TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Jordan Peterson Is The New Chief Lobbyist For ‘Nice Guys’ And Incels | Yet another feminist hit piece

EricAllonde

June 2, 2018
37 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/exP2a
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Jordan Peterson Is The New Chief Lobbyist For ‘Nice Guys’ And Incels | Yet another feminist hit piece
Author

EricAllonde

Upvotes 37
Comments 20
Date June 2, 2018 10:18 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8o42co/jordan_peterson_is_the_new_chief_lobbyist_for/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/jordan-peterson-is-the-new-chief-lobbyist-for-nice.1177580
https://theredarchive.com/post/1177580
Red Pill terms in post
feministincelnice guy
Top posts by EricAllonde

Kathy Griffin whines about her fee for hosting NYE telecast on CNN, tries to claim gender pay gap, is firmly slapped down.

26663 upvotes
January 1, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

I'm seeing more and more of this: feminists using "mansplaining" accusations to deal with being publicly proven wrong

11347 upvotes
September 7, 2017
/r/MensRights

Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality | After she threw a public tantrum, it's revealed that the male manager had several years more experience than her, justifying the difference in pay. The BBC is standing firm for once - good for them!

9152 upvotes
May 22, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Who Would Win? Vidcon edition: answered

9072 upvotes
June 29, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

College tells construction crew to take down "Men Working" sign deemed 'sexist', even though it was accurate as the crew included zero women | Though women don't want to do dirty, manual labor jobs themselves, they still want to control how men do them

7812 upvotes
January 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

Looks like a great campaign to help tackle male suicide

7265 upvotes
April 24, 2018
/r/MensRights

Imagine the outrage & hysteria if an article like this was written about women: "So thirsty I could drink the pool"

5808 upvotes
August 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...

5662 upvotes
April 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't understand Jordan Peterson, doesn't know the difference between caring about people needs and incels, scared admitting men are humans and have problems too. Just knows the world scares them because reality threatens their narrative so they lie to push the narrative.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha. Dude, all I can ever say nowadays is 1984 1984 1984 1984.

"The party asks you to deny what your eyes and ears tell you. The party depends on it to keep power. 2+2=5 when the Party wills it to be so. Repeat after me, there are 1000000000 genders, there are no races, wealth is privilege, privilege is oppression." Fucking hilarious, AND scary lol.

Buy guns.

[–]imbecile 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Private wealth is privilege. Any personal wealth that is greater than what you can carry yourself is privilege, because it depends on everyone else in society enforcing your property rights for you. When you go to work and come home, your home is still your home, because everyone else accepts it and enforces it. And when they accept and enforce that you have 12 mansions, but don't accept and enforce the homeless guy his cardbox in the alley, and try to get rid of him, that is privilege. And oppression.

Everything you own, you deny someone else. And the only reason this can be acceptable is because you make better use of it than others would.

But when you own so much, that you don't even know most of the things you own, when you own more than thousands or millions of other people combined, you physically can't make better use of those things, because you only have one brain and only can pay attention to one thing at a time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just in case you're a communist, wealth in communist nations is a privilege too by that logic. The communism enforcer, the State, protects your several grains of rice allotted per day. That wealth of rice grains is your privilege, comrade.

What's the point of labeling all these privileges? The trees that continuously manufacture oxygen, am I privileged to suck the air they pump out? Should I pay a tax for that privilege too?

[–]imbecile 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course all the higher ups in the Eastern Block states were privileged. But the very fact that there were higher ups and a hierarchy and a class system means it wasn't communism. Communism is a classless society, by definition. What exactly that looks like wasn't described by Marx or anyone really. But Marx was very insistent that communism will only be possible once the technological and social means to achieve it have been built by capitalism in its quest for productivity. The Russian school ignored that, and were called out for that by the likes of Rosa Luxemburg years before the Russian Revolution.

Since power structures are communication structures, and human communication beyond a certain scale is inevitably hierarchical, because people can only ever pay attention to one thing at a time, you always will get hierarchical power structures when you build communication structures from humans beyond a certain size.

So to have a classless society you need to either ensure that society doesn't grow beyond the size where humans only can manage to communicate effectively with established hierarchies, or you gotta remove humans from the large scale communication.
The former drastically cripples productivity, because it limits economy of scale and division of labor and specialization. The latter is only possible very recently with modern IT.

Also, a tree that produces oxygen freely distributes it. Together with sunlight air/oxygen is pretty much the only resource that no one ever has established control over, because the cost of doing so is prohibitive. Property rights only exist because a society agrees to enforce them, like all rights. And a society agrees to do so, because it deems it beneficial to the whole, like all rights and privileges. And like all rights and privileges, property rights can be taken away again, to whatever large or small degree, if enforcing them ceases to be beneficial.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nice response! I'm fascinated by your first point!

1) Another important factor that triggers the creation of human hierarchies, are our internal chemical motivations. If I see with my eyes that you respect me for my skill as a fisherman, then I'll be rewarded with a hit, and a long term increase in serotonin. Good, tall and wide posture will become much more comfortable for me, cortisol will lower, energy will heighten, AND in the moment I see you respect me to a higher degree, I'll feel fiery ecstasy. Humans are drawn to respect which leads to consolidation of POWER. This phenomenon seems to be incredibly complex, and not easily eliminated. Maybe it SHOULDN'T be eliminated entirely.

2) Also, I've heard the extreme of Marx is "equality of outcome." All are expected to produce the same quality and quantity or ELSE there's privilege and oppression afoot lol.

Lol. Personally, I like the Far Right extreme better. Might makes right. Natural selection is Natural Law. The most adaptable will rise above.

[–]imbecile 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. What exactly elicits respect highly varies between individuals and cultures. And because it is different for everyone and changes over time, I don't think it contributes much to consolidation of power and wealth. Far more important is the disconnect between the stratification of human communication in hierarchies and concentration of human productivity rewards within hierarchies. When you sit higher up in the hierarchy, you can claim the fruits of the labor of those below you in the hierarchy. This simple fact is responsible for almost all power consolidation. And the fact that everyone higher up in the hierarchy controls information flow from and to everyone below them explains the corruption and inertia of hierarchies even in the face of immense oppression and injustice.

  2. "Equality of outcome" is a modern bastardization, and I would even say deliberate misleading of Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" . It is quoted very ofen, and it is pretty much the antithesis of "equality of outcome", because everyone has different needs and abilities. The quote even only makes sense if you acknowledge that everyone has different needs and abilities.

What it doesn't imply is, that wants are needs. Sure, there are a lot of people who want to rule the world and amass large fortunes. Doesn't mean they need it to be productive members of society. Quite the contrary, large personal wealth denies others from being productive members of society.

This is a false dichotomy of "Equality vs. Inequality" is repeated so often. Absolute equality where everyone has and is the same is just as impossible as absolute inequality where one guy has and is everything and everyone else has and is nothing. It is a spectrum, and all that the traditional communists are saying is, that beyond a certain degree of inequality the gains for society in productivity and well-being has diminishing returns, and that this degree is a lot lower than most people are aware of, and especially those in wealth and power are willing to admit.

Might makes right. Natural selection is Natural Law. The most adaptable will rise above.

That's even more stupid. All the big leaps in evolution came whenever a new big leap in collaboration and communication came about. First a lot of isolated molecules banded together to form cells. Then thise cells formed colonies that worked together, then those colonies specialized and communicated to a degree that organisms formed, then those organisms started to collaborate and communicate to become social populations. And with human civilization even different populations started to collaborate and communicate.

You gotta acquire and bundle the resources to live and replicate. And working together with others to specialize and utilize economy of scale is mandatory by this point.

Sure, there always will be parasites that exploit the collaboration of the majority for individual gain. But parasitism can only ever be a minority approach, a niche, because as soon as it becomes too common, the whole environment changes, and either the whole system collapses, or the majority adapts fooling them doesn't work anymore.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love how Peterson actually says nothing, yet he attracts so much attention from both feminists and those who think that modern feminism is a problem.

[–]boringcarpets 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Incel" seems to be the new n word, just a pejorative term, acceptable to the mainstream, to keep people in line, to shame and dehumanise. You can say what you want if you call someone an incel.

I've got no love for incels, but just like the use of "sexist" "misogynist" "transphobic" "nazi" "alt right" etc, these are just words for "people I don't like". There is no bearing on the actual definition of these terms or description of the people

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And huffpo is and always has been the media outlet for fat bitchy man hating feminists

[–]Lupinfujiko 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yet another bullshit deliberate misrepresention of what Peterson actually said.

Fucking pathetic cowards. Can't debate his point, can't understand it - move to character assassination.

On a happier note: Have you guys read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Robert Glover? It is a fantastic book.

[–]akmvb21 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What was his point?

[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, he has several different points really.

What point exactly are you asking about?

[–]akmvb21 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess the one you were referring to in your comment. Or the one that inspired this post.

[–]Lupinfujiko 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Starting with the "right to sex" heading. No where does Peterson advocate a "right to sex".

Also, "Enforced monogamy" does not equate to, "the state should intervene in some manner to ensure men like Minassian are guaranteed to have a partner."

That's a complete misrepresention of his point, which is that our current encouragement of promiscuous relationships is damaging to male female relationships. Encouraging traditional monogamy is better than males' disengagement from society (incel).

[–]GreyTortoise 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Incels don't have a lobbyist. Or a lobby, even. They're just people who need to develop into full people but are instead stewing amongst each other to become something toxic.

"Nice guys" have their lobbyists among PUAs and feminists. PUAs want them to stop being taken advantage of and start outplaying women in the courting games women play, feminists want them to keep being human footstools but just do it more quietly.

[–]jp_mra 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The facts:

https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To quote myself from another Jordan Peterson thread: JP seems to be one of the very few cultural commentators who is actually attempting a search-and-rescue operation for young men who are at risk of veering into the alt-right. All of the finger wagging and tongue lashing from the Left does very little to help those guys... if anything, it pushes them further to the right. Peterson tries to meet them where they are and give them a roadmap to a better life, and for that he is demonized.

[–]HauntingUse 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is something very dreary about phrase "Nobody owes you sex". On the one hand, it is kinda true. But there is still something very dreary, purse-lipped, fatalistic and stupid about it. I just can't exactly point out what it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ug. This looks horribly cherry picked.

Davide Mastracci needs to work on his journalism.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter