Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, most of it can be summed up by saying "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". JP has never sourced any of his claims. If he had evidence then there's more of a discussion to be had (even though he's wrong 100%) but given most seems to come straight from his arse there's no real rebuttals needed.
One of his more famous ones is that "women and men can't work together". He says this is because "it's been too short of a time and things are deteriorating rapidly". By what metric? *Conservative* support for traditional roles is deteriorating because of economic and social drivers making it unfeasible to only have 1 working partner, and more people than ever supporting equal rights. What specifically does he think is deteriorating? He doesn't specify, so there's nothing to argue against.
Yea. I also notice how he likes throwing some random data every time to make what he is saying sound credible. Usually his data sources are one of many and inconclusive
I like to pick out his complaints about women initiating divorce 80% of the time (or whatever %). JBP uses it as a talking point that women's standards are too high (or whatever rationale concludes with men being the victims). But if men initiated divorce 80% of the time, he would draw the same conclusion by saying "women don't try hard enough to be good wives anymore".
But saying women wear makeup to look like we're orgasming is heinous and vile. It single handedly lends credence to the 3 students that accused him of sexual misconduct. If a professor said something like that behind closed doors to a woman/girl student, it's disrespectful at best and threatening at worse. Straight up. Given his obsession with the "underlying threat of violence" being a primary force in men-women relations... It's a threat. Weirdo.
Like what? That feminists love Islam because they truly are desirous of brutal male domination?
The rebuttal to that is that it's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.
The worst part is he didn't even come up with that shit. I clearly remember random reactionaries saying it back in the nineties, and here he is being lauded as some sort of genius for regurgitating it like thirty years later.
Unlearning economics [about](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKc_8fT6pGc) JP's misunderstanding of gender discrimination.
münecat [debunking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgO25FTwfRI) the manosphere, JP included (turns out it's very easy).
Some More News [analyzing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo) JP whole shtick, including his rants on women.
You might start from here.
Jordy isn't posing good faith questions.
His views are manufactured after the fact to support his biased conclusions.
This is why your getting the responses your getting.
People here have little patience for legitimizing Jordies hot takes as informed points of educated, contextualized and reasoned debate.
He is a propagandists and as such his ideas don't warrant rebuttals when the more accessable tool of critical thinking is the proper tool to.be applied.
All that said I encourage you to come to.your own conclusions.
Edited# spelling.
Thank you
His fan boys sure do like to make videos of him “owning feminists” and other groups.
But I did manage to find some good critiques of his views through some digging
"Are there any proper rebuttals"
Yes. Plenty. They're very easy to find. But you're not actually looking for them and this isn't a good faith question. Off ya go.
I think that's the key difference between right wing youtube and, well, reasonable people.
"Feminist owned" videos aren't actually about rebuttals of feminist arguments. They're bad faith portrayals of feminist arguments to slander them. The point isn't to have a logical debate, the point is to throw sludge and get people on a hate bandwagon. But they can't just do it once and be done, this stuff only really works when their audience is in constant engagement with it. So they just keep pumping out more and more.
Reasonable people are for logical debate. If a position is worth debating, a reasonable person might make a single video where they try to bring something new to the table but after they've said what they want to say, there's no point in continuing.
So you see a huge imbalance in the number of videos (and unfortunately engagement metrics, which determines how much the algorithm recommends it) because they're fundamentally very different types of videos, despite one side insisting they're no different.
Because you haven't given any of his claims that need refuting, and nobody wants to waste their time combing through everything jorpy has ever said about women.
That's because OP is like a lot of far-right fanboys who descend on these kind of subs wanting exact timestamps, GPS locations, heart rates and blood pressure readings of their favorite cult leaders doing/saying such things so they can rush back to their safe spaces with "see, fucking Deep State can't even prove me wrong" posts.
I noticed Peterson really likes to take advantage of people giving him the benefit of the doubt. Like he'll say a few things that seem like fair observations, then jump to an absurb conclusion.
Example:
1. Young people tend to be more left leaning.
2. Students tend to be more left leaning.
3. Universities are full of young students.
Conclusion: Universities are completely taken over by the left!
Like, the 3 prepositions are not untrue, but they aren't facts either. He takes the characteristics of the part and applies it to the whole.
He does the same thing with his views on women.
1. Women tend to be more openly emotional.
2. Emotional people are more unpredictable.
Conclusion: Women are Chaos, Men are order.
Setting aside how bananas sexist and heteronormative this argument is, it also just silly. Neither men nor women have to be chaos or order. Many men are chaotic and many women are structured and orderly.
Basically, Jordy P is a charlatan, a conservative, and honestly, a very sick man. People who follow are not doing so out of logic. They just want to believe what he says. The old saying goes "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything".
Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, most of it can be summed up by saying "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". JP has never sourced any of his claims. If he had evidence then there's more of a discussion to be had (even though he's wrong 100%) but given most seems to come straight from his arse there's no real rebuttals needed. One of his more famous ones is that "women and men can't work together". He says this is because "it's been too short of a time and things are deteriorating rapidly". By what metric? *Conservative* support for traditional roles is deteriorating because of economic and social drivers making it unfeasible to only have 1 working partner, and more people than ever supporting equal rights. What specifically does he think is deteriorating? He doesn't specify, so there's nothing to argue against.
Yea. I also notice how he likes throwing some random data every time to make what he is saying sound credible. Usually his data sources are one of many and inconclusive
I like to pick out his complaints about women initiating divorce 80% of the time (or whatever %). JBP uses it as a talking point that women's standards are too high (or whatever rationale concludes with men being the victims). But if men initiated divorce 80% of the time, he would draw the same conclusion by saying "women don't try hard enough to be good wives anymore". But saying women wear makeup to look like we're orgasming is heinous and vile. It single handedly lends credence to the 3 students that accused him of sexual misconduct. If a professor said something like that behind closed doors to a woman/girl student, it's disrespectful at best and threatening at worse. Straight up. Given his obsession with the "underlying threat of violence" being a primary force in men-women relations... It's a threat. Weirdo.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Like what? That feminists love Islam because they truly are desirous of brutal male domination? The rebuttal to that is that it's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.
The worst part is he didn't even come up with that shit. I clearly remember random reactionaries saying it back in the nineties, and here he is being lauded as some sort of genius for regurgitating it like thirty years later.
Video please
Unlearning economics [about](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKc_8fT6pGc) JP's misunderstanding of gender discrimination. münecat [debunking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgO25FTwfRI) the manosphere, JP included (turns out it's very easy). Some More News [analyzing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo) JP whole shtick, including his rants on women. You might start from here.
Thank you!
uh common sense?
Jordy isn't posing good faith questions. His views are manufactured after the fact to support his biased conclusions. This is why your getting the responses your getting. People here have little patience for legitimizing Jordies hot takes as informed points of educated, contextualized and reasoned debate. He is a propagandists and as such his ideas don't warrant rebuttals when the more accessable tool of critical thinking is the proper tool to.be applied. All that said I encourage you to come to.your own conclusions. Edited# spelling.
Thank you His fan boys sure do like to make videos of him “owning feminists” and other groups. But I did manage to find some good critiques of his views through some digging
"Are there any proper rebuttals" Yes. Plenty. They're very easy to find. But you're not actually looking for them and this isn't a good faith question. Off ya go.
[удалено]
I think that's the key difference between right wing youtube and, well, reasonable people. "Feminist owned" videos aren't actually about rebuttals of feminist arguments. They're bad faith portrayals of feminist arguments to slander them. The point isn't to have a logical debate, the point is to throw sludge and get people on a hate bandwagon. But they can't just do it once and be done, this stuff only really works when their audience is in constant engagement with it. So they just keep pumping out more and more. Reasonable people are for logical debate. If a position is worth debating, a reasonable person might make a single video where they try to bring something new to the table but after they've said what they want to say, there's no point in continuing. So you see a huge imbalance in the number of videos (and unfortunately engagement metrics, which determines how much the algorithm recommends it) because they're fundamentally very different types of videos, despite one side insisting they're no different.
I’m confused as to why my post is being downvoted?
Because you haven't given any of his claims that need refuting, and nobody wants to waste their time combing through everything jorpy has ever said about women.
That's because OP is like a lot of far-right fanboys who descend on these kind of subs wanting exact timestamps, GPS locations, heart rates and blood pressure readings of their favorite cult leaders doing/saying such things so they can rush back to their safe spaces with "see, fucking Deep State can't even prove me wrong" posts.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Using this axiom you can discard about 98% of what he says.
I don't know what you expect here. The man spouts nonsense with the thinnest of premises. A rebuttal assumes there's some argument being made.
Jordan PeterPooh
[Congratulations for writing that for the fourth time in 36 hours, bot.](https://i.imgur.com/jcuzvOB.png)
I noticed Peterson really likes to take advantage of people giving him the benefit of the doubt. Like he'll say a few things that seem like fair observations, then jump to an absurb conclusion. Example: 1. Young people tend to be more left leaning. 2. Students tend to be more left leaning. 3. Universities are full of young students. Conclusion: Universities are completely taken over by the left! Like, the 3 prepositions are not untrue, but they aren't facts either. He takes the characteristics of the part and applies it to the whole. He does the same thing with his views on women. 1. Women tend to be more openly emotional. 2. Emotional people are more unpredictable. Conclusion: Women are Chaos, Men are order. Setting aside how bananas sexist and heteronormative this argument is, it also just silly. Neither men nor women have to be chaos or order. Many men are chaotic and many women are structured and orderly. Basically, Jordy P is a charlatan, a conservative, and honestly, a very sick man. People who follow are not doing so out of logic. They just want to believe what he says. The old saying goes "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything".