Liriena]

Peterson seldom outright says anything about what he actually believes, but sticks to implying it through innuendo and context. If you take a good sampling of various comments he's made through the years, it becomes clear where he stands when it comes to traditional gender roles: he doesn't think efforts to challenge them are much good because he seems to think we are naturally predisposed towards them (and he doesn't try particularly hard to keep it a secret that he thinks these traditional gender roles are more conducive to the sort of society he'd find preferable). Throw in his generalizations about career women over thirty and maternity, his passive-aggressive comments about feminists and sexual domination, his views on divorce and his rare comments about gay men...

So... it's a feeling for you.

No. It's thinking about what he says critically, and without ignoring wider context and history.

He's explicitly said,outright mind you, multiple times, that he believes in equality of opportunity and that there should be no extra barriers for women to attaining high career status (aside from those incidental to everyone, including men), and that there should be no extra barriers for men to be caregivers.

You have notions vs explicit statements.

His individualism when it comes to government action does not preclude him also holding reactionary views on a social level... as seen by the ideas presented in his NYT interview and his face-saving blog post: he doesn't want government-enforced sexual slavery, but he sure likes the idea of widespread social pressure that would lead to a return to pre-sexual revolution family structures.

Honestly, if you didn't know him, or that he was a professor and a psychologist, and you saw him speaking wearing a Catholic priest's clothes, would you have any doubts as to what his ideal society would look like?

I'd think it was a Monty Python skit.

Monty Python's absurdity is intentional, tho.

[Cedoria]

Nobody's missing anybody.

This is what Peterson does, he says something insane/stupid, when people get annoyed or point out he's wrong, he weasal's out by saying he didn't really mean what everybody heard him say.

It means he can talk at length and sound really smart about subjects which he knows nothing, while simultaneously never getting pinned down on any subject that would prove him wrong.

Guy's an intellectual fraud of the worst kind, one who uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.


It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

But is there any proof that "enforced" meant legally enforced? If not it discredits those who misrepresented his remarks.

The mere word "Enforced" raises legal connotations.

But as I said, Peterson really says anything that can be 'proved' one way or another. He said enforced, which usually means legally enforced, and then 'clarified' by saying he was using it in a social context (which means it's not enforced at all, just more comfortable).

He's a smart guy, if what he'd meant to say was 'we should make monogamy the most socially acceptable option', he'd have no doubt been able to say that.

Because he doesn't want anybody proving him wrong, he's now on record as supporting legally enforced monogamy AND both saying that it should only be 'socially enforced'. Everybody who supports him will take whichever interpretation they prefer and run with it, while everybody who points out why either idea is stupid will be subject to a blistering farrago of Petersonan nonsense about how they misinterpreted him and he didn't mean what everyone heard him say.

There's no proof he meant it, no, because the guy never says anything he 'means' anyway. It's why I call him an intellectual fraud. If you're not upfront about your position and the justifications for it, you're of no use as an intellectual.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't know, but it wouldn't be pleasant.

Monetary/financial incentives in favor of monogamy/against polyamory might be unpleasant, but no more than monetary/financial incentives in favor of median income/against the rich.

Monogamy is already massively more popular than polygamy/polyamory. It has no legal standing and is also considered socially weird. The question here is about how the government about making incels get laid.