Emerald

You seriously don't see any systemic issue in this instance of clear cut racism? Then you go into all kinds of abstract thoughts about a person's own smallness and our inability as humans to know how to remedy issues. You're being foolish and using the wrong paradigm for the issue at hand. That's like a starving person asking you for some food, and responding "There is no you. Let go of your ego and stop believing in the illusion a you that needs to eat." Then, you continue munching on the sandwich you were just munching on before you depart feeling proud that you've just imparted some real pearls of wisdom to that ignorant wretch. The fact of the matter is, that people who are in a systemically oppressed group, are going to have to deal with very specific problem behaviors from a sizable minority of people. And that effect compounds over a lifetime. And it's an actual existential threat that they've had to deeply explore, far more than anyone who's not in that group has. So, maybe consider that people in oppressed groups might know a little bit more than you do about what might work. Also, consider the fact that if it gets on your nerves, it's working. If ain't called agitation for no reason.

Glad you see it too.

Perspectives have already emerged organically from many people. It's just that some people don't want to take the time to listen to them, and write them off as short-sighted and neurotic. And because the people that write them off, aren't the ones experiencing the problems, they can just sit comfortably in the status quo waiting for answers that are MORE COMFORTABLE TO THEIR EGO. But those answers are just the ego talking and will only solidify the status quo. Tell a man that things will go back to a traditional society, and he may or may not like it. But he won't be afraid of his place within it. Tell a woman that things will go back to a traditional society, and it's like telling them they won't really be able to be a full person anymore. So, there is an existential danger to all the ideologies being advocated for by Jordan Peterson.

What I honestly think will happen is that people will go further and further toward regressive ideologies to the point where it creates a huge a crisis. And humanity will come out wiser from the crisis, and know that it's not a good road to go down... at least until we hit this point again at a higher point on the spiral. So, in a sense, you could say that people like Jordan Peterson are paving the way toward that crisis that expands collective awareness. So, in the grand scheme of things, surely even the most terrible things bring us forward. That said, I would prefer avoiding crises if at all possible, because in crises people get hurt. And I think that recognizing Jordan Peterson's intentions for what they are and how they're playing into the proliferation of regressive ideologies is important to be able to do.

I love the work of Carl Jung. I spent and entire year immersing myself in the topic of Jungian psychology, and reading everything I could get my hands on. The problem is that he's using Jung's model for his own demagoguery. And he's doing that on a deeper level than most people are aware of, because most people aren't familiar with the Jungian perspective. So, he's got a ton of stuff going on and he seems like he's just entertaining this or that idea. But I see him as very calculated and someone who slips under the radar because of the fact that he's a doctor, he presents as a nice and intelligent man, and he never strays too far from the normal discourse... unless he presents it as just an idea that he as an 'intellectual and open minded' person is toying with.

A lot of people think that Jordan Peterson is a good person... but one more than Jordan Peterson himself.

Jordan Peterson crying about his impact on people's lives, doesn't mean that he is having a good impact on people as a whole group. The problem is that he has a lot of self-help advice that's legitimate, but he uses that self-help advice as the peanut butter that hides the pill. The pill which is designed to get people moving back to a more traditional society. And the traditional society in his mind is patriarchal and goes by "Western" (read white) values. He probably thinks he's bringing order back to the social system, and thinks he's doing a good job. So, I get the sense that this regression that he wants, in his mind is like a life's purpose for him, where he gets a sense of personal importance by being the guy that brings order back to society. And that order is imposed by protecting Western (read white) values, demonizing progress, subtly advocating for patriarchy, and hyper-focus on masculinity's importance.

These are the types of things that JP's rhetoric lead people to write off as playing at "identity politics". That way, they lack empathy and awareness of the issues that real people face. I guarantee you, if the two young gentlemen on this thread were experiencing situations like that, they would have a completely different view on JP. They wouldn't be able to play devil's advocate and cooly consider that maybe some hierarchies are natural and shouldn't be dismantled, because there's a protective element to them. It's easy to support something where the cards are stacked in one's favor.

I've heard him temper his talks with these kinds of 'nuances' peppered in. And it's why he can be mainstream and have so much of an impact. If he came right out and said, "People with low IQ are a burden on society, so we should get rid of them." No one would listen to what he has to say except for the most radical people. And if he didn't criticize the far Right a little bit, that would be suspicious given the amount that he rails against the Left. But you can tell what his intentions are by the amount of time and emotion he invests into a particular topic. So, the nuances are carefully placed within his rhetoric to disguise the rhetoric. That way, he just seems like an open-minded intellectual in search for truth no matter what comes up. When in reality, he is a fierce ideologue whose end goal is to bring us back to a "Blue" social structure.

Even Jordan Peterson admits that you can look directly at the end result of a person's impact on the world and infer that perhaps it was the motive all along. So, I don't trust him, because I see the end result of his rhetoric. I also don't trust him because I pick up on his dog whistles: the everyday societal ones and the Jungian ones. If you can zoom out a bit from him, you can see there is a common pattern to what he's doing. And he's being very effective at doing it. He's incredibly intelligent and charismatic, and he knows exactly what to say to seem like a normal guy talking about normal things. But his intentions can be inferred for those that recognize the subtle propaganda for what it is.

You're just not picking up on the dog whistles that he uses. He's very careful to make himself seem quite egalitarian and socially acceptable. So, he'll never come right out and say that he's being critical of women being in the workplace. He'll imply that it's just a weird situation that men don't know how to navigate. Then, he'll leave that premise open ended for men to fill in their own ideas. And many men, who already have issues with women, will obviously fill that in with the idea, "Maybe women shouldn't be in the workplace, after all." He won't say it. He'll leave it up to his viewers to say it. It's the same thing he did when he was having a conversation about IQ. He was talking about how he coached some guy who had an IQ of 85. And he labored the fact, that it took him over 40 hours of working with him for that guy to learn a task as simple as folding letters to fit in envelopes. Now, Jordan Peterson didn't say anything about getting rid of low IQ people or eugenics. But about half the comments section consisted of people advocating for eugenics. There were also a ton of people talking about race and how 'the average black person has an IQ of 80', and combining that with the eugenics arguments other people were using. And I'd bet money that this isn't on accident on the part of Jordan Peterson. It's 100% intentional. He implies just enough to get people thinking in the direction he wants them to think. But he doesn't go far enough to lose the air of plausible deniability.

Very well said! My experiences exactly.

Here is one that I watched but there were others too. It's been a while so I don't quite recall which ones I've watched. But I do remember watching this one. Also, if you go in YouTube search, type in the phrase "women in male dominance hierarchies" and you'll find the vast majority of the top results are Jordan Peterson videos, 10 out of the top 16 or 17 videos. I know that this is what Jordan Peterson says that he's for. But he can't genuinely be for equality of opportunity if he thinks that examining and dismantling systemic inequalities that make everyone start off on unequal footing, will lead to some dystopian future where everyone's in a bread line. Now, I know that he'll temper this with the appearance of nuance by saying that there is 'some inequality.' But he does so in a way that de-legitimizes the perspectives of people who are experiencing systemic oppression in a way that he never will. Also, you're only one person, and so is Jordan Peterson. I don't know about you personally. But Jordan Peterson is a wealthy, heterosexual, cisgender, well-educated white man. He's pretty much in the ultimate blindspot for experiencing systemic inequalities. So, how can you or Jordan Peterson be so certain that the discrimination other groups face is an over-exaggeration?

I've watched like 15 of his videos. And a lot of what he said was geared around the narrative of male dominance hierarchies and being critical of women's role in the workplace. Also, NO ONE I've heard speak (and I listen to a lot of perspectives on the left and right) is arguing for equality of outcome. In fact, Jordan Peterson and those parroting him are the only ones that I've ever heard use that phrase or any equivalent of it. That's just a straw man that Jordan Peterson uses to misrepresent social justice causes, so that he can easily argue against it easily without actually addressing any of the real concerns. It's the same thing with his buzz words "Neo-Marxism" and "Identity Politics". These are just ways to demonize social justice causes and put them in a box so that those who buy into what he says think that they have no merit or even consider the points. And he'll never come right out and take a position, and stays nebulous on purpose to give himself the disguise of open-mindedness and fairness, when he is really anything but. He's a very civil wolf in sheep's clothing. A Trojan Horse of societal regression.

I think this happens a lot. I used to live my life like that before I had my experiences of ego transcendence, and realized how much pressure I was putting on myself to be important or significant. So, I always had to out-compete everyone in my zones of dominance to feel okay about myself. But when my ego dropped away, I realized how much I was causing myself to get off center and suffer, instead of allowing myself to swim downstream to what was more authentic to me. And I didn't need to label myself as significant or important or valuable, because I realized I was already valid.

I agree completely. Jordan Peterson probably has had a high degree of success living by these narratives of manhood. And he thinks that success is somehow the point of life. He may not realize he's actually looking for something deeper than what his ego can supply. That said, apparently he had an experience of ego transcendence. So, I might expect him to be a bit more careful with the type of advice he gives.

Absolutely. It's really toxic.

I wouldn't recommend Jordan Peterson to a woman. He's tends to cater more toward men and advocating for men to climb higher in dominance hierarchies and such. I've watched about 15 or so of his videos. And I would think that he would be disheartening to many women because he harkens back to earlier more traditional patriarchal social structures as being healthier for men and women both. And he sees most initiatives toward equality as being "Neo-Marxism" and a sure sign that we're heading toward a Communist dystopian future. So, lots of demonization. But I could see being really jazzed up to listen to what he says as a man, because he inspires men who feel powerless to own their masculinity and gives them narratives around the idea of manhood for climbing the hierarchy. But he tends to be somewhat critical of women competing in "male dominance hierarchies" and focusing less on motherhood/wifehood because he thinks it makes women less happy and makes society fall apart. So, he might have the opposite effect on women, and take the wind out of the sails of their ambition and make them needlessly question their own power and place within the world. And I honestly think that's his intention.

I picked Green-Yellow. And I think that's accurate of me. I do think I'm pretty decent at systemic thinking, and most of the Yellow traits describe accurately how I think. But I am heavily invested in Green, with regard to noticing social structures that create issues and inequalities for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, the disabled, religious minorities, and those that diverge from societal norms in general. I'm also interested in movements like Veganism (I am Vegan myself) and movements that focus toward helping the environment. And of course, income inequality. That said, I'm not sure if I'm invested in Green as an outgrowth of Yellow's systemic thinking, or as a pure orientation toward Green in and of itself. I may simply be seeing Green as the next logical step in humanity's evolution, and wanting to encourage more people to go in that direction to create a momentum in the forward direction. That said, I may actually be quite attached to Green. In recent years a lot of Blue types have started going more Orange. You can kind of see that the average Right-winger in America has shifted away from Blue and more toward Orange, and embraced a more Libertarian mindset about politics as opposed to a religious/moral one. And the average Left-winger has departed from Orange a bit and started to embrace Green. So, intellectually, I can recognize that there is progress going on, even in Conservative circles. That said, I still register that progress within the spiral as a barrier to progress in general, because of the Libertarian focus toward the Free Market without much regard to the planetary effects and worker exploitation of unfettered business interests. So, I'm either Yellow or Green-Yellow. I'm honestly not sure which.

I really don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm already in my woman-cave. If I do go out of the house, it's with my family or for work. And I have no dogs in the race relative to the dating game. I've been sufficiently withdrawn from life for over seven years, just working on my family, my work, and my YouTube channel. So, understand that my issue, at its bedrock level, isn't really about sexual market value. It's about deep conditionings that I've yet to be able to drop, despite years of inner work, because I have needs that conflict with dropping it. Basically, I feel like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, because I know I'd be repressing something to choose to go in either direction. That said, I've been slowly chipping away at it over the years, and it is a little bit better. I'm hoping that eventually, it all lets go of me and allows me to come back into alignment. But the social pattern is so big and pervasive, that it would be very hard to drop for anyone afflicted by it. But no, it's not even possible for me to derive pleasure by looking at men as sexual objects. Men are only attractive to me as fully formed human beings with autonomy and personalities. I can't just look at a man's body as an object and forget the personality attached to it. That said, there are parts of me that see myself as purely an object, and there are plenty of people and images out there echoing that sentiment. So, even when I intellectually know that thinking of myself as an object is incorrect. There is still a deep feeling there that I just can't seem to shake. So, I know that some deep parts of me truly believe that.

That's the problem with some of these teachers. They know what works... but they don't know why it works. They know how to drive a car, and then grow to think of themselves as mechanics. Then when an actual mechanic checks them on it, they argue that they know better because they know how to drive a car. They may assume it works because women like being assaulted or objectified. But it really works because some women already have low self-esteem and weak boundaries because of past traumas. So, they cave easily, even if they don't really want to. So, he's essentially teaching people to play off of those old wounds for their own personal gratification. And this isn't actually something that will actually increase confidence, at all. It'll just teach guys that it's okay to go over women's boundaries because they respond to it. Because 'if they respond to it, it must mean they like it.' And there are just better ways to increase confidence that aren't exploitative of weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Sex is just a small part of it. It has so much more to do with the way that I see myself in relation to my sexuality. I feel like I can't both have myself and my sexual desires too. So, it's more about authenticity, wholeness, and power than it is about sex. I'm a woman, so I know that if I really wanted to and made myself available, I could have sex with ten new guys a day. And I'm sure that even when I'm 70, if I put myself out there, I could have sex with a few men a week. There will always be men out there looking for sex wherever they can get it. Now, I don't want to do that, because it would suck. But I could. So, it's not a fear that sex will go away as I age. It has to do with how I've been subtly conditioned since early childhood to see myself as a sexual object instead of a sexual subject, coming more and more to a head as I've become older and wiser. It's seeing yourself as a valuable sexual object when you're younger, and then feeling like your value as an object diminishes every year. And with that perceived value loss, feeling less and less valid as a person and less and less deserving of pleasure. So, it's being a diamond when you're young, and being a piece of garbage once you're older. But my question is, when do I finally transcend this illusion of being an object and feel fully human and valid? And if I do transcend that illusion, will I still feel like I'm allowed to have sexual desires? So, you must understand that it's an existential problem, a lot like dealing with a smaller version of death. And it's very difficult to put down because the conditioning is so subtle and pervasive that there's no way to avoid it. It's especially difficult because the sexual narratives that we learn are all based around women as objects too. So, it's easy for young women to learn that their role in sex is to simply be the pleasing object. So, if we relate this narrative to sexual pleasure, it's extra difficult to buck that narrative because of its association with pleasure. So, it's very complicated. And I don't necessarily think withdrawal will help. I have been with my husband for over eight years and we have children together. And I know he loves me as a person. So, it's not like I have dogs in the race of the dating game or anything. So, I'm already pretty far withdrawn. It's just that, despite the inner work I've done, I can't seem to transcend this issue. It's very tenacious.

I thought Cannabis was physically non-addictive. I've known people who are psychologically addicted to it. But I used to smoke like it was my job back in high school. But I never actually got addicted to it. I didn't ever really crave it. And I quit when I was 20, very unceremoniously without any desire to do it again. I just smoked it because it was a folkway and it was always around. I basically liked the ceremonial nature of it where doing it with friends and family was like an iconoclastic ritual of sorts where we could do a minor act of law breaking together and talk about weird topics. But overall, I'm not a fan of it. I never actually liked it on its own, save a few genuinely good memories. I just liked being part of that subculture. And it was part of my identity at the time too.

You're not really telling me anything new. I have worked hard to buck the social narratives for my entire life. And I completely ignored them all through my teenage years, just writing them off as BS. But they're so deeply ground into me, that it's difficult to drop even when I unknowingly pretended to all those years. And when I pretended they were dropped, I just had a lot of needs that I wasn't able to admit to myself. But that's how these narratives are designed on purpose, to cross over the sexual instinct. The function of the mechanism is designed to keep women in a non-centered state, where a woman will have difficulty being truly authentic. It's difficult to drop something that has soaked into you so deeply, that you would literally have to rewire or drop the entire ego to move past it. And I work on it every day, chipping away at the attachment to social narratives little by little. But the fact of the matter is that I have needs to meet, that I don't know how to meet without the social narrative. I've never seen any other ways that resonate with me more. So, as long as I feel like I still need that for all the reasons that I do, it will be very difficult to let go of. It's not simply a matter of letting go of just the one thing. I also don't want to repress anything by pretending to drop something that is so tenacious.

I don't recommend it. From what I've read about the guy, he advocates approaching women by immediately choking them and shoving their faces in his crotch. That would be so traumatic to experience. So, don't do that. She won't appreciate it, even if she doesn't have strong enough boundaries and goes along with it because she feels she has no other recourse. Basically, there is no way to make a woman have a good time when she's been assaulted. It might work on some women because it plays off of earlier traumas. But she will hate herself even more and hate you too after the experience. But specifically which technique from him are you considering? I hope it's not the two that I mentioned. I would imagine that refraining form using those would be common sense. But you never know. I can maybe give you a bit more accurate advice, if you tell me which ones you're thinking of using.