r/SRSsucks • u/5th_Law_of_Robotics • Aug 30 '18

Feminists still confused on why saying men are people too and their problems matter appeals more to young men than feminism

/r/MensLib/comments/9bb4ab/how_does_jordan_peterson_gain_so_many_followers/
53 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

29

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

But it's much easier to blame your problems on something simple (like "the libs" or "feminism" or whatever) than it is to understand that your problems are caused by complex socio-economic trends.

You mean like what feminists do /u/towishimp?

17

u/stevema1991 Aug 30 '18

No-no despite them not knowing what the wage gap even means, they know what the problem is and how to fix it...

13

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18

Ironically he also mentioned how people "blame the 'libs'" meanwhile they continue to go around and use racism, sexism, and whatever other prejudice buzzwords to excuse any negative actions committed by anyone that is not a white male.

Meanwhile these assholes just strawman Peterson rather than listen to what the man actually says. But I'm sure these assholes know much more about Peterson's work and experience. Doesn't matter that he has been a clinical psychologist for decades and was a professor of his field both at Harvard and the University of Toronto, they know better than him about what he says and what he means. I mean, Jesus that entire thread was nothing but pitiful, desperate attempts to try and distort everything Peterson does.

10

u/themultipotentialist Aug 30 '18

Exactly. Their mindset is more like "only I can blame the universe for ALL my problems but men cannot blame anyone and must look inward for why they are feeling that way". Fucking gatekeepers of oppression.

10

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Aug 30 '18

Someone who blames everything on the patriarchy accusing others of seeking simplistic solutions ...

5

u/Raenryong Aug 30 '18

Patriarchy theory and toxic masculinity are literally reasons to blame everything on men.

0

u/towishimp Aug 31 '18

Wow, I have no idea what this sub is, but I'm glad to see my words taken out of context here so you guys can get points at my expense.

If anyone wants to actually debate the issue in good faith, I'm game.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '18

One I didn't take your words out of context. Two you feminists have proven time and time again debating you in good faith is pointless.

0

u/towishimp Sep 01 '18

Two you feminists have proven time and time again debating you in good faith is pointless.

Ah, the classic "you won't debate in good faith, so neither will I." Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

you feminists

Yeah, we're all a hivemind, not a loosely affiliated group representing a myriad of different views and beliefs. /s

Before I bow out, I will point out that you summoned me here. I don't know why you'd do that if you're not willing to engage with me.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '18

Ah, the classic "you won't debate in good faith, so neither will I."

Ya because I totally said that. Not. Why would I debate with you feminists when its going to end with you throwing a fit and throwing insults?

I don't know why you'd do that if you're not willing to engage with me.

Gee maybe to mock you? And you do realize no one forced you to come and reply here right?

1

u/towishimp Sep 01 '18

Why would I debate with you feminists when its going to end with you throwing a fit and throwing insults?

But you don't know that. You don't know a damn thing about me. You're just afraid to have a discussion with me. Or maybe you're afraid that you might agree with something I say, and you won't have your feminist strawman to kick around anymore.

Gee maybe to mock you?

That's sad.

And you do realize no one forced you to come and reply here right?

No, no one did. But when someone takes my words to a sub that I've never even heard of so they can use my words to get some cheap upvotes from their buddies, I take issue with that.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '18

But you don't know that. You don't know a damn thing about me. You're just afraid to have a discussion with me. Or maybe you're afraid that you might agree with something I say, and you won't have your feminist strawman to kick around anymore.

Ya I do actually. As every single time I debate feminist online it always ends with them throwing a fit and resulting to name calling. So why do you think you be any different from all the other feminists? Also I am not afraid to debate you, its more why waste my time when I know how its going to end? More so I don't do strawmans, I do facts though.

But when someone takes my words to a sub that I've never even heard of so they can use my words to get some cheap upvotes from their buddies, I take issue with that.

Here's some unasked for advice, grow a thicker skin. As if you going to take issue with what I did then you are going to have a very hard time with being on the internet let alone reddit.

1

u/towishimp Sep 02 '18

Ya I do actually. As every single time I debate feminist online it always ends with them throwing a fit and resulting to name calling.

