[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 246 KB, 856x229, Screenshot-2018-6-11 YouTube.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305458 No.11305458[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

how do we stop him, bros?

>> No.11305487

the more you hate it, the stronger it gets

>> No.11305493

His daughter

>> No.11305495

something something youtube algorithms

>> No.11305499

We don't. We let him do whatever he wishes to do without ever confronting him or his followers.
This, by the way, is the correct answer for every single one of these shitty bait threads copypasta'd from /v/

>> No.11305502

>>11305458
The same you stop other whiney kids who scream for their daddy, ignore it. His cult and brand lives due perceived victimhood when other parties engage with him, cut that oxygen and he won't have enough to keep brainlets attention.

>> No.11305505

>>11305458
>rearticulate William James and Carl Jung
>mouthbreathers think that you're some unfathomable genius with a completely unique way of perceiving the world
I bet he's a good psychologist though. His self-help advice seems genuinely useful

>> No.11305506

>>11305458
well obviously the trip to stop him is to be a basic twitter leftist, possibly even a podcaster, and make the same joke about his kermit voice that he himself made within the first month of his initial success. theres no way his credibility will survive you comparing him to kermit the frog. alternatively you could say that he is a virgin, even though he has kids, and that his audience is full of virgins, even though all your followers and everyone who donates to your patreon are also virgins. also have a crippling cocaine problem that makes your objection to his "self-help" stuff seem like an ego-defense against how fucked up your life is, and also make sure you have that weird brooklyn disease where you act like youre still in high school/college even though youre a busted old late millenial dude who cant get over the golden age of the simpsons.

whatever you do, dont point out that peterson obviously has no philosophical education whatsoever (because this will reveal that you also dont read), and make sure you dont point out that all of his favourite phiosophers are literally every 15-year-olds favourite philosophers (because if you do that people might realize all your favourite philosophers are every 13-year olds favourite philosophers--lategreatculturaltheoristmarkfisherlategreatculturaltheoristmarkfisher)

extra points if have a name like will, amber, nick, dasha, felix, you know names in that kind of ballpark

>> No.11305512

>>11305502
>perceived victimhood
It's more genuine than perceived; a lot of his fanbase are in a genuinely bad spot. And most of advice focuses on inward rather than outward change, which is a healthy way of looking at self-improvement.

>> No.11305517

>>11305506
Nick Mullen is a cool guy leave him alone

>> No.11305520

>>11305505
It's useful to get the person running again but not much more. Without looking for the reasons that caused failure, it seems pretty shortsighted, at least from self-help point of view. For him it's great when the person will come back for more.

>> No.11305522

>>11305458
What's wrong with any of that?

>> No.11305530

>>11305520
Bad spots are often the result of ruts, not necessarily patters of thought that turn into behaviors that lead to bad spots. If you can get someone up and running, that's often enough.

>> No.11305532

>>11305512
>WAH WAH I AM OPPRESSED BY POLITICALLY CORRECT CULTURAL MARXISTS

Stop having a victim mentality, cuck

>> No.11305535
File: 682 KB, 815x611, thisisthefuture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305535

>>11305506
i too cant wait for late millenial trappo chat house culture to be replaced by these young conservatives

>> No.11305537

>>11305495
>this type of comment
you need to go back to ribbit

>> No.11305542

>>11305532
The thing is that 90% of Peterson's advice is to deal with your own shit without complaining. He has an entire chapter in his book that argues against political activism. If you hate Peterson's fans, then you should want them to follow his advice.

>> No.11305545

>>11305542
>The thing is that 90% of Peterson's advice is to deal with your own shit without complaining.

Except that he is constantly complaining about how he is a victim of postmodern neo-marxist pc police

>> No.11305552

>>11305512
Was talking more about him, how it helps his brand to get attacked "by the mainstream-neo-culural-marxist-frankfurt-post-modernists-leftists-pick-your-ism", any kind of engagement with him serves as validation.

Also while his audience definitely needs help, they are usually the perpetrators too. Given how they turn into drones instead of going on with their vastly improved lives after reading, the help part seems questionable too, despite the right direction in the approach.

>> No.11305557

>>11305545
That's not really an element of Peterson's book. His political and ideological views are separate from his ethical advice.

>> No.11305558
File: 37 KB, 500x675, 1351208497953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305558

>>11305505

This is a good starting point, bring back the conventional arguments that muted Jung and James at the time. Namely, behaviorism, analytical philosophy.

If we insist on Skinner tier objective data a lot of Peterson goes out the window, or it will become substantial enough to be taken apart by any good literary critic. Another point, don't touch Peterson with a 10 foot pole. Chomsky him. Don't publish his opinions, his writings, never mention him in an academic circle or setting. Excommunicate him, and his name will die. The subversion of opinions should be saved for those influenced by him. The above insistence on behaviorist and analytical models should be voiced by professors, educators, editors, to those who have been influenced by Peterson, ideally without invoking his name.

>"Ah, I see you're using a proto-Jungian model. Modern psychology seeks to understand models of thought through cognitive neuroscience, here are a few good authors to start with."
Eichenbaum for hippocampal research, just as an example. Appeal to their science side.
>"Oh you want to scientific, here, take this harder science."
>"Oh you want more philosophy? Try Aristotle's De Anima and Hume for cognitive, get back to me with your impressions."

Scrub him.

>> No.11305564

The real question is : why would you want to take him down ?

As far as /lit/ is concerned, he's enticing the youth to get off the internet and read all the great books out there. He's the one who got me in Dostoevsky.

Beyond that, I don't think anyone here can take him down. Peterson is very careful about making sure that everything he says is true, and he always does.

I've tried many times to be skeptical about him, and I never could.

The only problem with him is that he's a chained pet and has been since he started becoming a prominent public figure.

When Erza Levant bought the Rebel Media a couple of months ago, he also started giving a lot of money to Peterson, and this moment correlates with the beginning of his public rise.

When attacked, Peterson frequently cites semite papers qrote to defend him.

I mean, it doesn't get clearer than this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqtPsEXZTec

>> No.11305570

>>11305530
Eh, honestly not sure about that but don't have enough background about the topic to really argue against or for it either. From anecdotical experience, it actually does seem to be much more down to patters, when things are going well, people just aren't employing them but once shit goes down (and it usually does) the whole negative feedback loop creeps back in.

>> No.11305571

>>11305552
We have to separate Peterson as a clinician from Peterson as a political commentator. His former work is what his book is about, and part of what makes him so appealing to parts of his fanbase. If we equate the two sides of Peterson's public persona and dismiss him entirely, then we give the impression that we're strawmanning him to the people whom he has genuinely helped.

>> No.11305581

>>11305558
Peterson is a researcher who cites behavioral studies regularly bruh. Have you read his papers? He takes elements from Jung, but he's not a purely Jungian psychologist.

>> No.11305585

>>11305564
https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/

he's a kike sellout. sad that anyone would take him seriously.

>> No.11305586

>>11305564
There are “people” on this board who got into Dostoyevsky through Peterson, lmao. Are you actually underage?

>> No.11305592

>>11305558
The problem is that Peterson is like a wet fish. He takes and synthesizes ideas from so many conflicting branches of psychology and philosopher that he's difficult to grasp. He's rarely 100% wrong, even if he does often miss the big picture and straw-man his ideological enemies.

>> No.11305594

>>11305558
why do nerds, from GG to Kraut and Tea, need to make their petty internet beef sound like a transnational evil conspiracy?

>> No.11305595

>>11305586
great contribution to this thread, thank you very much

>> No.11305599

>>11305571
His self-help stuff is clearly written by the political commentator, just one who could separate the jobs and didn't push too much of his agenda. It doesn't seem realistic to separate two sides of one person in any practical. Adolf might have great views about animal rights and the environment but wait till you get into more of his work!

>> No.11305603

>>11305512
>white males
>in a bad spot
... That's literally impossible. The only struggle you experience is cleaning your room and applying for jobs.

>> No.11305622

>>11305517
Nick is my favourite comedian, but the cumtown bit on jordan peterson isnt funny. The whole "actually its alpha to be autistic" thing is a pretty contrived misunderstanding of autism being related to hormones. The fact that Peterson is a middle aged dude whose brain got stuck at "smart fifteen year old" level, plus all the healing crystal shit he believes in ("well it depends what you mean by "do i believe in chakras?""), is imo better comic territory than making him out to be king of the incels (which is true, it's just a banal and obvious observation).

>>11305535
wow imagine that, literal ten year olds doing something embarassing.

these kids will look back on that pic and cringe in two years time. however, your average fyad twitter dweeb will never look at all the times they tweeted out "the [whatever] respecter has logged on" and "episode of the simpsons where they break tim mcveigh out of prison" for the hundredth time and think, "maybe i should try something different" or "maybe i should look up to someone other than dril".

>> No.11305627

>>11305570
Individual bad acts perpetuate themselves and turn into patterns of destructive behavior. This is why we talk about poverty and addiction in terms of cycles.

>> No.11305629

>>11305603
The same people who complain the victim mentality of minorities also tend to believe that white males are being oppressed. Trying to reason with them is pointless, you are wasting your time.

>> No.11305632

>>11305603
white males have the highest suicide rate of any race-gender demographic, so they are clearly in a bad spot in some ways

>> No.11305636

>>11305458
Who is this fucking person named Jordan Peterson? why should I care?

>> No.11305640

>>11305599
>brings up Hitler
come on dude. Peterson is a middle-of-the-road conservative who's to the left of Ben Shapiro. He's not Hitler.

And I do think that his self-help advice can be perceived as being separate from his ideological views. There's nothing inherently ideological about telling people to clean their rooms and to be radically honest with others. I read his book, found it useful, and didn't become conservative as a result.

>> No.11305644

>>11305629
white males are the only demographic openly discriminated against. Well asian males as well i suppose, but they dont get headlines shitting on them

You cannot find a headline title 'The problem with black men in x' but there are thousands of these for white men

>> No.11305645

>>11305629
>>11305603
White men in particular are not. Men in general in some respects are. Peterson has a large non-white fanbase of brown men who feel left behind

>> No.11305650

>>11305636
you shouldn't

>> No.11305652

>>11305487
Is Peterson some newer, more resilient form of technocapitalism? Is Peterson the antifragile cyberorganism par excellence?

>> No.11305675

>>11305640
I didn't compare him to Hitler, only how couple legit ideas can serve as a gateway for less legit stuff from the same source, and Adolf is just such a perfect example given the contrast. In todays world, Peterson is pretty moderate conservative for sure.

>> No.11305676

>>11305644
>white males are the only demographic openly discriminated against

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *breathes in* HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.11305683

>>11305676
There is a good chance he really believes this shit, which is way more sad than funny.

>> No.11305689
File: 38 KB, 406x492, 1353289535585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305689

>>11305581

I myself have published neuroscience research. To that end, I know that there are dead names in accepted research, which includes Carl Jung. It is perfectly fine to cite fundamental anatomical studies from 60 years ago in a legitimate paper, as long as you have plenty of modern sources that confirm the validity of the former. Citing armchairs from 1910 in 2018 without objective data within the last 5 years is batshit insane. Jung was and is an example of an easily hamstrung influence. James much the same. Think Plato for philosophy. Was he foundational to the thought and culture of the subject? Absolutely. Should I cite Timaeus in my next chemistry paper? No.

>>11305592

Insist that he have better data. Nothing hurts an academic's ego than the public accusation of conflation and/or fraud. Clarification should be free, at least in the scientific community. If it is not, the person is hiding something.

>>11305594

Ah yes, the literary board of 4chan talking about an academic. Perfect place to find jocks, why would there be nerds here?

>>11305603
2/10, for getting me to respond.

>> No.11305692

>>11305599
Go the fuck back to your reddit focus group

>> No.11305694

>>11305644
Oh no, Huffington Post published an article about how white males suck :(( This is literally worse than the Holocaust and the transatlantic slave trade combined

>> No.11305698

Peterson won't go away until we acknowledge the political double standard with regards to academic rigor. Zizek can plagiarize, Chomsky can lie, Habermass can be consistently wrong. Yet Peterson uses an old sociological term like "enforced monogamy," and we go crazy and pretend that he wants to enslave women. Peterson's popularity is the a direct result of this double standard; college students who aren't far left feel alienated and grasp onto anyone who pushes an alternate narrative.

>> No.11305703

>>11305683
>>11305676
they are though, they are the only demographic where it's permissible to discount them for a job or for a university application specifically for their race and sex

like it is not debatable. asians also get fucked for the university applications

>> No.11305709

>>11305694
can you actually deny what i said though? other races do not have open discrimination against them in contemporary society

>> No.11305712

>>11305694
I'm not white, but I would imagine that being insulted for your race by someone richer than you are does rankle

>> No.11305725
File: 233 KB, 1080x1080, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305725

There's no need. He hasn't affected my life in any way. Leftists should care about getting votes and bill passed not about ideologues, not even that far out there at the end of the day.

He still hasn't got a clue about what actually post-modernism is.

>> No.11305726

>>11305698
Didn't it came from some NYT writer, who also wrote some weird ass shit about getting cucked being worse than getting raped?

Also how could you possible enforce something without forcing people? What could the "old sociological term" possibly mean?

>> No.11305730

>>11305640
>He's not Hitler.
Not yet

>> No.11305748

>>11305698
Oh no, conservative college students are so marginalized and oppressed by the far-left :((( But also, leftists constantly portray everyone as victims of oppression, thereby encouraging people to blame others for their personal problems. My views are totally not contradictory.

>> No.11305749

>>11305726
The term refers to societies that promote monogamy through either custom or law, like the West until fairly recently. We still have elements of a culture that enforces monogamy, like tax breaks for married couples. It doesn't mean literally jailing people who refuse to get married.

>> No.11305763

>>11305748
Those aren't my views though. The left is right about many things. I'm coming from the Jonathan Haidt position of wanting a wider range of perspectives represented in universities.

>> No.11305765

>>11305749
>until fairly recently

We still do

>> No.11305773

>>11305748
the Leftist mindset is of the marginalized overcoming their oppressors, the problem is they won this battle like two centuries ago, and have been inventing oppressors while clearly being the oppressors themselves ever since

the mask drops whenever they talk about 'the right side of history', clearly showing they know very well they are in power and they are winning

>> No.11305776

>Stop kissing the asses of white males
>whites are being discriminated :(
Gotta bring something else to the table from now on, being white isn't going to cut it.

>> No.11305786

>>11305712
Not when the person is still pretty powerless against you. My only complain with the "white males are x" articles as a white male, would be that such a confrontational approach will only trigger white fragility instead of making people think about their privilege or how they could've used it for good.

>> No.11305787

>>11305776
but they are literally discriminated against. like openly, companies will say they are not looking for white men

i dont get how deluded you have to be not get that that is discrimination

>> No.11305791

>>11305763
So, you universities to provide affirmative action to right-wingers?

>> No.11305798

>>11305765
It's been weakened significantly though, both culturally and legally. Young people don't really live in a culture that enforces monogamy in any way. Cosmopolitan (which my gf gets and I sometimes read) talks about open relationships and polyamory pretty regularly. It's seen as a perfectly acceptable alternative to monogamy.

>> No.11305799

>>11305773
>the problem is they won this battle like two centuries ago

Oh, I forgot that all forms of oppression have disappeared from the face of the Earth two centuries ago, thanks for reminding me

>> No.11305803

>it's another hate literally anything/anyone that has a modicum of fame or following regardless of merit because we're the cool edgy kids

>> No.11305809

>>11305787
When a ridiculous amount of positions is already filled by white males, not looking for more is the equivalent of "we're not hiring the 10 000th janitor."

>> No.11305811

>>11305799
it was never about that, it was about their group beating the aristocracy, which they did

your faggoty snark is not original or useful

>> No.11305818

>>11305791
Maybe. The real problem is the culture though. Right wing positions are more heavily policed than left wing positions are, and many right wing thinkers who would otherwise be academics choose to go into the public sector instead.

>> No.11305824

>>11305798
On the legal side, marriage is still pushed. Also let's not pretend that most media doesn't push monogamy either way.

>> No.11305827

>>11305773
> they won this battle like two centuries ago
Minorities make less money than white people, women make less money than men. Let's continue until we're equal, I say.

>> No.11305828

>>11305798
>Young people don't really live in a culture that enforces monogamy in any way

91 percent of Americans disapprove of infidelity, and 83 percent of them disapprove of polygamy. The divorce rate in the US has fallen to a 40-year low. Millennials have fewer sex partners than baby boomers did at the same ages. The modal American aged 35-39 has had sex with precisely ONE other person in their life (this is true for both men and women).

>> No.11305839

>>11305827
minorities do not all make less money than whites. Jews and Indians are wealthier than whites in America for example

as for making everything equal, retarded idea that will never work

>> No.11305845

>>11305786
Those people aren't powerless though. Power is often situational, rather than institutional. Like an Indian female CEO has more power at her business than her white male employees do, yet she can openly insult them as a group on twitter on the basis that she has less "institutional power." That doesn't seem obscene to you?

>> No.11305848
File: 1.09 MB, 353x280, bait took.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305848

>>11305622
>these kids will look back on that pic and cringe in two years time. however, your average fyad twitter dweeb will never look at all the times they tweeted out "the [whatever] respecter has logged on" and "episode of the simpsons where they break tim mcveigh out of prison" for the hundredth time and think, "maybe i should try something different" or "maybe i should look up to someone other than dril".

bait: took

>> No.11305852

>>11305811
Yes, aristocrats is the only unjustly privileged group of people that has ever existed. Don’t those stupid leftists realize that there no oppressors and oppressed anymore?

>> No.11305865

>>11305828
>91 percent of Americans disapprove of infidelity, and 83 percent of them disapprove of polygamy.
I referred to young people specifically, not statistics that include all Americans. And what's important is the direction these ideas are trending. If 83% of Americans disapprove of polygamy (how old is this statistic?) i'm almost certain that that's less than disapproved of it 30 years ago.

>> No.11305869

>>11305852
Are you incapable of just making a point without being an obnoxious faggot?

leftists do not actually care about oppression, they are a specific group of people and they have specific grievances and allies. They have won almost every battle they have tried to fight in the past few hundred years. The only one they really failed at was Communism because it is just impossible for them to win that one.

>> No.11305871

>>11305845
Those men still have white and male privilege, something she will never have because we're part of a patriachy that practices white favoritism. I would say she has more institutinal power however since she has class privilege.

>> No.11305886

>>11305869
Yeah, leftists don’t care about oppression. Unlike right-wingers, who totally care about it.

>> No.11305887

>>11305871
>we're part of a patriachy that practices white favoritism
there is precisely zero evidence for this position. it was true in 1776, it is not true today

>> No.11305893

>>11305886
i didnt claim right wingers care about oppression. im not some naive republican

>> No.11305908
File: 64 KB, 640x554, bordigas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305908

Read Capital and understand that Peterson is a result of material conditions and if you get rid of him another Peterson will take his place. Also start a book club.

>> No.11305912

>>11305871
"Patriarchy" is a good useful concept when talking about female oppression, "male privilege" isn't. In a patriarchal society men are disproportionately situated at both the top and the bottom of any hierarchy. Homelessness is more common among men; men live shorter, more physically precarious lives; men kill themselves more often; 18 year old boys were forced to go headlong into Nazi machine gun fire and pick their friends' brains off of their faces. The advantages of being men aren't equally distributed, which complicates the idea of "male privilege."

>> No.11305916

>>11305871
today it is actually quite the opposite if you look closely.

>> No.11305922
File: 31 KB, 600x909, 1519396343538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305922

>>11305622
>these kids will look back on that pic and cringe in two years time

>> No.11305923

if he ever gets too popular, a #metoo will be the end of it
he knows this, and is therefore always toeing the line between his fanbase (mostly incel) and ordinary people

>> No.11305924
File: 63 KB, 484x403, christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305924

>>11305458
Pooperson may be a good sign of development actually. Consider the followering: Poopersons fanbase is made up of mostly young American conservatives, that's interesting because until quite recently even notions like "evolution" were controversial and the likes of Carl Jung would be more associated with New Age kooks. The positive development is biblical literalism probably doesn't have much of a future and Pooperson's helping subvert it. And since he rejects social analysis and favours individualism and pathologizing everything you can just view him as an extension of New Atheism and New Agey self-help stuff so his popularity isn't weird or unusual since that's been growing for a long time. His basic message of religion being good because it's in your practical material interests since you as a pathetic beta male will be outcompeted by alphas on the sexual market place can be a gateway to a more dialectical materalist worldview

>> No.11305929

>>11305912
>men are disproportionately situated at both the top and the bottom of any hierarchy.
this is always true regardless of how patriarchal a society is. it's a direct consequence of how reproduction works

>> No.11305930

>>11305916
No, that's what equality is. You can't be white and get stuff for free anymore. You can do it! I believe in you fragile white man!

>> No.11305937

>>11305725
Him being a poltiical and philosphical vandal/terrorist is the destructive.

Right wingers sucking young people's ego is everyday shit, Right wingers sucking young people's ego with butchered philosophy is fucked up.

>> No.11305943

>>11305930
why does it make sense that black people accepted to university have an average SAT score way lower than whites and Asians? it doesn't, it's retarded

they are constantly putting them in positions they are incapable of properly filling.

White men do not get anything for free, white men are the tax base of the entire country, blacks and women are both a net drain in terms of taxes and services received.

>> No.11305946

>>11305845
It'd be still a pretty limited scenario. If she or the white male employers would leave the business, their power dynamics would instantly change, sans the amount of wealth she already hoarded, and her position in the company isn't decided by her being Indian, hell, before she got there, her life was probably harder, unless she came from wealth. Besides, in the end these stuff is meant as generalities. Exceptions always existed, even back in the day some daughter of the kid might've more power than the average male peasant, but ultimately females had much fewer rights.

I'd prefer a focus on class since it's more productive but if someone from a minority group needs to vent, why the fuck not. It has zero actual effect on me.

>>11305912
If there is oppression based on someone being female, it's given that not being female gives you a privilege. It's definitely more complicated and situational but in most general scenarios it still applies.

>> No.11305950
File: 566 KB, 800x1015, 1528736171074.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11305950

>Watch a single Peterson video out of curiosity like 7-8 months ago
>He still keeps showing up in my recommended videos

>> No.11305953

>>11305929
Maybe, but men carrying an unequal burden with regards to sexual selection indicates less not more privilege

>> No.11305955

>>11305773
>they won this battle like two centuries ago
Extremely debatable, even if true, the Left will take on different fights with different powers that be. That is the definition of Left and Right.

>> No.11305959

>>11305912
I'm for equality so I'm against all of that. I never argued in favour of male suicide.

>> No.11305968

>>11305953
the entire idea of privilege related to the sexes is retarded, because the sexes are extremely different and everything about their experiences is different, and cannot really be compared

is it better to be a man and have a chance at more power but also be more likely to die or off yourself? how can you even answer that, it's subjective

>> No.11305986

>>11305968
Having more options does seem a lot better, even if some of them are crappy. I'd rather off myself than being damned to an existence as a fuckhole of some dirty guy and push out his semi retarded kids. It's not like lesser suicides mean lesser pain either, men are just more impulsive. A guy will jump from a bridge while a gal will cross it every day, dreaming of jumping and never actually doing it.

>> No.11305992

>>11305946
>Besides, in the end these stuff is meant as generalities.
That's the fucking problem. Any race as a tribe can be at an advantage or disadvantage (by the way, if we define advantage in terms of class, then whites would be pretty far down the list. Most immigrant minorities make more money than white Americans), but that tribal advantage doesn't give very much indication with regards to one's relative privilege in an interpersonal encounter.

>but if someone from a minority group needs to vent, why the fuck not. It has zero actual effect on me.
No one wants to be at the receiving end of mean comments. Like forget politics and ideology, that's as far as this needs to go. Talks of tribal privilege can often give a cover for toxic discourse. Then when someone who's part of a privileged class replies in kind, we use it as an example of the toxicity that their privilege allows them to express. It's a weird cycle of hate and shit-talking.

>> No.11306002

>>11305986
women dont need to do that today though, they can get pregnant from a guy significantly hotter or smarter than them, and then marry some other guy who will agree to raise the kid with them, or else get welfare from the state to raise it

it is a very good setup for women atm honestly, though they are still miserable.

as for who suffers more i think it is women who suffer more, but not because their situation is objectively worse, they just are more emotional. most men are very easily contented, they are kind of like farm animals

>> No.11306003

>>11305946
>If there is oppression based on someone being female, it's given that not being female gives you a privilege.
The intersectionalists are on the right track, which is that one's privilege is a confluence of many different factors. Platonic whiteness might be a privilege in and of itself, but that gives no indication of an individual's actual privilege. Here's the thing, would you rather be a beautiful hispanic woman who grew up rich, or an ugly white male who grew up poor? The language we use with regards to privilege gives people the idea that the latter is preferable, when it probably isn't.

>> No.11306005
File: 93 KB, 581x581, 13687081_348661448856468_1349582747_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306005

>Ha Ha! Dont worry, Anoni. We wouldnt be late for Papa Peterson lecture! and c'on take off your shirt silly :)

>> No.11306014

>>11305992
>Most immigrant minorities make more money than white Americans
Because they are a higher class than most working class Americans?

>> No.11306023

>>11305986
The thing is that those options for men aren't equally distributed, while the sexual and interpersonal advantages of being a woman are. A woman's quality of life is less volatile than a man's.

Tbqh i'd rather be a mom who creates and shapes human life than be a cog in the capitalist economy, like most men are.

>> No.11306029
File: 376 KB, 1332x1000, Zizek Triptych.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306029

>>11305652
>Is Peterson some newer, more resilient form of technocapitalism? Is Peterson the antifragile cyberorganism par excellence?

Of coursh

>> No.11306033

>>11306023
it is not evenly distributed to women, it's just that they have fewer people in the 'totally fucked' category. There is still a broad spectrum of female experience, almost entirely due to how hot they are(which includes how old they are)

>> No.11306040

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

BTFO

>> No.11306044
File: 123 KB, 613x531, 1528262830337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306044

>>11306040

>> No.11306052

>>11306040
Trying to emulate a girl voice being male should be a crime

>> No.11306055

>>11306044
whats the matter alt-soi, afraid of a woman with more manliness than you?

>> No.11306062

>>11305992
> but that tribal advantage doesn't give very much indication with regards to one's relative privilege in an interpersonal encounter.
Well, in a more serious discussion of privilege, people do count it all in. A black female might still encounter racism but if she's a millionaire, her life will be much easier than from stronk while male from the trailer park overall. No one sane is really arguing against it. In context of a tweet the space limit itself makes nuance impossible.

>No one wants to be at the receiving end of mean comments.
I guess but if you're in a certain position, something that can count as "mean comment" simply doesn't reach you. When Donald shit talks Mexicans, Carlos Slim is unlikely to give a single fuck while Pablo picking vegetables might feel threatened.

>Talks of tribal privilege can often give a cover for toxic discourse.
It rarely does though. Usually the people who get overly pissed, are the ones who already have negative opinions towards "the other tribe". But as I said, it is not overly productive to actually get results, so yeah, definitely a crappy approach. Just wouldn't call it offensive.

>>11306002
That passivity sounds still pretty horrible. Though female oppression today in the first world is a lot more subtle of course.

>> No.11306064

>>11306040
I like hxs Vegan Gains-esque humor.

>> No.11306067

>>11306033
The biggest difference is that most women can participate in the male system of differentiation, and if she fails she can leave and participate in the female system of domesticity. The reverse option isn't available for the vast majority of men. A man has to earn his breeding rights, and often by being successful in the male system of differentiation.

This goes to the heart of gender roles: men compete for jobs they have to; women compete for jobs because they want better lives. The former group is obviously going to be more desperate and competitive

>> No.11306089

>>11306067
Maybe in the past, these days men have similar option. Besides, women are STILL expected to do more chores, even if they do work just as much.

>> No.11306094

>>11306067
in the present society it is retarded to try to get women by having a good job. The hot 18-24 year old women will fuck you even if you,re literally homeless if you have the attributes they are attracted to

if you're a man today you should put absolutely minimal effort into your career, and high effort into your appearance and personality, because unless you're a millionaire your career will only attract 30 year olds looking to settle down

>> No.11306096

>>11306089
>these days men have similar option

They sincerely do not. If you try to be with a woman and stay at home even if you have kids she'll call you a loser piece of shit

>> No.11306099

>>11306089
That's literally not the case. Men don't have as many domestic options because their sexual value is directly tied to their economic success. In Norway a much higher percentage of women are breeding than men are, and it's due to women selecting against poor men.

>> No.11306107

>>11306094
That's only true of wealthy women. For most women economic success matters, not even for the money, but as an indicator of dominant, successful genes.

>> No.11306115

>>11306094
You need to get out more. Money is a massive deal. If you have a loser job a loser car and live in a loser appartment (or God forbid with your parents) then you'd literally have to be in the top 0.1% of attractive guys to compensate

Money is appearance and personality

>> No.11306117
File: 33 KB, 680x489, 1367370322681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306117

>>11306096

Depends on if you're a loser piece of shit. I personally have a gf who makes more than me. I pay for small expenses, meals for example, she pays for the big ones like rent. We work out alright, mostly because I'm emotionally supportive.

>> No.11306124

>>11306062
I'm just tired of so much of the online discourse forgetting the basic virtues of kindness and respect in order to make way for idealistic notions of social and economic justice. It's like we're setting everything on fire in order to kill the pests.

The hate also definitely perpetuates itself. I feel an antipathy towards women whenever they like "all men are garbage" posts on twitter by the hundreds of thousands, which does happen.

>> No.11306125

>>11306117
Thats cool that you think that but its a statistical fact that the number one predicter of relationship failure above all others is whether the woman makes more than the guy
Don't be surprised when she stays out a little too late at one of her work socials

>> No.11306135

>>11306115
im definitely not top 0.1%, just goodlooking, and women hit on me constantly, including married women with successful husbands

I dont think you get how women are if you think they are genuinely attracted to guys with money, they arent, theyre just using them.

obviously the type of guy they are most attracted to is rich and famous, but he still has to have the basic qualtiies that they are attracted to in the first place, which have nothing to do with money

>> No.11306141

>>11306096
I know couple women with stay at home husbands, and their opinions of them are unaffected by it. Every time I dated someone wealthier, the woman was fine with me focusing on writing (aka being a jobless poorfag with no monetary ambitions and even less cash) while they followed their careers. Less educated women probably would be more in favour of traditional gender roles, but that's a problem with them being too slow to adjust. Besides, who the fuck would've want low quality partners?

>>11306099
>because their sexual value is directly tied to their economic success
This is why so many men fail, they fall for the capitalist meme that they are what they earn, focus too much on it and neglect their development as a person. It's not their fault given the system and gender roles of course but the effect is fatal.

>> No.11306142
File: 50 KB, 434x345, 1528289189045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306142

>>11306135
> hit on me

Oh wow

>> No.11306152

I would say im a pretty attractive long faced skeletal slightly norwooding hack midwit writer with a 6.5/10 mommygf and yeah honestly incels don’t exist

>> No.11306154

>>11306141
>and their opinions of them are unaffected by it

It might appear as though thats the case but the behavior bears out that they are extremely affected by it. You might be able to play out the loser bohemian schtick in your 20s for short periods but the lasting quality of those relationships bears out to be significantly short

>> No.11306156

>>11306135
There are multiple paths to being sexually successful. Looks is one, status is another. I have a 6/10 brother who's pretty close to being wealthy and a 9/10 brother who works as a waiter. The latter gets more play, but the former dates higher quality women. There's so absolute hard and fast rule when it comes to this stuff.

>> No.11306159
File: 27 KB, 350x468, 1401553293702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306159

>basing your opinions on what women say and not how they act

>> No.11306160

>>11306159
this

>> No.11306161

>>11305458
My only hope is that some portion of his fans will eventually read the primary sources of his influences and eventually outgrow Peterson, which isn't that hard to do once you get past his "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH THAT YOU MUST TAKE SERIOUSLY" rhetoric.

>> No.11306165
File: 12 KB, 400x677, 0-N0OGjZ9WDff4gOrf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306165

>Dude women don't care about mone_

>> No.11306172

>>11306141
Wealth isn't a meme dude. It's empirically the case that wealth (as an indication of status) does make a man more attractive. It isn't the only quality a woman judges a man by, but it's probably the most important. There are plenty of men who would never get laid if they didn't have decent jobs.

>> No.11306173
File: 297 KB, 600x814, 1335720482292.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306173

>>11306115

Not the person you're replying to, but I really must say that it isn't. Living practically with a secure wage, one can explore the world within their means. Living on one's one is not prohibitively expensive, nor are many of life's truer pleasures. Poverty is relative. I live on the shoreline in Connecticut. My the rent on my place is $1,200 a month, my boat slip $3,000 a season. Those are my major expenses. Maintenance on Car, rental property, and sail boat come to under $10,000 a year, I get by well on a salary of $50,000, the girlfriend makes about $80,000.

I sail. I read. I write. My local library is well stocked, occasionally I go for a run along the shore, or out to the pub for a drink. Sure, I hope for career advancement or recognition for literary merit, but I don't need it. I'm relatively happy.

>>11306125

That's a fun fact, but I'll need to see a sauce. Paranoia is generally a spiraling vice that generates far more problems than it solves.

Poverty is not a sin Anon. Neither, really is loneliness. Feeling owed and bitter is pride, if not wrath to the latter.

>> No.11306174

>stopping JBP
HAHAHAHAH

>> No.11306184

>>11305622
source on Peterson/healing crystals?

>> No.11306185

>>11306173

I count 4 grammar errors in my post, I apologize.

>> No.11306192

>>11306173
Are you physically attractive? Also what part of Connecticut are you from? I grew up in West Hartford

>> No.11306196
File: 28 KB, 572x451, bOnZv57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306196

>>11306173
A woman's share of the income is directly related to break up rate. Predicting over three as likely to end up in divorce at your income bracket

>> No.11306199

>>11306172
when women are genuinely attracted to you they do not care about any of that, they just want to fuck you as soon as possible.

it is true that they wont date you if dont have a job though, or at least they are very reluctant about it.

>> No.11306203

>>11306173
Dude by most of America's standards you are quite well off. There's a massive difference between making $50k a year and being a stay at home husband as the conversation started on

>> No.11306209

>>11306199
You're overestimating the physical attractiveness of most men. Not a lot of guys can fuck based on nothing other than who they are physically. Most guys have to develop some status.

>> No.11306212

>>11306154
>but the behavior bears out that they are extremely affected by it
They are together for couple decades, so nah.

>but the lasting quality of those relationships bears out to be significantly short
Hey, one was seriously planning our marriage.

>>11306165
Isn't that stuff from a hook up site? People have to judge pretty fast there and if all the information you have is age, income and couple pics, every bit matters to determine whether it's a potential serial killer or not.

>>11306172
Oh don't get me wrong, it's important, but a lot more than indicator of status or the bank account. To go back to the Norway thing, Sven who lives on welfare or has a crappy job might not have serious financial needs, but his lack of wealth can indicate that he has no ambition, crappy education, and so on, which often leads to certain crappy behaviours and unattractive traits. Say, it's more likely that he's a frustrated alcoholic who jerks off to anime all day. Wealth has such an important position in how people judge each other because it often tells us much more interesting things than the actual wealth and status.

>There are plenty of men who would never get laid if they didn't have decent jobs.
Well, these guys play a different game altogether. It's basically prostitution. Their wealth is one of their few redeeming qualities. The dude might be an abusive bore but going with him to Cancun and buying a new set of clothes every day, makes up for it. Until you find someone better.

>> No.11306216

>>11305703
>t. brainwashed peterson cuckold
So you're telling me we should ignore the lingering racial undertones and societal effects of slavery and the rampant discrimination of immigrants in the past hundreds of years that hold down minorities as subhuman members of american society, all because you got rejected from college? Get better grades, you fucking brainlet.

>> No.11306219
File: 30 KB, 534x388, 6ade6b320c6285428c8abacd8f2a8924bcff5317a3f3fc2e3c453ce8d3697c38.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306219

>>11306212
>They are together for couple decades, so nah.

I'm talking about statistics not your dumb fuck friends

>> No.11306222

>>11306212
>Isn't that stuff from a hook up site?

Doesn't matter at all, the figures bear out in every circumstance. Women as a rule almost never marry someone below their education level and income has an almost direct parity with percieved elegibility

>> No.11306228

>>11306219
How much recent data from civilised countries is there actually? How can you tell that wealth is the crucial factor and not things that it implies? Post actual studies instead of silly pictures.

>> No.11306233

>>11306209
it's not solely about being physically attractive, musicians and criminals also do very well

>> No.11306234

>>11306172
you’re on of the dumbest tripfags on this board by far so i almost exclusively ignore your posts but if you are handsome you can fuck any woman you want, if you are rich there are hard limits on who you can have. ugly rich incels are a thing, if a man has balding hair, ugly midface, weak jaw, bad posture, skinnyfat, he’s not pulling above an 8/10 without basically buying the pussy and even then she is bound to cheat. delusional thinking otherwise. an 8/10 male can fuck a rich man’s gf, that man can’t fuck his fwb’s at all without paying out massively to do so, and he won’t own the pussy like the chad does. please stop posting nearly everything you say is midwit pseud drivel
>>11306209
again, the only thing that matters is beauty and social dominance.

>> No.11306239

>>11306212
>Well, these guys play a different game altogether. It's basically prostitution.
It's not even that. Success can be attractive to women not as a result of what it brings, but for what it indicates about the man. If a man who grew up working class becomes rich, that indicates a certain talent and ambition that are in themselves attractive to women.

>Wealth has such an important position in how people judge each other because it often tells us much more interesting things than the actual wealth and status.
Yeah dude, that's my point. This is why men don't have the same option of domesticity that women do: they have to have wealth and status to marry.

>> No.11306240

>>11306222
>and income has an almost direct parity with percieved elegibility
Not necessary. Your English degree isn't worth much for the income but still pushes you into the upper tiers of education.

>> No.11306242

>>11306216
it is literally discrimination you pleb, it is the defiition of the word

the idea that blacks behave in such a retarded fashion and fail at everything because whites are just holding them down has zero evidence backing it up

>> No.11306251
File: 725 KB, 1200x1200, 1515505833842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306251

>>11306192

I have half a face. Brutal honesty I'd give myself a 6.5, if I lost 20 lbs and put on a suit I'd make it to an 8. I have a muscular physique, but I've let that go over the last 2 years. Ennui and oreos. Geographically, I'm somewhere between East Haven and Clinton.

>>11306196

That's a fun graphic with no Y axis, no reference material, no demographic data, no country of origin. Seriously, that graph is meaningless. Science literacy in this nation needs to improve. I need the journal and the paper, the author(s) name(s). I need to see their methods section. Without, this is a child coloring on a wall.

>>11306203

That's essentially what I am. My current job is a remote gig in data analysis and database construction. I work from home. I do however appreciate the agency garnered from such work, and perfectly agree that any stay at home partner must have a degree of extent agency to seem or otherwise be valuable. A stay at home husband can hardly be called as such if he is not a reasonable cook, handyman, and carer for children.


>Wew this thread moves fast.

>> No.11306253

>>11306239
>they have to have wealth and status to marry.
Or find ways to show their qualities in different ways. Though wealth obviously creates more opportunities again, since it's easier to find quality partners at a fancy workplace or an ivy league university.

>> No.11306256
File: 47 KB, 604x524, Cohen Women Marry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306256

>>11306228
This is a silly image board, if you want indepth research go do your own homework I'm not here to spoonfeed you

>> No.11306260

>>11306251
>Seriously, that graph is meaningless.

It would be if you didn't have fucking google at your fingertips to verify it you fucking nincompoop

>> No.11306266

>>11306234
Wealth is synonymous with social dominance, which is why it's such an attractive trait.

>but if you are handsome you can fuck any woman you want, if you are rich there are hard limits on who you can have.
Handsome incels exist, Donald Trump has fucked 10s. Your absolutes are silly dude

>> No.11306267
File: 46 KB, 397x345, 34124321423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306267

>>11306251
>I work from home.
>So I'm a stay at home husband

>> No.11306269

>>11305535
That image is photoshopped

>> No.11306277

>>11306256
So what is the point of posting it? Without the study, you might've as well posted a pepe, it'd have the same informational value. If you don't have any data to back up the stuff you suggest, just stick to exchanging stories and observations.

>>11306266
I take the guy meant generally attractive as in traits. Just looking good won't get anywhere.

>> No.11306279
File: 118 KB, 490x656, 4chan is filled with the dumbest people.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306279

>>11306242

>> No.11306281
File: 31 KB, 508x494, 1523800647410.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306281

>>11306277
>Without the study, you might've as well posted a pepe

As is my right you insufferable fucking redditor

>> No.11306291

>>11306279
good lord the state of the antiracists is at an all time low

Do you think the blacks in Africa that were never enslaved, never colonized, have high IQs? they dont, they have retard tier IQs

also funny how the East Asians do so well on the apparently white-biased IQ tests, and how that just happens to coincide with their outperforming everyone in education and having the lowest crime rates

real mystery we have here

>> No.11306299
File: 993 KB, 250x250, 1487568187279.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306299

>>11306256

Source? Also, this seems to indicate that you'll do just fine if you get a bachelor's degree. Date relatively within your educational background? That would seem natural merely from a conversational stand point. I would hardly expect someone with a PhD to maintain a good conversation with someone who didn't graduate college.

>>11306260

I'm not going out to google your source for the point you are trying to prove. Man, if you want to say something, let it stand for itself. Don't make me prove your point.

>>11306281

It may be your right to be ignorant, but I believe that is what Peterson, if he is your guy, is against. Build a better standard for yourself, or sink into stagnation. Your call. Did you make your bed today?

>> No.11306302

>>11306291
Only shows that Jooce and Chinks are more white than whites when it comes to idea of intelligence.

>> No.11306304

>>11306279
>give them IQ tests designed by priviledged blacks

I have no idea what this means, do you really think whites would someone perform worse than blacks if black people tried to design objective intelligence metrics

>> No.11306308

>>11306304
>objective intelligence metrics
We're couple dozens of decades away from that, in the best case scenario either way.

>> No.11306314

why cant we just get along

>> No.11306315

>>11306308
I obviously mean tests that attempt to be objective measurements. As opposed to asking people their knowledge of Labron James dunks

>> No.11306320

>>11306299
I'm not a fan of Peterson, I only started posting here because a retard was implying that women would be ok with loser househusbands

>> No.11306323

>>11306308
yeah how convenient. It's not like there's any other reasons apart from the IQ tests to suspect blacks arent very smart. Nothing like the entire continent of Africa, every black city in the US, and every black neighborhood everywhere on earth. No nothing at all, what pattern are you talking about

>> No.11306324

>>11306315
>tests that attempt to be objective measurements
Which is a silly idea, since we can't even define it objectively. You'd have a better chance to create tests that objectively measure amounts of living organisms on unknown planets in the Andromeda galaxy.

>> No.11306336

>>11306324
Horseshit, intelligence in this area is simply problem solving ability. While the tests are not 100% pinpoint accurate they are very useful for dividing people who will be capable of learning advanced calculus and those who can barely hold a menial job

>> No.11306337

>>11306324
>develop test that correlates highly with ability in activities considered to use intelligence
>be told this doesnt in any way measure intelligence
I wonder what the motives behind this could possibly be

>> No.11306349
File: 477 KB, 931x480, 1528664028480.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306349

>>11306324

>> No.11306350
File: 99 KB, 500x426, 1344477826371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306350

>>11306267

I suppose home maker is a term we can agree on for a stay at home spouse. This role isn't really necessary in my case, as my girlfriend and I have no children. The comparison I make is to the model itself, in that I make less than my significant other and am home a large amount of the time. She pays more bills than I do.

The difference is not in finance but in power and its utility in a relationship.

>>11306320

I might well be that loser. I believe agency is the component necessary for a stable relationship, not finance specifically. I could spend much of the day at home sculpting and and taking care of children and I might maintain respect. I don't have to make more, but I should have my own life. Not to balance against hers, but because I'm my own person, with wants, dreams, a stable character. Women want to date well rounded people. Be one.

>> No.11306353

>>11306337
>activities considered to use intelligence
Objective as fuck.

>> No.11306359

>>11306353
>intelligence is so spooky we simply can't tell what it is
yeah ok m8. it is definitely just a matter of opinion that physicists are smarter than cashiers. for sure, totally subjective

>> No.11306360

>>11306350
>Bllaaaah blaah blaah

No one cares buddy, you're not even grasping what the topic of discussion is

>> No.11306362

>>11306323
Why would a snapshot of history and events outside of the blacks control be indicative for anything? Doing the same to Germanic tribes would suggest that they are subhumans compared to Africans and Greeks.

>> No.11306364
File: 70 KB, 645x729, 1501376195132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306364

>>11306353
>Dude you can't see anything just what your mind tells you you're seeing

>> No.11306368

>>11305545
Is he not?

>> No.11306371

>>11306362
i see it is just a coincidence that there is not even one example of them breaking the pattern. surely in the future this will change, once the evil white people are gone

>> No.11306377
File: 5 KB, 154x182, 1339115080255.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306377

>>11306360

We're mostly derailed at this point. If you'd like to swerve back to the OP's topic on how to kill Peterson academically, I'll refer you to my post here.

>>11305558
and here, for perspective.>>11305689

>> No.11306378

>>11306359
Physicists are better when it comes to solving certain problems and less capable when it comes to solve others. Bet most would blow their brains out after working as a cashier for prolonged period of time.

>> No.11306380
File: 7 KB, 266x190, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306380

>>11306377

>> No.11306383

>>11306378
There's a lot of research on this that i'm certain you haven't delved into

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>> No.11306384

>>11306378
right cashiers have unique abilities the physicists would be unable to mimic. everybody is special in their own way, and smarter people dont exist

seriously m8

>> No.11306389

>>11306378
You're wrong but in either case physicists are better at making money for themselves and society and hence why white people actually achieve their place above blacks predominately based on merit

>> No.11306393

>>11305458
The left is not the left, the left is now "my opinions", I'm not totally conservative either but at least they follow some sort of rulebook.
Peterson has become so powerful because he does nothing but point to the rulebook.
A rulebook that has existed for hundreds of years now but seems radical because of the radical times.

>> No.11306426

>>11306383
A lot of it is not much better than muh ether.

>>11306384
There are no unique abilities, just training, different approaches to problem solving, personalities and so on. It's not a field understood well enough to make any grand theories.

>>11306389
>better at making money for themselves and society
In the current system, assuming they are studying something that can get monetised or at least gets funded. Besides, a hedge fund manager would easy make more. Based on your weird ass understanding, someone like Soros is the greatest genius on our earth.

>> No.11306431

>>11306426
>It's not a field understood well enough to make any grand theories.
again super convenient, it's not like IQ has shown repeatedly for decades to be a robust predictor of outcomes

>> No.11306437

>>11306426
>Based on your weird ass understanding, someone like Soros is the greatest genius on our earth.

I take it as a given Soros has extremely high IQ by all likelihood, especially as a Jew

>> No.11306438

>>11306431
>a whiteness test showing that thinking white in a white centric environment can have positive effects
Makes you think!

>> No.11306439

>>11306291
So we should put white people in an area and colonize them with semi-burtal measures to absorb their resources and undermine their quality of life?

>East Asians
Its culture's empahsis on grades aside, most of these country did enjoy technological transfer and not have neo-colonial ties with the West (unlike Philippines for example)

>> No.11306444

>>11306438
weird how East asians outperform whites on the whiteness test. And they mysteriously also have very low crime rates in their countries

>> No.11306448
File: 14 KB, 388x209, 9722075931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11306448

>>11306438
Have you ever looked at what an IQ test actually is?

>> No.11306450

>>11306439
yeah not like Hong Kong was a thing lol. your argument is so fucking weak

>> No.11306460

>>11306450
If anything Hong Kong is the exemplar colony that wasn't established to suck the local natural resources up. It enjoyed administrative infrastructure and had technological transfer.

>> No.11306472

>>11306448
D?

>> No.11306475

>>11306460
even in the most brutal colonies like the Congo, they built infrastructure and taught the natives in schools, the Congo was a functioning and pleasant place in 1950. The Congolese proceeded to destroy their country once they gained independence. Same pattern everywhere else, whereas the colonies in East asia, and to a lesser degree South Asia adopted the technology and carried on the work of the colonizers.

>> No.11306480

>>11306444
Nothing weird about it. They are simply closer to the white ideal than most whites.

>>11306437
We're not talking about the IQ meme though. Since you consider wealth as a relevant indicator why getting sidetracked? Though guess this also means that Lil Wayne is way smarter than any physicist.

>> No.11306483

>>11306480
the white ideal being competence in cognitively demanding fields. Such a terrible ideal to subject the africans to

>> No.11306492

>>11306480
Why are you being such a disingenuous retard, are you butthurt from testing at 110 IQ at some point?
You can't change reality by ignoring it

>> No.11306506

>>11306475
By infrastructure i did not just mean roads and shit, but like proper government, police, laws and other stuff a state needs. Colonies like Hong Kong and Singapore were created to facilitate trade, hence a strong state was needed and contructed. So its infrastructure was emphasized over the exploitation of natural resources. Most of Africa's colonization did not share the same goal.

You can make this about what the Africans did or whatever, the point I wanted to make is your comparison of Africa and Asia colonization is surface level and lacks understanding of both regions

>> No.11306511

>>11306483
That's your idea of it. There isn't any data to prove or disprove it, so feel free to believe if it makes you feel better.

>> No.11306518

>>11306506
Except you're totally ignoring what the Japanese did to China which was far more brutal treatment than the vast majority of Africa ever received from Europeans

>> No.11306527

>>11306506
They made laws in the Congo too dude, dont just outright fucking lie. When they handed the government over to the natives it was a copy of the typical Belgian system with apartheid features, same as what the British did in India or Hong Kong.

This idea that colonization in Africa was completely different than elsewhere is complete lies.

>>11306511
>There isn't any data to prove or disprove it,
My sides. Not like there is decades of literature on the subject or anything lmao

>> No.11306560

>>11306518
But one was during wartime and the other was during colonial periods. Why are you making that comparison?


>>11306527
>dont just outright fucking lie
I never claimed that
>typical Belgian system with apartheid features, same as what the British did in India or Hong Kong.
And I am saying the latter is of a much higher quality and legacy than the former.

>This idea that colonization in Africa was completely different than elsewhere is complete lies.
Again I did not say that. The successful East Asian countries do differ in African in their colonization period. Countries like Philippines and Indonesia are similar to Africa's colonization style and hence suffer similar symptoms.

>> No.11306567

>>11306560
>But one was during wartime and the other was during colonial periods.

Wrong, significant swathes of China were under Japanese colonial rule for far longer than many African nations. Ethiopia for instance

>> No.11306588

>>11306560
the problem is with the people in those countries not the style of colonization. There was nothing wrong with the system in the Congo, they took literal savages and gave them a cvilization in like 50 years

This idea that you can make entire countries retarded by colonizing them is just ludicrous. It makes no fucking sense.

Every time a country has been conquered in history it is 'colonized' in much the same way Africa was by Europeans, and nowhere else does it make the native population dumb and violent

>> No.11306603

>>11306588
Exactly some idiot above said Germans would underperform on IQ if they got the same treatment but they literally were colonized by Romans and only came out better for it

>> No.11306615

>>11306567
>Manchuria is significant
That was less colonization and more annexation to keep annexing stuff. Formorsa was the part that actually underwent colonization.

Again I still don't understand the whataboutism you needed to make here.

>> No.11306620

It seems like Petermeme has already run his course, he's getting into murky waters too much and once he entered the broader public he faced both more astute criticisims and also had to engage in more difficult debates (with actual philosophers), where he looked bad most of the time

I don't mind him as a self-help guru, in that regard he's probably the best of the bunch, and the anti-SJW shit was always going to be there, Petermeme or not

>> No.11306625

>>11306603
That's a bad analogy

>> No.11306628

>>11306625
Its not

>> No.11306637

>>11306615
>>Manchuria is significant

It literally constituted about 10-15% of the population of China at the time

>> No.11306642

>>11306628
Then you know fucking nothing about Roman Antiquity and the development of the people we now call "Germans"

>> No.11306652

>>11306588
>it is 'colonized' in much the same way Africa was by Europeans
But that is not true, with East Asia being the best example of a region undergoing much better colonization and prospering in its post- colonial state for it. Dismissing with reassertion is not an argument. You have not shown how was colonization in Africa similar to East Asia other than insisting it is countless times.

Every countries in East Asia that were colonized to extract as much natural resources as possible like Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam do not fare aw well as compared to those that were colonized for different reasons Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

>> No.11306653

>>11306642
I know they were smarter than niggers and didn't let being pushed them around act as an excuse to do nothing for the rest of history

>> No.11306666

>>11306637
You are only highlighting my point even more. Even from an outsider you must know the tenuous relationship between Manchuria and Han Chinese.

>> No.11306669

>>11306653
You don't "know it" (even though you're right, they are smarter than africans), that's your prejudice and it's not based on any robust knowledge of roman antiquity or history in general, yet you don't care

>> No.11306671

>>11306666
Idiot, most of Manchuria are Han Chinese and always have been, its just a name

>> No.11306676

>>11306669
Nah I do actually, strawman elsewhere

>> No.11306679

>>11306652
You have not shown how colonizing Africa is supposed to have brought their IQ down by 30 points. The only successful African countries today were all heavily colonized. the African regions that werent colonized are not doing well at all.

Once again you're not showing that east asians do well now because they were colonized well. east asians that were colonized and east asians who werent perform on average at the same level, and so do sub saharan africans.

The colonies werent the same because they were dealing with different levels of civilization in the native people and different geographical situations.

>> No.11306700

>>11306671
That still doesn't undermine my point at all. Why would the Republic be kind to the region that produced the previous emperors? I am not saying Manchuria is worthless but pretending its annexation was a huge deal to China to be compared to colonization of every countries is an overexggeration.

The European's colonization were more critical in handicapping China desu

>> No.11306704

>>11305592
>He takes and synthesizes ideas from so many conflicting branches of psychology and philosopher that he's difficult to grasp
I've seen the same things in his lectures, and it gives me the impression that he's incoherent. Not obviously so, but he's mixing all of these phenomena and works of art and elements of science and philosophy removed from their overarching theories or systems (whatever the case may be), and the result is that close analysis kinda kills or mutes a lot of points. Without the depth of understanding necessary to see how to qualify his use of all of these elements, it looks like he misses how some of the elements might undermine him or each other.

>> No.11306709

>>11306676
Bullshit, your comparison between Roman Germania and the colonization of Africa was so dumb that only someone with sufficiently little actual knowledge could make it

Just embarrassing

>> No.11306711

>>11306700
I don't know. Niggers are dumb. Thats the only point I care about arguing here

>> No.11306717

>>11306709
Nah you're wrong

>> No.11306718

If you let Europeans take an IQ Test in ~1800, do you really think the majority would score as well in comparison to Africa as it does today? Probably not. Africa is not as developed as Europe yet (there are differences inside Europe, too), but it may someday be. Colonization certainly didn't help

>> No.11306729

>>11306718
colonization literally developed Africa, the only african countries doing even sort of ok owe it to the colonizers

>> No.11306732

>>11306679
My main point of contention with you is not about IQ, but the nature of colonization.( I didn't post that picture) Hence I provided the examples and arguments as such.

>you're not showing that east asians do well now because they were colonized well.
I did by showing a wide range of countries doing better than some. Did you even read my post?

>The colonies werent the same
Including different objectives of the colonizers. Don't forget that

>> No.11306734

>>11306718
>If you let Europeans take an IQ Test in ~1800, do you really think the majority would score as well in comparison to Africa as it does today?

I genuinely do, they'd be lower than Europe today but they'd still be 20 points above contemporary Africa easily

>> No.11306735

>>11306717
Bro, those modern Germans descended from Roman citizens who were in turn of germanic tribal descent aren't "the" modern Germans. That period has barely anything to do with modern germany. European ("""""white"""""") intelligence is a result of modern policies based on enlightenment principles

>> No.11306737

>>11306711
Considering how poorly you argued that is like the pot calling the kettle black

>> No.11306749

>>11306734
>>11306729
Yes, thus it follows that IQ is not fixed and can change over time. Colonization in most parts of Africa only made a token effort at educating native black populations more broadly (or, as in the case of the Tutsi, educated only a small minority in order to use them for the colonial administration and economic enterprises). What's the point?

>> No.11306750

>>11306737
At least I'm not a nigger

>> No.11306754

>>11306750
You basically are

Or maybe you're LARPing as a /pol/tard

>> No.11306760

>>11306750
I think black people will be happy to find out that they are not as stupid as you

>> No.11306761

>>11306749
>Yes, thus it follows that IQ is not fixed and can change over time.

It isn't and it doesn't in individuals. When I said it would be lower in Europe back then its because in the early industrial revolution many kids grew up malnutrishioned. Despite its reputation this is not the state of the vast majority of Africans, obesity infact has become a larger issue than hunger

>> No.11306770

>>11306761
You think it would be impossible to induce the kind of development that Europe underwent from 1700 to today in Africa, even just in one small part?

>> No.11306771

>>11306732
You,re showing countries with completely different ethncities. the Han chinese all do roughly the same, the fact that Vietnamese do worse is not any sort of argument when they are ethnically distinct.

I also don't agree with you characterization of African colonization, the Europeans genuinely tried to 'raise up' the natives, they committed atrocities but they were also building civilization there. It wasn't uniquely and qualitatively different than colonization elsewhere. Like just read the accounts of men like Cecil Rhodes, they thought they were civilizing the place.

>> No.11306787

>>11306770
Its not development, its just having enough to eat. Africans have enough to eat, there's nothing more to it than that. They just have stupid monkey brains because they didn't evolve like we did

>> No.11306789

>>11306770
they have literally been trying to do that for over 100 years, so far the only sort of successful strategy was the Rhodesia tactic, which was deemed unacceptable mid century

>> No.11306841

>>11306771
>different ethnicity
Bitch if you people can somehow claim all of Europe to be of one ethnicity, I don't see how China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan can't be one. I will concede that there are different ethnicity in SEA, but they are not as different.

>they thought they were civilizing the place.
I genuinely do not give a shit. The attempt and effects of it are vastly different to those trying to colonize East Asia

>> No.11306859

>>11306841
they are genetically distinct, and the IQ and crime rates are different

you have made no argument addressing the complete lack of Africans succeeding, regardless of whether they were colonized or not, nor explained any plausible mechanism by which you can stunt the IQ of a people by conquering them

>> No.11306868

>>11306859
>the IQ and crime rates are different

Relative to the rest of the world they're not

>> No.11306882

>>11306868
Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese are all different but have similar iqs, which is why those three countries perform well. The south east asian ethnicities are not as high IQ, Vietnam's for example is 94

>> No.11306892

>>11306882
Yeah it was them I was referring to. I'm sure genetic wise they are distinct though certainly in the same cluster

>> No.11306953

>PhilosophyInsights
Into the trash it goes

>> No.11306977

>>11305458
I bet he thinks communism is egalitarianism

>> No.11307040
File: 14 KB, 680x489, 1458322522850.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11307040

The idea that someone as soft spoken and as thoroughly centrist and status quo as Peterson is controversial at all, really says a lot about how fucked the West is right now.

>> No.11307072

>>11306279
> attempts to discount the theory that, "... they are inherently, genetically smarter than blacks"
> proposes a social experiment whereby populations are selected for genetically

Right, because the output won't be at a genetic disadvantage. Not at all.

>> No.11307125

>>11305698
>Yet Peterson uses an old sociological term like "enforced monogamy," and we go crazy and pretend that he wants to enslave women
The issue with this is that Peterson's subsequent clarification is a slippery response to what he was saying when he brought it up in the NYT profile. Here's the passage from the profile with the writer's obvious inference:

>“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.”

>Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

>“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

So, initially, "enforced monogamy" is brought up as a possible solution to the problem of incels, i.e., the problem of men who are not selected for by women. "Enforced monogamy" onlly makes sense as a solution if it means what the writer clearly inferred.

So, then he offers his clarification at https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/, and the first thing that's weird about his response is that he doesn't cite papers about "enforced monogamy" that use it the way he seems to mean *now* (i.e., as per the blog post and his AMA, socially enforced monogamy), but rather a redditor on his own subreddit, which is, uh, inept as a demonstration.

But even his new "clarification" of "enforced monogamy" doesn't even respond now to the subject of incels; how are men who are selected against and so left behind by women going to be helped by socially enforced monogamy? Now the explanation is incoherent.

But then he offers a paper that shows that "monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent", which isn't what the paper shows as per Julia Galef:

https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/998689944120901632?s=19

Now, certainly the Left *has* misrepresented his views in certain articles, videos, etc. going around social media, but in this case, he either looks like someone who didn't really think through what he was saying, or an opportunist who can play off judgement of his positions with the "you didn't understand me/you've misconstrued me" card.

>> No.11307167

>>11307125
Pretty sure he wasn't talking about incels either, he was talking about men in general. Most men actually do fail at procreating or even having a satisfying relationship with women, and even though that's not women's fault, it's clearly not good for society.

>> No.11307181

>>11307167
>Most men actually do fail at procreating
scholarly source?

>> No.11307189

>>11307167
>Pretty sure he wasn't talking about incels either
Do you mean in the NYT piece or the blog? The blog piece looks more general, but the NYT piece, he's explicitly talking about the Toronto incel, and men like him who aren't selected for.

>> No.11307218

>>11307181
I've seen real scholars cite the 40% figure a bunch of times, as in 40% of men reproduced historically. For some reason i cant find any paper saying that when i search for it on google

>> No.11307239

>>11307218
i'm really curious how that number is derived.

>> No.11307257

>>11307239
genetically, they figured it out somehow from studying the genome. There were periods were the ratio was apparently 17:1 for women reproducing vs men, around 8000 years ago.

>> No.11307258

>>11307218
>as in 40% of men reproduced historically.

This is a deep misconception. 40% of our ancestors are male but this can simply mean some reproduced in far greater numbers than the other men (if you have ten kids you're liable to have ten times the ancestors as a man who has one kid)

>> No.11307267

>>11307258
To be clear on how the numbers work here, birth fatalities were extremely common in the ancient world so men who happened to live to an old age would often remarry many times

>> No.11307500

>>11305506
haha damn

>> No.11307686

>>11306279
Oppression is no indicator for success or lack of it centuries down the line. Blacks are not slaves in America today. No black person in America can claim to be affected by slavery in 2018.

Literally every race that today occupies the sociological who's-who of education and wealth was subjugated and enslaved at some point in history, in most cases for centuries longer and in more brutal conditions than American slavery.

It's just not an excuse any more. Get over it.