On Jordan Peterson's (Sort yourself Out), the lack of satisfaction, and "MGTOW is just like Feminism"

EndlessPontification · 2017-05-28T14:20:05+00:00

If you think that's bad this will send you over the edge: the Dr Petersons of the world are happy only to convince the low intelligence men of their 'man-up' philosophy -- they ignore the guys like us who know what's going on.

In all aspects of life men try to definitively defeat the most immediate threat to their dominance - the ambitious men immediately below them in the social hierarchy - by allying with (misleading) the men 2 steps below them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There is a desire to eradicate 'the middle' as they are hated by the top and the bottom collectively.

This is why gynocentric society is allowed to flourish as the top men use it to keep the middle men in-line.

ikhwan_arif · 2017-05-28T13:52:52+00:00

Pretty good rant. What Jordan Peterson and other Tradcucks fail to acknowledge is that while women are important in propagating a society, men are more important because we build, maintain and improve that civilization.

Electricity, water, energy, infrastructure are all built, designed and maintained by men. If you remove all the incentives that motivates a man to perform his duties, then you will remove the men from being invested in that civilization.

The current state of modern matrimony is literally a Russian Roulette with a revolver loaded with 5 bullets and only 1 empty chamber yet they still want us to play.

The game is rigged, the only winning move is not to play. There is no other path but to go your own way.

cheesymold · 2017-05-28T15:47:32+00:00

Peterson has apologized to MGTOW, or at the very least recognized the system is rigged against men. Eventually his opinion might change further. I respect anyone who can admit to being wrong.

Dzartovian94 · 2017-05-28T14:32:41+00:00

Peterson is a smart guy, but has no idea of the evil of the human race. The 21st century has allowed the selfish intentions to come to the forefront of the culture. Of course the old man doesn't get that.

the_unseen_one · 2017-05-28T15:32:12+00:00

One of the tragedies of men not having fathers is that they lose generations of skills. US used to be a farming/agricultural country, tons of skills of all sorts were vested in Americans of the 19th and 20th century related to farming and maintenance of equipment. All that is lost to young men raised without fathers, and the men who know these skills are dying off and becoming fewer and fewer. If you are a young man, unless you are self driven person willing to learn things on your own, and are willing to read and study manuals, you aren't going to learn anything, and that early head start with a father with skill in the home will be lost so it will be late learning.

secant128 · 2017-05-28T15:59:26+00:00

Wait did Peterson say "MGTOW is just as bad as feminism" or is it egalitarians and anti fems that said that? If its Peterson then He clearly didn't do enough research and I just lost respect on him.

You can't role play traditionalism in a gynocentric world. They have put a meat grinder there the only way is to walk away avoiding being grind. Women can role play because they are the beneficiaries. But no not men.

cheesymold · 2017-05-28T17:53:12+00:00

It's foolish to invest mightily into a single relationship with a single person that the other person can blow up and not only remove the worth of the investment but also sink you farther.

I invest in learning to shoot my bow. My bow doesn't think and so isn't likely to turn on me. Also, I'm not likely to lose the skill and be worse off for doing archery.

Contrast that with a serious relationship with a woman. You are trusting someone too much in that case, especially a woman that is prey to emotion to such a degree. Also, to many people, sex and the excitement of attention and romance is hugely important, more important than money or most other things (including their integrity and not betraying you) often times.

Trusting your wife or GF to never fuck around behind your back is at least like (and probably worse than) having a tall stack of uncounted $100 bills in a back closet and trusting them to never swipe one in order to go buy a new pair of shoes. Given enough time it is almost guaranteed to happen, especially in the society we are in which actively provides women excuses and encouragement to do whatever the fuck they want.

Asbestasio · 2017-05-28T23:28:14+00:00

Peterson apologized to MGTOW. he didn't think he would have pretty much only a male viewerbase. i don't know if he's lying. i don't think his opinions are set in stone. i agree to "sort yourself out" because i take it as having an inner motivation to live your life as you want and not be a victim. which is what i get MGTOW is.

loofy_goofy · 2017-05-28T19:14:40+00:00

I think the problem is that he is closet christian - it's shame to admit that you believe in Jesus being a professor so he is dancing around the concept.

So that's why so many focus on family and raising kids - pure christian thing.

account4189 · 2017-05-28T20:01:05+00:00

There's already been a ton of criticism on Peterson. No - he does understand the plight of the modern man. He also understands evil. He also understands biology, psychology, and dominance hierarchy issues more than the VAST majority of men on this subreddit. I understand the confusion and outrage that men here feel towards him, particularly the ones who don't take the easy way out and say Peterson is an idiot, but the other ones who realize that he's sees the same issues we do and yet still thinks that men in aggregate - should throw themselves into the domiance hierarchy despite the vast majority of them failing. By the way, he's GONE ON RECORD and said that most men will fail. He's GONE ON RECORD as saying most men won't be attractive to women. Don't kid yourself about him not understanding the issues.

It's just that his entire worldview is informed and constrained by a form of Darwinian Pragmatism. Even his concept of TRUTH is constrained by a form of Darwinian Pragmatism.

In short, there are no "T"ruths with a capital T in his mind. Ideas aren't TRUE or FALSE to him in the sense of a correspondence theory of truth. He operates from a pragmatic theory of truth. Ideas are True or False only to the extent that they are true enough to enable a species over the long-term.

I suppose, when pressed, he also wouldn't think of his pragmatic truth as being mappable (in the mathematical or philosophical sense) to individuals universally. Because he knows that the majority of men won't win, the recommendation that he makes for men from a Darwinian standpoint isn't individually true for individual men universally. It's pragmatically true for the species as a whole, and it's pragmatically "true enough" for the individual men that happen to win the reproductive context. So this is very much a different truth then what you guys are used to and what most people think of as "truth" - which is more of what the philosophers call - a "correspondence theory" of truth.

He's not a simple tradcon either. He's not a social conservative. He's CONDITIONALLY socially conservative. He believes in conserving things that have been shown over long time spans to be consistent with human existence (even if that human existence requires, by necessity, the failure of the vast majority of its disposable males). If something appears to him as being something that is existence-ending (for the species as a whole, but not necessarily to the individual man), then he thinks it's immoral. For instance, Communism and Fascism are immoral in his mind because they increase the chance of total nuclear annihilation. (I'm simplifying here, but you can watch his lectures if you want the whole argument.)

However, the state (an zich), is not necessarily immoral because it an abstract form of the dominance hierarchy and has shown itself over many milennia to be consistent with human existence. Some states are problematic, but not all modes of government per se. (I actually disagree with this, I think that forced coercion is wrong.)

But this is a perfect illustration of how his truth comes from the top down rather than the bottom up. He starts from human existence as a whole and argues to human existence as a whole. If there were a situation that would arise, where the only way the human species would be to survive, would be 99% of the men on the planet to voluntary sacrifice themselves so 1% of men and all of the women could go on - then he would say that was the MORAL thing to do - and it would be IMMORAL not to.

In his mind MORALITY is identified with whatever is necessary to keep Darwin's game operative for humanity. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Peterson. And it's not just Morality - it's the concept of TRUTH itself. If ideas are true (say the way constructing a bomb is a true manipulation of atoms), then he would say that the knowledge is UNTRUE. Even though the practical manipulation of the bomb would be TRUE from a correspondence theory of truth, i.e. do cause A - get result B, it's UNTRUE under some forms of Darwinian Pragmatism because what defines truth isn't that you get result B, but rather result B has the possibility of wiping out human existence.

How many times do I have to explain Peterson to you guys?

And no - his apology to MGTOW wasn't an apology to MGTOW. It was only an apology to MGTOW who have issues with the legal system. It was not an apology to any of the men who are motivated towards MGTOW for other reasons.

In fact, those MGTOW are still very much "pathetic weasels" in his mind. As he said in his "apology," he has his reasons for criticizing MGTOW - and those reasons touch on what I wrote earlier - which is that he sees male sacrifice as man's biological role/duty to preservation of the species - and if enough men don't fall in line - then under his own moral view - that's IMMORAL.

And because it's IMMORAL in his mind, he feels morally compelled to use SHAME and ad hominem attacks to get them back on the plantation in order to keep the species going - true to his Darwinian Pragmatism. But wouldn't using manipulation tactics on men's mind be IMMORAL in his mind? No, because his Darwinian Pragmatism of TRUTH dovetails with a CONSEQUENTIALIST theory of MORALS.

Existence of the species must be preserved, so if something preserves the species - it is automatically moral - even if it's manipulative.

So his ISSUE with the MGTOW subreddit - specifically the claim that it has "undue influence" on young men, isn't that it has "undue influence" but that it has the potential to influence young men in ways that works against the existence of man kind.

Meanwhile, HIS INFLUENCE on young men, is ultimately justified to himself as being in the service of the species - even if it sacrifices a vast majority of those young men to suffering that they could have avoided.

They would still have other types of suffering, but not the type of suffering that comes reproductive rejection (and trust me - that's serious suffering - I know both ends of the dominance hierarchy - and I'm probably one of the few on this subreddit that have occupied both places.)

So - fuck you - to Peterson. Let the young men hear all sides, and if it causes the species to implode, then so be it. All it would mean would be that "human consciousness" itself was perhaps maladaptive to conditions of existence and was simply UNFIT to exist. But hey, if you're a Darwinian Pragmatist, why cherry pick just human life as being the ultimate good and not other forms of life. If you're willing to subordinate an individual to a species, why not subordinate a species to the class of all other species that could replace it?

And as far as the MGTOW who think that Peterson doesn't know the issues - fuck you. You don't understand Peterson. He values men, just values them as disposable.

And as far as the MGTOW who think he has apologized - fuck you. You can't tell the difference between a genuine apology and a carefully crafted partial recant.

And as far as the MGTOW that give other MGTOW shit for not giving enough weight to his other work (admittedly it's good work - his work on religion is excellent) - FUCK YOU. this a MGTOW subreddit - we come here to talk about MGTOW related shit - not give partial credit to someone's body of work away from MGTOW.

To the extent that Peterson's stated beliefs work against a man's sovereignty to choose himself over the species - then I'd expect a MGTOW to have an instinctual reaction against it, and for the inclined and able, a sophisticated argument against it.

That's what it comes down to - do you think that a man's individual choices are free from the moral responsibility to continue the species? That's the crux of the matter. He would say no. he would say all human action can be classified as morally permissible or prohibited (all - even taking a shit) at least from the standpoint of - does it increase or decrease the chances of human extinction?

fuckthisworl · 2017-05-28T14:13:15+00:00

Institutions praising women are like art dealers praising Andy Warhol paintings, they know they are shit but they make a lot of money saying they are amazing.

Title	On Jordan Peterson's (Sort yourself Out), the lack of satisfaction, and "MGTOW is just like Feminism"
Author	Throwawaygalaxy028
Upvotes	35
Comments	28
Date	May 28, 2017 1:17 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/6dtqhm/on_jordan_petersons_sort_yourself_out_the_lack_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/on-jordan-petersons-sort-yourself-out-the-lack-of.585303 https://theredarchive.com/post/585303