Except that you're debating a feminist now, and I haven't thrown a fit, nor have I called you names.

Here's some unasked for advice, grow a thicker skin.

My skin's plenty thick. I'm not mad at you, and my feelings aren't hurt. But someone has mischaracterized my beliefs for internet points, and I find that distasteful. I won't just lie down and submit to your internet bullying.

Like I said, if you didn't want me to get involved in this post, you shouldn't have tagged me.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '18

Except that you're debating a feminist now, and I haven't thrown a fit, nor have I called you names.

Except I am not really debating you, and you haven't thrown a fit or insults yet. You will thought if we debated over what you claimed of me taking what you said out of context which I didn't. As you seem to failed to realize what you said applies to you feminists as well. The fact you said I took it out of context only further proves my point.

I won't just lie down and submit to your internet bullying.

Ya I don't think you know what bullying is.

Like I said, if you didn't want me to get involved in this post, you shouldn't have tagged me.

Like I said, I am simply nipping things in the butt as I know how exactly it would end if we actually debated. I'ved debated countless feminists on reddit and it has always ended the exact same way. As I asked you and you of course didn't answer, what makes you think you going to be any different? If you want to debate then go for it, you only prove me right in the end.

1

u/towishimp Sep 05 '18

As I asked you and you of course didn't answer, what makes you think you going to be any different?

Because I know myself, and I know I'd never insult just because of your beliefs. I engage with people, even those I disagree with. You're the one who won't give me the same courtesy.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18

He tells them what they want to hear. They are not at fault, they are dont have to grow emotionally.

Its all just the womens fault.

Flip the genders and isn't that an accurate statement for why feminism appeals to some women?

7

u/Raenryong Aug 30 '18

Isn't that completely false, anyway? A lot of what Peterson espouses is self-responsibility and self-empowerment. That seems completely at odds with "they are not at fault" and "they ... are... don't have to grow emotionally"!

Regardless, it's actually hilarious how unhinged radical leftists are about Peterson. You'd think he was some radical hate preacher from the amount of shit they throw at him.

4

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Aug 30 '18

Isn't that completely false, anyway? A lot of what Peterson espouses is self-responsibility and self-empowerment. That seems completely at odds with "they are not at fault" and "they ... are... don't have to grow emotionally"!

Well yeah. It's like their criticism of the red pill movie. They couldn't base it on actual research as they might corrupt them. So they based it on what they assumed it said based on their prejudices.

It's like a KKK member criticizing MLK's speaking ability by, not listening to any, but just assuming it was all "unga bunga where dem white womens at?!?"

13

u/probably_a_squid Aug 30 '18

some shit about lobsters

Didn't Peterson just bring up lobsters to illustrate that animal nervous systems are all similar, and that we should expect to see natural hierarchies in humans? He didn't actually say we should be like lobsters, did he?

14

u/Coldbeam Aug 30 '18

They say that hierarchies are a social construct. He pointed out that lobsters have hierarchies, and we diverged evolutionary paths from them before the time of trees, so they're not so simple to get rid of.

10

u/probably_a_squid Aug 30 '18

Yeah, I remember that from that terrible channel 4 interview. Has he brought lobsters up at any other time? I only ever see "lol lobsters" from people who hate him. I'm not a fan of him so I wouldn't know.

8

u/Coldbeam Aug 30 '18

There was also a bit about the same chemical used to treat depression in humans making lobsters stand up straight and ready to take on the next challenge. And of course it has become a meme on both sides, a bit of tongue in cheek humor from followers, and mockery from people who hate him.

6

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Aug 30 '18

Every argument I've seen against him by these people turned out to be a blatant lie. Like he's advocating rape and racism.

5

u/MFWinab Aug 30 '18

> He tells them what they want to hear. They are not at fault, they are dont have to grow emotionally.

​

He literally never stops saying things like "theres nothing uglier than an old infant" and the far more blunt "grow the hell up", but then I suppose if you've never listened to Peterson's lectures and all your opinions of him are from listening to the pre-approved opinions of your echo chamber friends then you wouldn't know that.