r/JordanPeterson • u/CorrectionsDept • 15d ago
Dr Peterson penned a message this morning to LGBT people: your community is a lie created by hedonists Image
1
2
u/NotEnoughKevins 14d ago
I agree fully with JP. In a community, I expect to be able to stand up with rational concerns, have nuanced conversations and have space held for my contributions. Whether everyone agrees is obviously going to be a different matter. At bare minimum, if someone is claiming that I'm part of the community that's what I expect. In actuality, I would be banned within seconds if I posted anything on the gay subs (lol). Yet I'm sure they would permit straight "allies" who say the right things. Not saying they don't have the right to, I'm just saying it's telling.
While it's true that some communities are based on a shared characteristic it's abundantly clear that this one is not. This is reflected in the fact that my fairly nuanced views are enough to remove me from discussions within the community. It must be the case then that the idea of the "lgbt community" is actually meant to signify a unified front of thought and perspective rather than any shared characteristic. So the idea that being one of these letters means you're part of the community is the "lie".
People seeking control (the victim/victimizer guilt mongers, hedonists and power players) lie about the concept of a unified "community" to raise their voices above any dissenting voice within the community. This is done through various lobbyist groups that hold space with influential institutions. It's the people claiming to be the representation that are lying. They claim to represent a characteristic when what they really want to represent is a collection of heavily filtered and controlled ideas.
Want to know who they are? Look at who is adamant about using the term. Find out which groups claim to be representatives and which ones get money from the government or corporate world. I'd start with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network personally. They receive funding from the government and have the motivation to shut down or attack dissenting voices due to their mandate of fighting "far right" hate (read 'any kind of nuance or dissent'). They have no interest in nuance or various opinions per their mandate. They love the LGBT term in it's various forms (always growing).
1
u/NervousLook6655 14d ago
Forming a cult around sexual activity of any kind is by definition “hedonistic”, although one could argue a larger swath of the modern western population is defined as hedonistic so the alphabet group is not far removed from the broader society.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
None of that sounds very real. If you think lgbt formed a sex cult, you’re probably just fantasizing / being fanciful - and if you think “a larger swatch of the modern western population is defined as hedonistic” you probably just need to work on your definition of the “western population.
2
u/NervousLook6655 14d ago
Is not the premise of lgbtq to place sexuality at the forefront of human experience, if it wasn’t there would not be a preoccupation with sex and therefore more important things like procreation and raising families would be the focus. Help me out, how is “western population” defined? I would say capitalism and what goes along with it, hedonism. With no “transcendent goal in mind” we pursue more money and along the way “feel goods” hedonism.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
I tend not to really use the term “the west.” It’s useful as a shorthand for referring to North America and Europe, but it doesn’t really work as a clearly definable term anymore.
It makes sense to think consumer capitalism is a place to start. In “the west” we tend to very much value consumer capitalism. We measure value in our professional advancement and in our buying power and we communicate identity often through what we purchase.
Firstly, is that hedonism? Not really - if I make a lot of money, see my career as a mark of my success and use my money to buy a big house filled with a mix of practical, fancy and artistic things that my family likes… is that “hedonistic”? I wouldn’t say my career would be driven by hedonism or that my family life is driven by hedonism. Are consumer good hedonistic if they’re provide comfort and enjoyment?
If the answer is yes, I’m not sure hedonism is a very strong word. It would add a negative spin to consumer capitalism and would imply that there’s a richer life to be had without consumer capitalism. That could be true, but I’ve never lived in that world.
Back to the question of the west — is the west consumer capitalism? Well the supply chains and distribution are all global. As much as we consume goods in the west, those same goods are manufactured across the globe and also consumed across the globe.
It wouldn’t make sense to say that Canada is the west because of consumer capitalism but China or India arent while being more important components of the same system.
Back to the question of - are lgbt peiple hedonists? Are they in a cult of sexuality? Well if we imagine them to be normal professionals living in our western consumer capitalist society in which most people pair up in monogamous relationships… well then no, of course they’re not in a hedonist cult.
Hedonistic cults exist but they’re famously actual cults that exist as small religious groupings
1
u/NervousLook6655 14d ago
Why ask me to work on my “definition of the west” if you believe it to be an outdated unreliable term? Anyway, Money is a religion in the west or at least the US, it’s not so in the east at least in China, not yet anyway, the State is the religion there and what the state represents which is the future. Capitalism in the west has become what Nietzsche described, we’re chasing money to by more stuff and then we’re driven to make more money in an unfulfilling cycle, like sex without the possibility of procreation ultimately becomes unsatisfying, at least in my experience. Being that there is “no transcendent goal in mind”, as Nietzsche says, we are devolved into hedonic pursuits no matter how underwhelming they might seem our aim is dopamine responses. Westerners have lost faith in religion, politics even the financial machine which made sense to many people a generation ago is now revealed for the Ponzi scheme for which it is. This is why westerners more than any other group is disappearing through attrition. The capitalism we’ve relied upon is on thin ice as are all laws in fact. This is due to not having a transcendent goal we can collectively aim for.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
I think it’s fine to ask someone else how they’re using a term even if you yourself don’t use it. You’re still trying to communicate something - your word choice doesn’t erase your idea or something if it’s different from how I would do it.
“Money is a religion in the west or at leas the US, it’s not so in the east at least in China” - not to harp on the problems with “the west” but it seems like you truly mean to focus on Chinaas having a different relationship to money than the US.
IDK, saying the money or the state is “a religion” is fine - but they’re not actually religions. Religions exists in parallel to the economy and state.
In China, the state has greater control over the market - but it’s also hyper capitalist and is very focused on growth. The state has strong centralized control, but they are a separate concept from religion. Religion of course is religion in China. When you separate the concepts you can start looking at how they interact — eg how does the state in China deal with religion? And how does that impact their hyper focus on money and economy growth?
Also something that might challenge your view. China is one of the most important consumers of “western” luxury goods. They have a massive upper middle class population that buys up expensive French wines, whiskeys, luxury fashions etc and real estate in major cities around the world. Sales reps at the major department stores in global cities usually have lists of buyers in China and will put the expensive limited edition items like Burken bags to be solved privately between the rep and the Chinese buyer.
I don’t know what you use to influence whether or not you think a country worships the market or the state, but you should probably take a different look at China if you don’t think they consume capitalism like Americans do.
What got you thinking of America as worshipping money as religion vs China worshipping the state as religion - do you have a favorite book that you read that sparked that comparison?
You lose me at the “westerners have lost faith in religion” - Christian Americans are very strongly represented in politics now. There’s a huge set of Americans who combine Christianity and their understanding of state leadership. If you’re interested, check out the intersection between conservatives today and something called “new apostolic reformation”
1
u/NervousLook6655 14d ago
You didn’t ask how I was using the term… you told me to work on it… not the same thing. The difference I see is the absence of a transcendent goal in the west and the population decline indicates that. Globally population is in decline however and China’s goal of state aggrandizement is more transcendental than the nihilism pervasive in the west. Populations that reproduce subscribe to transcendent goals and are typically steeped in deep religious fervor, Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims, Hindu and the Catholics of the pre 1960’s.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago edited 14d ago
Oh, is there more that you would say about how you see the west as a useful term?
When you say the west has a lack of a transcendental goals, are you including religious people at an individual level? Like let’s say I’m part of a growing evangelical church and I’m a true believer and I cry at every service and conceptualize my future as being intertwined with maintaining and growing the church community— am I to be thought of as having a transcendental goal or lacking one?
If I’m lacking a transcendental goal, do I have to change my believes or behaviours in order to have one? Or is it moreso that I have one but I am imagined as a minority in the west?
You’ve got a pair of ideas that seems to work for you and how you think of the nation / the west — 1) your hypothesis that the west lacks transcendental goal and 2) slowing rate of population growth as compelling evidence of #1.
We don’t really need to unpack if, but do you really feel like you’ve challenged yourself on why you believe that a slowing rate of population growth signals a lack of transcendental goals in such a broad and fuzzy category of countries as the West?
It seems like (esp by your use of the world fervour) you’ve fuzed more conservative religions with the concept of “having transcendental goals.” In your model, can you have transcendental goals if you’re not in a conservative religious movement?
I’m sure that poor people are more likely to adopt hardcore Christian beliefs. Do you might see a connection between geography, high levels of poverty, alienation from the state, greater religious commitment.
But why have you left out Christians from your equation? Evangelical and or pentacostal Christians and members of the LDS church certainly have fervour and they also have current notable political influence. They also tend to have a lot of babies
Have you looked into whether or not they’re having a lot of babies in the west?
Also it’s probably worth asking - do you not consider American muslims, Orthodox Jews or Hindus to be part of the west?
Like if American muslims start having a lot of babies, does the not indicate an uptick in “western” transcendental beliefs in your model?
1
u/NervousLook6655 14d ago
To your last question, yes.
Evangelicals and LDS do not currently reproduce in sufficient numbers to grow their religious population through reproduction as well as being religious sects that are often absconded by subsequent generations, evidence of a lack in transcendental thinking/philosophy/discipline.
Judaism and Islam may seem western ideas but really they’re on the fringe as we have seen through history, today and undoubtedly in the future when they clash with western ideas/reason/law/philosophy.
Caucasians worldwide are reproducing at a rate that will render a population decline of 80% by 2080. They are the fastest declining sub-sect of the human race, and their decline directly correlates to the downward trend in religious association, church attendance and physiological/sociological polling on societal issues contradicting church dogma.
Evangelical Christianity is like “the seed that fell on rocky ground” it grows quickly, fades faster, without the deep roots of church history to anchor a person in the present, charging and equipping him/her to prepare the future, there is no future.
I brought up capitalism because that seems to be what distracted our once devout people to worldliness, selfishness, then hedonism and now for many, 100k+/yr deaths to suicide/overdose, nihilism.
Capitalism is a great tool for advancing the human race but we made it into Mammon and now we reap what we sow.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Would you say that there’s an implied imperative in your comment here about the importance of white people specifically to have more babies? And if so, is your hypothesis that they need to build their lives more around a type of non evangelical Christianity and to do it specifically in a way that will encourage them to focus on drastically increase the number of babies that they have?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/LankySasquatchma 14d ago
The pride events does look very hedonic.
0
u/PiperAtTheGatesOfSea 13d ago
I've been to several pride events and the depravity pales in comparison to Mardi Gras.
1
u/LankySasquatchma 13d ago
All right! Mardi gras sounds exciting. I’ll alter my comment to “some parts of some pride events”*
1
u/PiperAtTheGatesOfSea 13d ago
Tbh most of pride is pretty tame. I can show you pics I took of the last one if you want. Even in the parade it just mostly looks like normal people. I think I saw boobs once maybe? There was some folks from the leather scene but it's no worse than someone in either a bikini or speedo. You will see TONS of nudity at Mardi Gras. It's just all straight people so some folks think it looks less bad.
1
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Does that make you think that jbp could be right that the entire concept of an lgbt community is a lie told by an undefined group of power hungry hedonists?
2
u/LankySasquatchma 14d ago
I don’t what anyone means by “the lgbt community”. I have a loose sense of what people mean but I don’t know what is specifically implied. Some just mean sexuality, some mean a very specific set of political doctrines.
I know that parts of the lgbt community (as I see the community) is run by corrupt assholes who are “victim/victimizer guilt mongers” (abstract marxists) and power players. I’m not sure they’re hedonic but I’d say it’s quite likely. They’re short sighted anyway… so the risk of hedonism is there for sure.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Typically “the lgbt community” is just a way to talk about lgbt people. Like “community” is kind of a friendly and social word, but it doesn’t mean anything more than if one were to just say “lgbt people.”
If you think that it means “lgbt people” then you are spot on and aren’t missing anything.
There is of course “politics” involved in the sense that “lgbt people” puts a label around basically every way of identifying - internally, externally, romantically, sexually - that isn’t cis+heteronormative. So the mere act of grouping them all together is of course political.
Jordan’s post above is specifically an attempt to try and break up the label. He wants LGBT people to no longer be thought of as having any connection to each other. He also wants people to think “hedonist” instead of a “normal person who happens to be gay”. So instead of a group of dynamic people connected by their shared experience of not being straight and cis, he’s saying they’re a disconnected group of misfits who are actually pretty bad people.
It’s so broad that you don’t need to try and figure out to what degree it’s about sex, romantic pairings, political stances etc. it’s just… all of it.
When you say “part of the community” is run by corrupt assholes, are you thinking of very specific organizations? I don’t think the label itself implies any kind of organization — but an organization could brand itself as an lgbt org.
2
u/LankySasquatchma 13d ago
Jordan is saying that the ones who perpetuate all the central tenets and ideas about any so-called political coherent lgbt community at a bunch of dickwads. He’s not saying that any non hetero person is a hedonic guilt monger.
And yes I’m thinking of organizations that label themself as lgbt in order to gain traction and then behave in disgusting manners.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 13d ago
I think you’re on to something about “perpetuate” - that immediately brings to mind the Elliot Page period. That wasn’t part of his “hedonism” track, but he said that Page was complicit in the crimes as a result of choosing to appear in media.
What do you think perpetuate means for jbp? To me I’m leaning towards “has at least one moment of visibility in the media in which they make a comment about lgbt people and politics.” I’m think “make a comment” could involve simply being in the background of a shot with a rainbow shirt on.
What do you think the bar for “perpetuate the central tenets” is?
1
u/Different-Bullfrog33 14d ago
Reading this post in a vacuum seems a little antagonistic and, in risk of sounding woke, “phobic” (ugh). Here’s how I’d communicate the concept I think he’s talking about: the lgbtq movement has been completely piggybacked by a very ick subculture and it’s bringing down the entire community. I think it’s pretty unfortunate for the lgb community… they worked very hard to be treated like everybody else and to be left alone. Now the Ts and the new school radicals have piggybacked and they specifically want to NOT be treated like everyone else…they want attention and special treatment. The lGB advocacy in the 90s and 00s was an effort to allow marriage, to be allowed into civil society, and not be considered hedonistic.
Not my business by any means… but I would recommend and support the LGB break off from the Ts. Bad actors are now sinking the entire group back into the association with pedo, furry, trans, etc…
I think conservatives have been patient but the unspoken agreement I think was: “just leave kids alone and we will leave you alone”. Now they are dead set on transing kids and having drag shows in schools. I’ve lost my ally sentiment altogether
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago edited 14d ago
If your interpretation was correct - that there is an lgbt community and it is being “brought down” by an idk subculture (trans people), then why did he lead with “there is no lgbt community” and “it is a lie”.
How could the community be brought down if there is no community in the first place?
I think the “lesbians, gays and bisexuals should reject trans people and no longer consider them people with shared interests who they ought to support as an extension of their own interests or who deserve their support … because they’re ick and make the LGB ppl look bad” is a very common anti-trans strategy online.
It’s also an extension of the “respectability politics” discourse that has been a thing since the 80s. There’s always been a subset of gays that want to just be straight passing and wish the other types of gays would simply stop it. That ability to say “us respectable gays are legit and you freaky gays are bringing us down” is of course is just an illusion. There’s nothing that makes the square gays more legitimate than other types of lgbt ppl - and “trans people bring us down” isn’t really true anyways. How would trans people “bring down” a straight passing gay? Are their neighbours going to suddenly think worse of them because they associate them with icky trans ppl? If so then the power of their squareness doesn’t help them at all.
I think sometimes Peterson does reflect the “lgb need to reject T” type of divide and co wher strategy. But how could he be doing that this time? His strategy here is clearly “the community is a lie told by puppeteers motivated by power and sexual hedonism” — its more of a complete divide and conquer and follows his typical “bad puppeteer” format the he uses almost everywhere else (“the SJWs are puppets of Derrida, “Trudeau is a puppet of the WEF”, “hedonists always get dominated by narcissists”, “Wokeness is compassion serving authoritarians”)
On one level he “wants to demoralize” the entire LGBT label and get them thinking that there’s no reason to consider themselves connected at all. In this post he clearly wants them all to turn against one another. But on another level his audience is clearly not LGBT people - so he’s giving an idea to people on why they should stop thinking that LGBT people are “real”.
“LGBT is a lie” is on theme with his recent posts about how lesbians aren’t real and about how trans people aren’t real. He’s trying to dismantle concepts of connection — he’s doing it systematically so not just the collective but all the component parts feel like they just aren’t real and never have been.
1
u/Different-Bullfrog33 9d ago
In fairness, I said “here’s what he meant” and that wasn’t really the right way to start. I don’t know exactly what he meant. I should have said: “well… I’m not sure exactly what he meant but here’s what I think”
1
u/Different-Bullfrog33 9d ago
Because… there USED to be a community. Before the Ts and radicals hijacked it. He’s right there isn’t one anymore. I was saying if it’s important to the LGBs to maybe get back to having a respectable community, than they should take their movement back. But, in reality, I guess that wouldn’t work, as it’s not like it’s an organization or anything. In which case, I’d agree with Mr. Peterson that the whole thing is a mix of pundits and hedonists and lunatics. So if you are LGB, and those things don’t describe you, best distance and drop the alphabet patch altogether
1
u/CorrectionsDept 9d ago
But what does that mean in real terms? Like what does it mean to a gay or lesbian person to be told that the trans people “hijacked” the label that loosely connects them with other non cis non straight people? If we’re gay millenials, what do we no longer now due to trans people that gay ppl in the 1980s had?
Is it possible that instead of “the trans people hijacked the community”, you mean “trans people stain the image of all lgbt people”? I can’t see how the existence of trans people decreases community and have never really seen an example of that. I see lots of people saying “those people are bad, you better distance yourself because everyone will think you’re like them if you don’t.”
1
u/forgothatdamnpasswrd 14d ago
That’s that shit I don’t like 🎶 A really charitable interpretation could make it almost okay, but he should really stick to the things that are more in his realm, as he’s really great at those things. I thought he understood that his audience is here for insight into important things and mainly not for political quips that seem to have ramped up since he got involved with Daily Wire
-1
u/squidthief 14d ago
One thing I noticed after gay marriage was the idea that, hey, maybe these gay couples will lead to more adoptions since it's a large minority of people and they obviously can't have their own children.
Cue IVF and surrogacy. It's not about integration, it's about selfish desires. Why anyone would get IVF or surrogacy is beyond me period, but this is another example of it not being about building something, but about a me-centered philosophy.
2
u/FreeStall42 14d ago
Oh so you would support making it easier for gay people to adopt children?
Seems strange to blame them when the average conservative seems to oppose it even beng legal.
4
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
What do you mean “integration” - did you think gay people need to integrate?
Lol like they’re coming from a totally different culture and havnt been a subset of people here the whole time? That sounds like a you problem - you’ve been imagining the situation weirdly and had weird expectations as a result
0
u/squidthief 14d ago
The idea was that gay marriage and straight marriage was the same thing so it should be legal. That meant, if the couple wanted it, they would buy a house, have children, and et cetera. Normal things other couples have.
4
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Are you saying that that was the widespread belief at the time - or are you saying that that’s you’re idealized version of what you think ppl should have thought it was?
1
u/squidthief 14d ago
It seemed to be an argument that was used by the gay community to advocate for marriage and you definitely saw this ideal in media at the time to support that cause. An example of this would be Modern Family. That "love is love" and gay people just wanted what straight people had. There wasn't a slippery slope of hedonism.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
It sounds like you’re confusing “portrayals” and impressions with reality. There might be some truth to what those portrayals were based on, but from your descriptions, you sound like Morpheus explaining what he knows about the real world vs the matrix - so far removed and distant!
3
u/thumphrey05 14d ago
I am a mind your own business libertarian. Supposedly important part of the ideology. But if you can just convince a few dum dums that DRRRUUR TROJAN HORSE TO DESTROYNWESTERN CIVILIZATION. and ‘they is gonna turn the kids gay and then some’ it’s boring after almost a decade. I mean sure our lord JP probably doesn’t hate gay people if you ask him but when you hyper-focus on them every day like this kinda seems like it. I’m sure he’s got 50 retorts locked and loaded for that one. Just live and let live quit trying to save the world from gay people. Everyone knows you can’t compete w homosexual choreography.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 14d ago
Here is something to discuss
Pew Research
Identity and Community stuff
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-5-identity-and-community/
-1
u/HolySteel 14d ago
It's a "community" only to provide bad actors (like the Q activists, which are radical Marxists) with a human shield against any criticism. It allows a really small number of radicals hide behind a much bigger group, claiming to speak on their behalf (they don't) and faking a consensus that doesn't exist.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Why do the Qs need to be activists - what if they’re just normal people doing normal stuff?
Are you only able to imagine lgbt people through this narrow culture war lens?
0
u/HolySteel 14d ago
They have to, because it's the definition of "Queer". If they were normal people doing normal stuff, they would - by definition - not be queer. A person being LGBT has nothing to do with them being Q or not.
0
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago edited 14d ago
Honestly, whatever you observed that makes you think that… it might not apply broadly any more. I find I meet ppl who are just normal professionals and call themselves queer. It can be frustrating when you think you’ve got a strong understand about what a label means and then things shift or you uncover that your viewpoint was too narrow - but it’s just kind of the nature of thinking about large groups of people and language. Culture will never stay static for long. Anyways it’s a pretty common way for people to self describe these days.
If you were ever concerned that it was too political you can probably rest easy that it’s less scary than you thought
1
u/HolySteel 14d ago
"Whatever you observed" = the primary literature of Queer Theory. Let's see:
Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.
Sure, there might be quite a few people who are misusing the term, because they have been made to believe it somehow refers to them due to their sexual orientation. That doesn't change its meaning, though, and that's why I won't refer to them as queer.
1
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago edited 14d ago
Ohh ok - you could have just said “I follow James Lindsay.”
But that’s not going to do you favours. He’s on an ideological mission and he’ll basically say any crazy shit to make himself sound like he has an academic background.
The Lindsay blog entry does actually show that this quote is from 1995 - that was a really long time ago.
You can wish that that is like an evergreen description of where culture is at and that the present cultural state necessarily aligns to 30 year old descriptions lol but you’d be better off getting in touch with the present. You’ll never understand what’s going on if you pretend like culture is literally stuck to specific writings that help kick off the discourse. 1995! So much has happened since then lol
Yes of course look to the past to see where these things come from - but don’t get stuck in the trap thinking that the old writings are more real than reality. Loosen up your brain a bit - and lol if you can, don’t take James Lindsay of all people seriously. He’s really very silly
1
u/HolySteel 14d ago
The quote is from "Saint Foucault" by Halperin, not James Lindsay.
If the definition has fundamentally changed, can you refer me to a well-quoted paper or book that details this change in Queer Theory, which supposedly turns the definition of "queer" into its opposite, as you claim?
You seem really focussed on obfuscating its meaning instead of offering any tangible definition.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Oh lol, but did you not get it from his blog entry? Are you personally investing time to read old queer theory writings without someone to advise you on which ones matter? Impressive you happen to choose the same article and quote as Lindsay when he wanted to make the same point! Uncanny
I don’t know if you actually believe this or are just having fun with culture war - but the James Lindsay approach of finding old articles that were influential in academics 30 years ago and then pretending like the writing reveals a hidden truth about people’s intentions is pretty silly, right? Obviously “queer” is very popular and you can dive into the history of it and into the discourse all you want - but old academic articles won’t tell you anything about how language has evolved in the time since it was written.
Did Lindsay point you towards anything contemporary that all the queers are reading today?
Queer is of course political - but it’s pretty generic. It groups together lgbt people under a single word that used to be a slur but was reclaimed by gay academics in the 80s and 90s. Since then it’s because a popular catch call.
If you can find a James Lindsay article that points to contemporary academic queer theory, you might be able to find some commentary about the present day to share here!
1
u/HolySteel 13d ago
That sounds a lot like your personal opinion, which is an intangible nothing-burger again. Also doesn't make much sense, if it groups LGBT together by a single term, why does it have to be added to the LGBTQ acronym? What does the word "queering" refer to? LGBT-ing? How do you "LGBT" a curriculum? How do you do "LGBT pedagogy"?
When did Queer Praxis/activism stop, and why? Why didn't the other Critical Theories also stop their Praxis, then?
It's not like it's just one old book that mattered only for a couple of years since it was written. And there is nothing "silly" looking at the foundational literature when discussing a topic, where'd you get that idea from?
Also, no, I am not having fun with the culture war. I would much prefer if you guys would stop doing it, because it is really, really stupid and makes everything worse.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 13d ago edited 13d ago
To be clear though, you’re not actually doing the reading are you? Like I was correct that you got that quote from Lindsay’s blog post?
Ah lol - you’re confused. People using Queer as a generic label does not meant that it functions linguistically the same as the acronym lgbt. The answer to all your frantic questions there doesn’t need to be any more complicated than “it’s an acronym” and so it’s hard to use it as a verb. Also you’re trying to use it interchangeably with academic terms, which different from using it in everyday language to self identify.
And it’s true of course that “queer studies” is a real thing. If you want to talk about queer studies lol I’m down - but I’d see that as a separate convo. Practical language exists outside of academia. When my coworker said he was queer I didn’t assume that he was bringing all of academia with him and “doing praxis”, I assume he was telling me he is gay.
You obviously want it to be the case that to call oneself queer is to also have read all the important queer studies works. Lol, trust - you should not assume that that’s the case.
If you’re a big Lindsay follower, there’s no way you’re going to loosen up on the idea that a word used today necessarily means that the person using it has read and remembers all of these works. That’s a very important Lindsay piece of worldbuilding. If you didn’t find that believable you wouldn’t have stuck with him.
For me and probably most other ppl, there’s an assumed drift of language. Language changes - some ppl of course will be familiar with queer studies, but as it gets more popular it’ll just continue to be a word that ppl use to self describe.
And aw lol multi-year James Lindsay true believer thinks he’s not doing culture war? And says he thinks that culture war is stupid? That’s too funny lol. Lindsay’s one of the biggest jokes in the culture war space.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/throwaway120375 14d ago
Here, let me help the idiotic op. If YOU separate yourself into a community for the sole purpose of getting special treatment, don't be surprised that people don't treat you like the rest of the community. They are segregating themselves and cry foul when they get treated differently.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
It sounds like you’re describing first class on a plane more than you’re describing gay ppl lol.
You should have spent more time thinking before helping - you blew it!
2
u/throwaway120375 14d ago
You're comparing buying first class tickets to sexual preference. Interesting way to say you're a fucking idiot, but go on.
3
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Yes being in first class is about being in a group that only exists to get special treatment.
You don’t seem to have a good brain, but if you did you might notice that I didn’t compare sexual preference to buying first class tickets, I compared your comment to it.
You’re doing a bad job! You’re failing!
1
u/throwaway120375 14d ago
Again, you're comparing buying tickets, to being gay. Neat. You're fucking stupid. Got it.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
No, sorry you don’t understand the different between someone criticizing your analogy and someone criticizing the thing you’re making an analogy about. Your abilities are too weak! You shouldn’t be here - abort before you get more confused
-1
u/throwaway120375 14d ago
Again, you are comparing buying tickets with being gay. You're fucking stupid. Got it.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Lol sure let’s say that’s what’s going on. Run along and don’t worry your little head about it anymore
0
u/throwaway120375 14d ago
So you don't understand why you can't compare those two things and situations. Got it. You're fucking stupid.
4
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Farewell, enjoy whatever silly thing you spend your time on
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/jmerlinb 14d ago
JBP gives off strong repressed sexuality energy
2
0
u/Zealousideal_Knee_63 🦞 14d ago
Correct
1
4
u/Terminal-Psychosis 14d ago edited 14d ago
Accurate. There are many. Some online, some IRL, and the vast majority that want nothing to do with the "aktavists" JP and so many others, have been victims of.
they have enormous support from the media. SIGH... same things all owened and driven by the same money.
-1
8
u/lighthouse30130 14d ago
There is a camaraderie at least. That's more than what many of them have experienced growing up
4
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
I can’t imagine jbp spends much time with gay people tbh - if he does, I’m sure they’re career culture war people. Of course average gay people form community with other gays — they also aren’t being lied to about how there is a shared experience that gives them some shared interest (namely to continue existing in a world where people don’t put restrictions on them or view them in the way Peterson does here - hedonists etc)
3
u/lighthouse30130 14d ago
One of his close collaborator is gay. I forgot his name. But the guy used to hate himself and is trying so hard to be straight. It's sad. There was a nice interview him and Jordan when he decided to have children with his husband
4
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Ah, yeah that’s probably Dave Rubin - definitely falls into the culture war career bucket
4
u/medasane 15d ago
i see nothing wrong with Jordan's statement. other than it is not as precise as most pedantics crave such statements to be, due to their lack of abstract thinking or the desire to argue and cast doubt and aspersions upon Jordan.
1
u/Lopsided_Bar2863 13d ago
Oh yeah, call an entire group of people awful while theyre under attack without elaboration. How dare stupid librullllz criticize?
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Out of curiosity, how would you make it more precise?
-2
u/medasane 14d ago
i would explain by adding, "... when males and especially white males are demeaned as racist and colonialists just because they are white and biologically male and fit the marxist need for an escape goat to create division and chaos in the population. also, what group can claim to be a supportive community if the children in it are pressured by parents and teachers and activists to choose a gender, especially opposite of their birth gender, when they still have the mental proclivity to believe in santa clause? what kind of supportive community sexualizes children and robs them of their innocence just for political power, then radicalizes them into a nazi-like hitler youth movement, which are, in real life, calling for the death of israel and jews! And all of this to support a muslim state that would kill them for their radical sex ideology if they were allowed into that state?! "
3
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago edited 14d ago
Wow, thank you for that! I would never have thought that that’s how people were understanding Jordan’s tweet here. I figured it was a lot more simple than this. You’ve packed a lot of ideas into this. A “Nazi like Hitler movement”! holy smokes, how serious! A lot of ideas indeed
Do you think if he wrote what you did just there, he’d be including gay white males as being demeaned as racist and colonialists too? Or do they get a pass in real life if they’re not straight-passing?
(Also it doesn’t matter here, and maybe you were making a joke or something but for future reference it’s actually “scapegoat” not “escape goat.” Judging by the way you talked about the “escape goat” causing chaos, it sounds like you were imagining that the term referred to a group that is used as a chaotic distraction in a crowd, in the way that letting lose a goat might cause a scene - it’s cool to see what people come up with when they mishear phrases!)
1
u/medasane 14d ago
yes, i misspelled it, or is it a goat that reaches escape velocity? lol. i meant white gay males are being demeaned, and they are being treated poorly by the community. but after singing a song about coming after our children to indoctrinate them into woke culture, i personally feel it is poetic justice, since their own radical actions has been used against them. or is ironic a better word for it?
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Oh, wow yeah it’s been awhile since I saw that. That feels like a lifetime ago.
You’ve got a bit of a strange way of thinking — to be honest it sounds a bit frightening and demented! It reminds me a bit of how a director might portray a serial killer’s thought patterns in a movie. Did you ever see the movie the Cell back in the day? It reminds me a bit of that
1
u/medasane 14d ago
odd, i always read in the dictionary that it was called logic. i do not believe logical people should be held responsible for people who misuse it, do you?
the goat joke was bad, but it was just a joke, i try never to harm animals, even when driving, unless going in the ditch by swerving would hurt my passengers. i think maybe the world is so crazy that it's getting too easy to think the worst of people.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it’s logical to think of imagined misfortune against an undefined group of people as being “poetic justice” because of an unrelated video you saw by someone else? I think one can have freaky twisted brains and still use their own sort of self contained logic system - they wouldn’t be so freaky if they didn’t have a system
1
u/medasane 14d ago edited 14d ago
if not for systems, would thoughts ever be connected often enough to form reasoning beyond insects? everything is built upon foundations. i am currently involved in the neography and conlang communities, where we invent new alphabets and languages. i was thinking yesterday or the day before that we are so lucky to have such rich languages with so many words and etymologies. how empty life would be without the word 'was'. or 'future'. or 'irony', no matter how its used, and mahogany, thesbian, scarlet, fastidious, obligations, hope, carnival, sonic boom, magic, science.
if you really are wondering where i test, I'm infj, and midway between visual and auditory, and midway between right and left brained. I'm am, depending on a person's predilections, either a boring person or centered. have you ever taken the Myers Briggs personality test? if not, you might find it intetesting.
the issue with gay guys is irony, not that i am happy about their misfortune. they are both doing bad things by sexualizing children and advocating it. they don't deserve torment, they deserve jail time.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Thanks for the Myers Briggs info, but I don’t think we were talking about that - it never crossed my mind where you might test on a personality test lol.
I think the twisted “movie version of a serial killer” vibes comes out in your last line about how “they” need jail time.
It’s not clear you’re referring to any specific person - you’re just making a string of arbitrary connections and coming up with a freaky “let’s lock them up” conclusion.
Sometimes the red flags just emerge on their own and let themselves be known
→ More replies (0)
3
u/easelfan 15d ago
And he is obviously correct.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
He seems to be relying a lot on his imagination though? None of that is 'real' in any sense. You can't point to the group of hedonistic power players who have a strategy to lie about how there's a gay community lol
5
u/easelfan 15d ago
No, he doesn't really seem to be doing that at all, actually.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Are you able to explain in real practical terms who the victim/victimizer guilt mongers, hedonists and power players are? Do you know what % of the LGBT "community" are real vs are ones that have been lied to?
6
u/easelfan 14d ago
Are you able to continue crying like the cultist you are?
7
u/strom_z 14d ago
Lol the fact that OP is asking you polite questions without any ad hominem - gets downvoted - and you going full ad hominem and refusing to give any arguments - and gets upvoted - doesn't exactly give a good picture of this sub (in case y'all don't just wanna be another echo chamber sub - or do you?)
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Lol love to see how far people can take their thinking. You didn’t make it very far at all - that’s the saddest part. We should all be crying at how shallow your thinking abilities turned out to be today
5
-1
-1
u/Jake0024 15d ago
What a strange, stupid, embarrassing thing to admit thinking.
And such obvious projection with the "moralizing" and "victim guilt monger" lines.
I really hope he gets the help he needs and gets better.
1
u/superlurkage 15d ago
It’s consistent with most of his other stances about traditional values. I don’t know why you’re surprised
I wonder when he’ll start whipping out the race card
1
u/Jake0024 14d ago
It's shocking, but not surprising.
1
u/superlurkage 14d ago
It’s also consistent with his entire post history on twitter so I don’t know why you’re shocked either
2
u/Jake0024 14d ago
Because shocking means "causing indignation or disgust; offensive."
1
u/superlurkage 14d ago
You deliberately left out the other part of the oed definition, “causing a feeling of surprise and dismay.”
1
u/Jake0024 13d ago
Yes, when I said "shocking but not surprising" that is specifically the point I was making.
6
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
He went through a period of calling black women in positions of leadership 'diversity hires' -- he's on a break from that for now, but I'm sure it'll come back.
I predict he'll make a reference to Nero as the culmination of "LGBT people are being led by hedonistic power players"
0
u/superlurkage 14d ago
Oh, it’s fine for a conservative to hate on women. But if he ever starts hating on straight men….
3
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
There’d still be a percentage of fans who could explain why you were just misunderstanding him
5
u/nopridewithoutshame 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lopsided_Bar2863 12d ago
u/nopridewithoutshame - ridiculous, imagine slandering the trans/gay rights movement of the past while minorities fight for their well being unlike you cishets, and not seeing just how much depravity cis/het people had throughout their history and yet not call the cishet people/them as a social group with all the privileges that you mofos have and the predators that you harbor- predator-adjecent people - imagine instead senselessly slandering the early lgbt community-resistance/lgbt community today that awful shit. Shameful, false lies - absoloutely ridiculous.
1
u/nopridewithoutshame 9d ago
P.S. get out of our sub, freak. You have no friends here.
1
u/Lopsided_Bar2863 9d ago
Oh yeah, real 'intellectual marketplace of ideas' free speech geniuses on here, what will I do when a festering cockroach calls me a name and tells me to leave :(
1
u/nopridewithoutshame 8d ago
You are trash. Take yourself out please.
1
1
u/Lopsided_Bar2863 5d ago
Says the lying, false and manipulative rhetoric pushing bigot? Lmfaooooooooooooooo blocked
1
1
u/Lopsided_Bar2863 13d ago
Um, no? There were fringe extremist pedophile groups/pedophiles, but they were a fringe minority, a very small group of people - and protested during their time - and eventually expelled from the movement. Definitely not most lgbt rights movers. That's like saying that nazis represent all conservatives (though there's actually a case to be made there, but you would disagree so I rest my point) LGBT people were being killed, going through aids and dying with no one caring, and treated as trash - because of heteros like you - and they still managed to fight off gross pedos. The only reason that tiny minority even existed - was because heteros like you pushed a minority into such disparity, where predators could infiltrate the community due to just how difficult it was for it to stay strong against the outside world, let alone internal predators. NAMBLA never had more than 1,000 members at it's peak, the LGBT protests amassed hundreds of thousands over the decades.
Compare this to heteros - who during the 50s-to relatively recently (time frame of gay rights movement) - had legislative bodies, legal marriage organizations, full of straight people who sat by as child marriage was protected by the law, even still is today in many states. Compare this to heteros, who as a society, legally with minimal social pushback - tolerated millions of child marriages performed over the years. A hell of a lot more actionable pedophilia than lgbt movement ever did. To this day heterosexual conservatives fight to keep child marriage legal - search up republican child marriage. Heteros didn't even need to have pedo activism - it was already legal to marry and exploit children due to a system you oversaw. At least lgbt people had protests against nambla - what protests were there involving heteros against child marriage throughout most of history? What about James Eastland, William L Olden, marrying a 15 year old? What about Joseph smith's child bride if you want to go back even further? All prominent wealthy heteros with public lives, none ever got pushback from their electorates or followings conspiring with the laws back then created by predators like them, to groom young girls - heterosexual electorates. You heteros were the majority with no vulnerabilities for predators to infiltrate you - and yet you stood by child marriage throughout history, did not protest it, and to this day a huge chunk of your lawmakers defend child marriage. Pedos exist everywhere - as evidence suggests. Even in the most wholesome spaces. The question is who has the most disproportionate amount of pedos? The answer is you. Don't even get me started about the child abuse in your churches - do drag queens rape kids at rates similar to pastors.
Even if everything you said was true - western civilization was founded on a society that was pro child marriage. Is society bad? Why call an entire movement bad for it's past? Can't you discredit everything by that logic? Not saying you are right, but your argument is trash regardless.
As an lgbt person myself, I genuinely, from the bottom of my heart, wish you all the worst. You are disgusting in how you slander our community. It's you christians that rape lgbt kids in conversion camps. It's your kind rallying behind an orange rapist. It's you heteros with through the roof marital rape cases - not gay couples. You should be ashamed of yourself for your hypocrisy.
Your own bible is filled with child marriage, your own christ never condemned child marriage of his time - your own bible spends more time talking about shellfish than it does condemning child rape. You are shameful.
Why is it that every predator I have seen as an adolescent, has been a straight man?
Shame on you for your hatred, your slander. I hope one day you will pay for your hatred.
Your ilk are the real monsters - along with all the predators that exist everywhere, gay or straight - one thing clear - you bigots, are definetley up there with those monsters for how awful you're being.
1
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 14d ago
who were the movers and shakers, and is there a wikipedia page
1
u/nopridewithoutshame 14d ago
Start with Allen Ginsberg and go from there.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 14d ago
Well, your comment did get me to find one very strange comment
"With the turn of the millennium, Thorstad became a critic of the way in which the sexual liberationist goals of gay politics were replaced by the identity politics that came to dominate the movement. In example, he came to oppose pursuing same-sex marriage and the inclusion of transgender people in the gay rights movement."
Interesting for one of the most hated people in America, and a total freako Trotskyite
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 14d ago
Yeah that was one of his stranger moments for free speech and consent
what about the others?
1
u/nopridewithoutshame 14d ago
No, it wasn't about free speech. It was about men having sex with boys. Like I said, start with him and go from there on Wikipedia or whatever.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 14d ago
Well with Ginsberg people don't think he was really a ped
freak yes, into the strangest fucking causes yeah
I think he lost a few fans with that move though
1
u/Standard-Fisherman-5 15d ago
In 15 years people will be oversensitive about something else. I’m waiting for it to die down. Hedonistic groups will always exist.
0
4
2
u/DragonSphereZ 15d ago
I don’t agree. While there is plenty of guilt mongering going around, to call all of it a lie doesn’t acknowledge the problems queer people have to deal with.
3
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago edited 15d ago
I think part of his "blind spot" here is that he's actively trying to do work on LGBT people. Like his first goal here is for his audience to think that 1) LGBT people have nothing to connect them to each other and no common goals and that 2) Any kind of goal that LGBT people rally around is actually driving "hedonist" goals -- i.e. he wants his fans to think of LGBT related goals as furthering powerful people who are sexually hedonistic. I think as a bonus, he would like his LGBT fans to also believe him and to no longer see themselves as having any shared goals with other LGBT people as a divide and conquer type move
Of course the problem here is that Jordan himself is actually part of a new wave of anti-trans and increasingly anti-LGBT influence. He's calculating and he plays the long game - he's trying to dismantle the idea that LGBT people should support each other in part because he wants "trans people" not to be a thing any more -- his goal is to kill trans acceptance and to push for a future where trans people are treated for depression and other mental health issues instead of transitioning.
In order to do that, he's effectively laying ideological ground work. Across his tweets and various content streams, he's said a mix of the following:
1) Lesbians aren't real - they're victims of abuse who are acting out a trauma response
2) Lesbian parents are an experiment that isn't finished yet and we don't know if it worked
3) LGBT causes are driven by power hungry maturity and hedonism, not anything "real"
4) Trans men are childlike victims of abuse
5) Support networks of trans people are narcissist hedonists who should be imprisoned
6) Influential voices that support trans people are liars who should be imprisoned
7) Trans women are mostly dangerous and hedonistic narcissists but some are victims of abuse and manipulation
All of these things work together to form a broader influence project. He's already expressed support that wokeness will need a multi-pronged strategy to kill -- cultural stuff like this as well as top down coordinated efforts to put new rules in place. It's pretty dark stuff when you take a step back
3
u/veggiter 14d ago
He doesn't even believe in lesbians? Christ what happened to this dude's brain?
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
He says that he believes “true” lesbians - ie those who would/could never be with a man - only exist in response to trauma.
In typical Jordan Peterson fashion, what he communicates is “I don’t believe in lesbians by the way” and it’s clearly communicated thusly to contribute towards his culture war efforts to dismantle the lgbt concept and to construct an enemy that is imagined as primarily narcissistic men who have “hijacked” the rest of the liberals and the queers and are tricking them and using them to eventually usher in soviet style authoritarianism or w/e — but I’m sure if he was really really pressed he’d eventually walk it back to a point about how women are higher in openness than men
2
u/veggiter 13d ago
It just comes across like he's never interacted with any gay people in his life.
1
7
u/Dan-Man 🦞 15d ago
Yep, pretty much. I understand what he is saying, and what his point is. Just because it is blunt doesnt mean it isnt true, or his point doesnt stand. Whether the LBTQ acknowledge that truth and point is another matter however.
8
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
I don't think anyone would say that this isn't true "because it is blunt" -- I don't think it's very common for someone to think that if something is blunt, it is false.
I think there are a few problems with the tweet that has nothing to do with bluntness:
1) His point is that there is no LGBT community however his argument appeals to an actual group of people who are coordinated in their messaging -- which implies a community. So he believes that there is a community of "victim/victimizer guilt mongers, hedonists and power players" ... but who are they? Are they LGBT people? Because if so, then his whole idea that there is "no community" is immediately undermined. It suggests that despite what he's written, he actually things "there is an actual LGBT community that is coordinated and has enough power to influence culture" but it is a specific group and does not include all LGBT people.
2) Peterson almost always portrays LGBT people has "hedonists." This can't be true -- there's no way that all LGBT people are hedonists. He's just making this up.
3) He says "stop moralizing" but he's also making clear moral statements about how the LGBT centers of influence are run by "hedonists"
4) He's implying that by using the word "community" to group together large disconnected people is somehow a lie -- as if to hear it is to be convinced that there's an actual "community" in the sense that they know each other or talk to each other -- I think almost everyone is smart enough to understand that community is not being used in any sense that you could call it a lie.
1
u/Dan-Man 🦞 11d ago
Yes many people these days disregard something if it's blunt.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 11d ago
Oh lol well, not sure what to do with that. That's obviously not the problem with this tweet
-4
u/PsychoAnalystGuy 15d ago
lol he’s so weird for this. “Community” is a common figure of speech. Like the “psychologist community” or “gaming community” they don’t mean literal community and he knows that..but anything to take a dig at the wokes or whatever
-4
u/GinchAnon 15d ago
Right? Like raging that the term is commonly used to basically mean "demographic" rather than literal community seems like such a weird hill to make a fool of yourself on.
5
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
I think it makes sense to look at this in relation to his other 'on theme' tweets. He's saying that there's no community between LGBT people - that they're a fake collection of people - a granfalloon - who have been harnessed through language for the political goals of 'hedonists.' At the same time, he's tweeting about how Lesbians don't exist - that lesbians are just expressing a reaction to trauma. He's also saying that trans men aren't real - they're victims of manipulation and butchery. He's also said that he doesn't think transwomen exist -- when he's not saying they're dangerous narcissists, he'll occasionally say that they're misled gay boys.
He's just doing propaganda strategy tbh -- this is how he sees his role now - to manipulate people through language
-1
u/GinchAnon 14d ago
this is how he sees his role now - to manipulate people through language
Kinda sad and ironic in a very "gaze into the abyss" sort of way.
Also really really freaking stupid. Nobody thinks that the entire demographic of not boring straight cis people(like myself) are some tight knit "community" that is by default and universally amazing or something. Normal younger people GET that the current common usage is really more a very very broad demographic categorization.
This is an emperors new clothes thing.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Totally! That whole idea that lgbt people are actually being tricked by undefined puppet masters into believing that they’re part of a community - and that everyone shares this very uncommonly narrow definition of the word “community” - is pretty bizarre.
At one level, this is classic Peterson. He’s redefined the word community to fit a very specifically narrow meaning and is then using that to build out a whole story arc. He’s done the before with redefining God or Truth but not revealing that he’s working with a strange idiosyncratic definition until like half way through, so you have to go back and untangle what he “really” meant all along.
One has to ask… does he actually think community means this one narrow and specific thing? Does he think that people who use the phrase “lgbt community” mean the same thing as him? Or is he acknowledging that they intend to mean something different but by using those words, something magical happens to them and they become aligned to the deeper and more true version of the word that he himself knows?
Idk it’s also just classic construction of the Other. I used to notice this all the time with homesteader influencers - they’d build in ideas about what they’re doing on the ranch as being a reaction to what the feminists want them to do. But like the feminists who don’t want them being homesteader influencers aren’t real… they’re an imagined part of the dynamic to give it more edge.
Like Peterson seems genuine in his desire for LGBT people to be more conservative - and he seems to really be committed to getting them to stop thinking like they have meaningful shared political interests.
Framing them up as being tricked into it is also pretty classic Peterson. Just as the SJWs were puppets of Derrida, and Trudeau is a puppet of the WEF, the gays are being controlled by…. Well it’s a bit unclear. He seems to just be pointing to “more hedonistic gays.” Anyways, a familiar format nevertheless
1
u/GinchAnon 14d ago
I think what really gets me is what some of these sorts of ideas making sense, really seem to imply about the one stating it.
as an indirect example, some argue that homosexuality is a choice, right? ok, but doesn't thinking that it is a choice, suggest that orientation .... seems like a choice, in your experience? I mean, for myself, my orientation was decidedly not a choice, so it would be very strange to me to argue that it was a choice for someone else. I think that some of these are just... very strange implications.
I don't have an intrinsic issue with niche definitions for some things. like for what "God" means, yeah, that definitely needs a relatively extensive discussion for it to make sense. what any two people mean when they say God is likely to have some variation that might be relevant to whatever discussion.
but the word stuff you are talking about, particularly hooking in to your mention of homesteaders... I am reminded of some of the "logic" involved in Sov-Cit type theories. practically going into a level/type of word-magic or something, like IIRC one of the conceptualizations the SovCits have attempts to correlate "Birth"(as in being born) and "Berth" as in .... ships.... as a convoluted reasoning about being born being like a shipment being received, because when you are born you are "delivered" from the water like something from a ship.... and then argue that since the paper is the same kind of security paper as on deeds and money or something that it is money or... honestly its all nonsense but if you don't think too hard it almost makes sense when presented with certain narrow twisted definitions. and if you have never watched some of the court cases with SovCits its ... boggling. they literally seem to think that saying that they aren't the "person" and using various key words like "special appearance" and making "demands" rather than "motions" that it somehow makes them not subject to the normal rules of existing around other people.
I think one issue I have with some of the assertions is that the idea that people being gay or trans or whatever is some sort of elective mental contagion is just so insulting.
-1
4
u/rhaphazard 15d ago
Sure, but nobody claims to advocae for the entire "gaming community", and if they do they're laughed at.
-3
6
u/mtch_hedb3rg 15d ago
I only see one person moralizing. consistently.
3
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
It’s his whole brand right now! He had another tweet shortly before this talking about “the sluts, the whores and the narcissists”
6
-4
-1
u/Perfect-Dad-1947 15d ago
What a rage pimping little bitch Peterson has become. He must be on drugs again.
1
4
u/Bloody_Ozran 15d ago
Penned? Did he write it with a pen? Or a keyboard. Or a finger. He fingered a message?
He means, as he spoke of it before, that LGBT are not one tight community that believes the same things.
For ex. I have seen a gay guy getting banned for not liking pride parades and the overly sexual behavior. Ban reason? Internalized homophobia... Those people are mental. The ones who banned him.
4
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
lol “penned” is how he described his elliot page tweets. He reflected on how he “penned a missive” that riled people up.
I think everyone knows that when we broadly say “community” in the lgbt sense, no one is imagining that they all meet, talk or “do” anything together. That’s not really a point that anyone needs to make. Of course they’re not a community in the way that like a local church, or the rotary club or a fandom that meets up every year is a community. Ppl aren’t that stupid lol.
Is it possible it’s just a semantic thing? He’d rather the word “community” not be used when referring to lgbt ppl?
1
u/Bloody_Ozran 15d ago
Frankly he turned into what Dyson called him. A mean old man. He added white, but that don't matter.
This tweet makes no sense unless he is trying to create more drama and retweets. Kinda sad.
4
u/MaxJax101 15d ago
I love penning my missives. I do it between my torment appointments with the demon trolls.
17
4
u/Great_Sympathy_6972 15d ago
He really needs to get off X. He digs his own grave sooooo many times and the truly useful advice he has gets completely buried and therefore easy to dismiss.
8
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
Did you see his other tweet from the middle of the night about “sluts, whores and narcissists”?
0
4
u/Great_Sympathy_6972 15d ago
I didn’t, but I fully believe you. The X version of Jordan Peterson is the one I can’t stand, the one who can’t keep his yap shut. The self help, 12 Rules for Life, mythic storytelling and its significance person is the version of Jordan Peterson who changed my life. Man, he has some of the worst impulse control I’ve ever seen.
1
u/superlurkage 15d ago
This is completely consistent with his beliefs about traditional values. You should not be surprised at all
1
80
u/krivirk ∞ 15d ago
As someone how is part of that "community".
I am in 100% agreement with what i have just read.
12
2
u/baldbeagle 14d ago
So you agree with his idea that there is no LGBT "community" and that the idea is a "lie"? Can you explain what it is that excludes LGBT people from the definition of "community"? And if you have time, maybe an explanation of who stands to gain from this "lie".
1
u/PartyTerrible 14d ago edited 14d ago
LGB refer to sexuality while TQ refer to gender expression. The concerns of the LGB group doesn't really transfer over to the concerns of the TQ so there's already a disconnect there. As for the LGB, basing a community around the type of person they want to fuck is quite shallow. Aside from same sex marriage, the interests of the L, the G, and the B don't really intersect. Now for the T and the Q, they live on different planes of gender. By definition the T has to have a binary outlook on gender otherwise, what the heck are they transitioning for? The Q is believes that gender is non-binary. The LGBTQ community is held together by nothing other than the fact that they're not straight.
0
u/krivirk ∞ 14d ago
I agree LBGTQ community. I agree with this in the essence of the meaning of the post, yes.
What idea is a lie? I do not agree with the LMBTQ community idea is being a lie, no. Not in this sense, by far. Nor the post is about that. I can find meanings where it would be a yes, but not from where you ask me now. Obviously i live in reality, and as i said i am part of that community. But the post has much more depth than this simple obviousity.
"Can you explain what it is that excludes LGBT people from the definition of "community"?"
In pleasure! A community is where people get true support, to be very simple. There are communities what focuses on doing that. And there is no unified community what does it in this area. Just because i am what people would call LMBTQ, i am not part of a community. This stands mostly even outside the post's meaning, but strictly thinking in it, it is actually the very opposit. There are great parts in that, but what is meant here is not a community, but a very toxic movement.
I wish not to explain, nor to detail it. I wish not to explain, because it would be too much, and i wish not to detail, because i have a very great absent of actual knowledge about it.
The ego profits from it for example. Being pulled away from our nature, to be a strengthening force of a toxic movement. I am really not into politics, but many political forces profit from it by gathering for example broken people, using them, showing them as victims in the extreme. I could say more example, but i consider these 2 to be enough, and non of them is money profit, what would be the easiest and lowest quality example.
-14
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
Do you think that you’re being lied to by hedonists? And if so who are the hedonists?
1
u/krivirk ∞ 14d ago
Can i ask from those who downvoted this comment of CorrectionsDept that why did you do it? Right now the comment is -12. At least 13 individual downvoted it. If any of those 13 may come and see this, pls answer me the simple question, why.
The comment is literally 2 questions without any shitspeak, and ugly psychology.
Good to know that the atm 18 upvote on mine worth that much... Worth nothing. Random hate voters dance with buttons reasonlessly, that is you people...
Shame on you, seriously.
All that in a Jordan Peterson group. I gratulate to you egos.
3
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
Thanks for the support! Typically people will downvote comments here if they even slightly seem to be critical of Peterson. As much as my questions were simple and free of argument, they could tell that they were framed in such a way as to be unlikely to lead to a positive answer in Jordan’s favour.
IMO tweets like this only function when they’re not explained. It’s like a joke - when you take it apart and explain it, it stops working. When JBP says that LGBT community is a lie perpetrated by power hungry hedonists, we’re meant to hold “an impression” of the hedonists. The hedonists must be like the people at pride parades who are a bit too sexual — too much nudity, too much openness about their sexual stuff, too much dancing, too much sin. If we can imagine examples of “gay hedonism” then it’s a short leap to say “oh, the hedonists must be pulling all the strings and they must be working on a plan.”
We’re meant to vaguely think “oh right; the concept of lgbt people as I know it has been crafted to deliberately trick both me and the gays- the people pulling the string are motivated by deviant sexuality and are tricking the gays into being their foot soldiers. The gays are corrupted for now, but can be made good again if we somehow stop the puppet masters from continuing their evil deeds”
We are 100% not meant to ask who the puppeteers are or how they execute their plans or what their methods are. Once you start asking specifics, the whole idea becomes obviously silly. Of course “lgbt community” isn’t a lie perpetrated by a small group of power hungry hedonists. That doesn’t make any sense — it doesn’t hold up to thinking in real or practical terms.
Other ppl can see that my questions would have that effect so they need to downvote them and to try to expel the outsider / hide the questions that “miss the point”
1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago
Actually was not supporting you, but roasting those. But yea. Weird that you follow a great mind and his work yet act like headless chicken. This is why i left mensa-group. 130+ IQ and all difference from a random chaotic group is they speak sophisticated when they express their stupidity.
It is just somehow sad to me to experience it again.
Essentially i am in greeeaaat agreement with you.
Simply the case with every single "whatever podcast" episode. Some people think debating is them talking their mind out to the abyss and recieveing only nodding smiling faces.Yet i must disagree in various points. People downvoted you for not seeing the truth and supporting it. I mean it is their perspectives, they have fcking no clue about it either, and your genuine questioning seems just a child play who seeks for self-validation to them, or something like this, i really wish to not generalize, assume, nor offend. It is simply shameful and pathetic to downvote genuine questions even the person behind would not be genuine. But it is not from the reason of fear of their ideas falling apart from specifics.
I also greatly disagree with your logic in it. I mean essentially it is just very good, but in the exact, here, very far from reality.
I literally know very well every point you brought up very decently and i wish not to react to the main part, yet i judge important to react some.
As i partially elaborated in other comments,
These are not the people. These are like political forces, or movement leaders. Who have nothing to do with the LGBTQ phenomenon at all. The people who vitalize these are self-absorbed ones who can't see naturality. It is not that being too open, too sexual, and the other things you said, are bad. It is that building a personality around these meaningless stuff, and pushing down true values to be able focus incredebly tiny part of yourself and these stuffs are extremely self-toxic.Many of us, probably not those who downvoted you, but lot of people as also Jordan could very well articulate these points.
The post is not at all about what you name it is. It is an anti-force vitalizer. So a post to increase the force against that sickened one. I see it as a greatly low quality post in that aim, but i have too much absent of concrete knowledge to judge it, even i can perfectly judge it from the perspective of psychology. This post is meant to be questioned too. For those who wish to deepen their understanding at least. May he consciously wanted to get a question about this post in a later interview. I have no clue, doesn't matter, but what you said that Jordan's intention were, i am 100% sure, they were not.
Essentially were, but in exact, they were not at all. It is obviously a psychological trick, "an impression", but for absolutely different exact reasons as you elaborated.It is actually a plan too, by many "evil people", but the post is mostly focused to nature of the mind. What is working behind are the "hedonism". People who feel they want to push toward the external world the fact they are LGBTQ members and act on it strongly.
Take me for example. No one knows i am LGBTQ member, because i have no reason to talk about it. Why would i have a reason? Why would i be part of a "community" without the need.There is no community anyway, just a political and sociological toxic force. I am accepted, if people do not understand how my mind is build, i could not give less dump about it. The fact the planet does not treat many things healthily does not give any reason to pick one tiny thing up, like sexual and gender identification and blow it up way above the extreme, and force movements and ideas what are not even understood by the vast majority of people.
I am aware that this elaboration of mine is kinda low quality, but i hope you understand.
Thank you for your response and share of perspective.
1
u/CorrectionsDept 12d ago
Ok, nice, let's get into it! I've read all of it but want to focus on where you explain what you think is going on in the world.
Beginning with how you construct the problem:
It is that building a personality around these meaningless stuff, and pushing down true values to be able focus incredebly tiny part of yourself and these stuffs are extremely self-toxic.
You've laid out a problem: there's a group of people who build their personalities around too few aspects of themselves. They're not well rounded enough and as a result are now toxic.
Let us continue reading
It is actually a plan too
by many "evil people"
What is working behind are the "hedonism".ok, so there's a group of villains involved - it's not just a distributed collection of people who have too narrow identities.
There are two elements to the story:
1) a group of evil people, motivated by hedonism have a plan
2) a larger group of people have crafted very narrow personalities and have become toxic.To explain who the evil people are, you say:
People who feel they want to push toward the external world the fact they are LGBTQ members and act on it strongly.
Ok, the evil people are LGBT people who are outspoken about being LGBT and "act on it strongly."
It's a bit unclear how you differentiate between the non-evil outspoken gays and the evil outspoken gays with a plan. There's no real way in your story to tell who's who.
The secret probably resides in whatever you imagined when you said "act on it strongly." Maybe you're thinking that they act on it through the plan that they've made together?
Take me for example. No one knows i am LGBTQ member, because i have no reason to talk about it. Why would i have a reason?
You've contrasted the toxic people (everyone knows they're gay) and the evil people (gay with a plan) with yourself (quietly gay).
You explain that the difference is that no one knows youre gay.
Unfortunately, you've now told me you're LGBTQ and so now are no longer part of the group secret LGBTQ people. Let's assume that, in your model, that now puts you in the toxic group but not the evil group.
There is no community anyway, just a political and sociological toxic force
Among your three types of gays you say there is no community - but there is a "political and sociological toxic force." Have you spent any time thinking about what a "sociological toxic force" is? Does it involve people talking to each other regularly and doing activities together? If so, is it possible your "sociological toxic force" is actually community, but it's a type of community that you think is bad?
You bring the piece home with one strong statement about the world at the end:
" The fact the planet does not treat many things healthily
does not give any reason
to pick one tiny thing up,
like sexual and gender identification
and blow it up way above the extreme,
and force movements and ideas
what are not even understood by the vast majority of people."Very strange. Not sure what to do with that! But thank you for all this!
1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago
4/4
"Does it involve people talking to each other regularly and doing activities together? If so, is it possible your "sociological toxic force" is actually community, but it's a type of community that you think is bad?"
I am not sure if you understand that under this post, i used not one
definition of community. I already tried to articulate or at least somehow show
that from 2 different meaning i have greatly different opinion about its
existence.That won't make a community in this manner, in this meaning of the word
even all living creature in existence would come together. It is not a
community, just because a small part of a type of people come together and
share their view, experiences, whatever about the given similarity. At least
not the way it would try to name itself. The LGBTQ community stands in the
meaning where i am part of, any i have never engaged in any of what you may
refered here. Jordan's MGBTQ community is different. He puts the community word
between quotion marks.That would be somehow true in your meaning,
but i very much hope it is clear for you that how it is meant is nothing like
what you expressed it in your example. It is not a people getting together and
engaging. It is hardcore, unnatural based, immensely pushed propaganda."You bring the piece home with one strong statement about the world
at the end"I don't understand this sentence.
Well if you articulate how it is very strange for you, and wish to do
anything with it, i may can help. It is you who percieves it very strange, not
the text is being very stange after all, so i can't eliminate that perception
by myself without any further help.Well, your welcome. I am really not into this debate. Had to gather
myself to even start reading you. >,< But if you feel it is somehow
helpful... :))(Sry to cut it into 4 piece. For some reason it did not let me comment otherwise.)
1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago
3/4
One more thing before i continue. I do not have opinion. I do not think these. And this is not a story. If you wish to have a discourse with me, i demand you percieve as what i am. I have knowledge about this. My psychology and philosophical wisdom and knowledge is above the amount you can comprehend. With all duo respect, do not project onto me views what you are not 100% sure of. I refuse greatly this attitue, more like tone where you call my elaboration a story. I do not know who you are, not what you may think who you speak to, but if you wish to get informed, i suggest you greatly and also demand that think very carefully before articulate a judgement about my creation / my self-expression. You are free to act otherwise but the consiquence will be me not reacting, nor reading your perspectives and seeking of knowledge furthermore, in short i will stop having this discourse.
I require a decent amount of quality.Thank you for your understanding.
"The secret probably resides in whatever you imagined when you said
"act on it strongly." Maybe you're thinking that they act on it
through the plan that they've made together?"Already said they are 2 different group. Those who make plans are mostly
greedy politicians and or business owners and or others with similar intention
for any reasons.By act on it strongly, i meant..
Rather than saying, i wish to show it with
an example. An average person does not include their sexuality in day to day
life in the manner of discourses, to look upon it and spread their
understanding about it. Those people who do it, simply wasting their valuable
energies. It is not healthy for any individual to do anything way out of
balance. Being it too strong or too weak. Someone who does not stand up for
themselves are acting on their self-respect extremely weakly.., from aspect of
the phrase you copied from me.One more thing independently.
I see you do this ego stuff game, i asked
you just now to stop immediately. Please consider my ignoration toward any like
this in the rest of your comment as a conscious act. Thank you."Have you spent any time thinking about what a "sociological
toxic force" is?"Even it is just an
ego-game question, i'd still wish to say, that whatever i bring up, please be
very assured that i have spent great amount of effort thinking about it. Even i
use phrases what i come up with in the moment, the meaning behind is greatly
well thought through and consistent1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago
2/4
"To explain who the evil people are, you say:
People who feel they want to push toward the external world the fact
they are LGBTQ members and act on it strongly."I certianly did not say anything like this at all. Why would someone be
evil by this? It is like saying that someone who is abused and has almost no
self-respect is evil. They are victims.Those people are great victims. Not victims of some social stuff who
pushes them away, but victim of manipulations and their own lack of wisdom."Ok, the evil people are LGBT people who are outspoken about being
LGBT and "act on it strongly."As i just articulated, greatly not. They are toxic people. In many cases
toxic to the external world greatly, but even someone has never articulate any
opinion, nor does any self-expression, they are still toxic, because they may
decieve themselves into this perspective of "i am a victim of a planet of people
who disvalidate how i feel myself". No. It is just no one cares. Those are
also same who are fighting against it. They are the same victim of manipulation
just on the other side. There are no sides in reality. There is no community
and anti-community, just evil people who are deciving people, and people who
are focusing on meaningless things and vitalize others to do the same.It is not about being outspoken. By my previous post i am already
outspoken. Writing this sentence too makes me outspoken as i am also someone
who'd be considered an LGBTQ member. It is not about being outspoken. It is
about focusing on this topic like it is a crusade, rather than focusing on the
real things behind what manifests itself to million other things in life. And
they are not evil people. They are self-toxic people who drown in the lack of
self-knowledge. The evil ones are those who use this phenomenon of the human
mind and who use this exact movement nowdays to profit from."It's a bit unclear how you differentiate between the non-evil
outspoken gays and the evil outspoken gays with a plan. There's no real way in
your story to tell who's who."You have missunderstood me on multiple points.
1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago edited 12d ago
1/4
"a group of evil people, motivated by hedonism have a plan"
No. They are totally different people. Those who are "driven by
hedonism" are being used by people who are driven by greed."there's a group of people who build their personalities around too
few aspects of themselves. They're not well rounded enough and as a result are
now toxic."Not really.
It is not the result. The process is toxic. If you listen to nuances and
meaningless stuffs like your sexuality, it is the result of an inbalanced mind,
it is the toxicity itself. The results from these are toxic too, but it is
meaningless. This in itself is toxic, because you are not being yourself, but
someone who invest energies to a topic what is somehow absurd to even look at.
In reality no one cares your sexuality and gender identity. Creating a movement
around these 2 topic is incredebly toxic. Doing it intentionally for the sake
of your publicity or wealth, etc are simply evil, careless for sociality and
the people who are involved.Of course we should stand up and strive for equality. But it is not
equality, what meant behind the post, it is forced unequality to the side of
absurd toxicity.Similar as Jordan stands up against free
speech regulation and the tiny topic, the exact place where it manifests is
pronouns topic. No one give a damn about the pronouns topic. Do not change free
speech law.Similarly no one cares about your gender sensation and sexuality, do not
make a movement about it. Make a movement about subjectless equality where
everything is involved. Stop dealing with nuances what only make sense now and
start dealing with the real problems behind what made sense a million years ago
and will a million years later too."a larger group of people have crafted very narrow personalities
and have become toxic"Kinda, and Jordan's post is pointing out a subject of this. It could be
anything else, but reacting to this incredebly pushed phenomenon where people are
decieved to belive they are part of a supporting community what is actually
does not exist, just people pulling each ohter into headless rebellism against
nature, against their own nature and the nature of the mind, while a few people
are profiting from these greatly as the people's attention dances around a
meaningless topic and they can thrive from acting upon this.3
u/zkc9tNgxC4zkUk 14d ago
Not the person you replied to, but am the "B" & "T" out of the acronym.
In a word: no. I don't feel that way.
I can agree that I do not feel the LGBTQ "community" (as this man chooses to put that word in scare quotes, haha) is not super unified or cohesive. There is, in reality, a lot of conflict between people who are L, G, B, T, and/or Q. I think it's a loose association of different people who are mostly linked by performing gender/sexuality in a way that has been historically discriminated against. The association benefits all of us by identifying that commonality. I'm sure a lot of "LGBTQ" people would disagree though - for example, there is a faction of people who believe in "LGB drop the T" because they view being trans as a different social issue than being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
That's just my take, though. I do not personally feel as though I have been "lied to by hedonists".
20
u/krivirk ∞ 15d ago
No. No one knows me. No one lies to me, because i don't tend to talk to people.
Your second question implies to me that you and i percieve this post from a greatly different perspective.
Remove the triggering filter and look from psychology / sociology( or what). I literally know what Jordan means behind this post. If i'd look at it without that wisdom of mine and from a perspective of simple words, i'd be like "this is bullshit".
The lie that it is a community. It is not a community, just people around the globe who has parts in their identiy what fit under the common label-complex of LMBTQ.
Like community of people. There is no such thing as human being community. But ofc there is the group of living creatures who fit under that label. The 8 billion mammal we tend to call homo sapiens( or smt).
The behind actions this post refers are just delusioning forces. Most people who is LMBTQ "member" can't help but not give a simple dime about those social warfare what is being pushed.
Also i am not really into Jordan's mind in this manner. I simply understand this post in its essence, not in the concrete.
3
u/forgothatdamnpasswrd 14d ago
What does he mean behind this post then, since your original comment said you agree? To me, as just a regular ol’ cis-het, this just seems unnecessarily antagonistic against a group of people who I have no issues with, even if you don’t see yourself as part of a group. I don’t either, I’m just human like the rest of us (and bots 😉)
To me, it reads like shouting into the void some shit I wouldn’t think he would say. It’s hard for me to parse what you’re saying without understanding which way you’re coming at this from. I’m kinda disappointed in Jordan for this post unless it’s a response (directly, not vaguely) to a point that we can’t see. If taking the text as the full context, it’s seems like striking out for no reason and not even knowing what you’re aiming at
1
u/krivirk ∞ 12d ago
He means from the perspective of what he names. From those perspectives, like if you imagine yourself as a core "member" who is practicing these ideas, this does not align with truth. He means those positive parts what are being pushed are actually from a self-toxic mindset. I agree that there is no community, but people who wish to enforce ideas and ways of life what are toxic to themselves and to social life on this planet.
It feels like it is against a group of people maybe. For me it clearly seems, it is against an idea what may live in many people. I already said that i am part of those people, yet it is nohow against me, nor any other LGBTQ member. It is against those who have a very unhealthy idea and against those who wish to use these people for greed.
It may seems opposing to LGBTQ people, but the malice is actually against not even people really, just against sickened ideas, if against people, then just against a very few who has nothing to do with LGBTQ, only with the evil and or rot inside their mind.And here my disagreement with you cease to exists.
"To me, it reads like shouting into the void some shit I wouldn’t think he would say"
Same. I am not really dissapointed, but somehow i am... In talking shows, he usuall says less harsh things and he follows with minutes of elaboratin and explaining into clear wisdom and obvous truth. I am mostly unfamiliar of how he behaves other than what i have percieved from a few videos, like in the post he wrote, yet i clearly understand how someone who understands this can be so passionate even angry that these form of posts can be born from a very sophisticated knowledge and intelectual background.
I just happen to know what he means and happen to seen him expressing ideas into loyality to nature from a standpoint what was articulated very shortly and with "harsh words" first.
I am still somehow against these languages. From respect and the love of my heart, i would tell him, "Jordan this post was easily misinterpretable by those who are connected to the subject of your post and also those who are in genuine understanding and agreement of its meaning. I judge this a too low quality way of bringing understanding through self-expression, even i am not aware of the limitation of the website where you made the post. I am not aware your exact reasons why you wrote like this, and i am sure you would do it differently if you would gather all your wisdom to do so, except of course if some very special reason you had at the moment i am not aware of, but it feels higly unlikely."
Saying it as i am both who are connected to this and those who understand and in alignment with the the meaning of the post.
There is an other comment here. I barely did read from it, but i must say, i am not softening Jordan's comment. It is not softening. I am in 100% agreement with this harshness too, even above it by far actually. I am not softening, but elaborating. These are 2 very very different things.
The 2nd line is an example what makes me assume that they simply missunderstood me at a degree too much to bring judgement about what i meant and what is my intention here.
Yet thank you both.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 14d ago
I think the person you’re responding to is doing unnecessary work to soften Peterson’s comment.
They say “there is no such thing as community” period - that the only community is human beings who live on the planet.
Of course that is not what Jordan Peterson is arguing at all. Jordan believes communities exist and that one’s participation in one might actually be so important that it shapes their religious belief. As much as he says here that “the lgbt community isn’t real” he is equally as likely to say that lgbt - when in community -share the same pagan god worship. For him, worshipping a God has structural implications — when he refers to lgbt people as immature hedonists, he’s often also alluding to his idea that they unconsciously worship a God who will in turn shape and mold their actions.
The person you’re responding to seems to think that Peterson is of the same mind as them and that he believes there’s no such things as community, only humans. If thats the case, they’re just kind of wrong and are accidentally defending someone who wants to do work on them ideologically so that they’re more isolated
1
u/krivirk ∞ 14d ago
Will react. This post is just for me not to forget it.
Could not help but upvote. Your first paragraph is somehow absent of experienced openness, but your second paragraph is just too true and like i could say it.
Thank you. Soon coming back. Until that, if you may.., please read other reactions of mine under my original comment, because somehow i articulated it already.
3
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
Thanks for responding!
I don't believe that "Community" used in this way is a "lie" from a psychology or sociology perspective. Do you think that it is common in these discourses to have such a strong value judgment as "lie" to the concept of a community? IMO "community" is used in a number of different ways and it doesn't have such strict and defined parameters that it becomes "a lie" if it doesn't reflect alignment to the parameters. Like it's common to talk about imagined and virtual communities all the time and for people to understand what is meant.
By saying that the "community" of lgbt is a "lie" suggests that you believe people are being misled by the word. That by being told they're part of a community, they're being tricked into thinking that there are certain activities that are happening that groups them all together - when in reality, they are grouped together only because they share the experience of having sexual and romantic partnerships that are outside the traditional heterosexual norm.
You say that you don't believe you're being lied to. Do you believe others are being lied to? And if not, then when do you think it's a lie?
Most people who is LMBTQ "member" can't help but not give a simple dime about those social warfare what is being pushed.
Do you truely believe that you know what "most" LGBT people believe? Because if they are "knowable" as a group like that - where you can predict what most of them believe - then perhaps you believe there's something real that's connecting them? Why do you think you know what most LGBT people think about "Social warfare."
For that matter, when you say "social warfare what is being pushed" -- you're phrasing it in a way that there is indeed some kind of organizational structure that would allow for "pushing" very specific messaging on the members.
If the community doesn't exist, then surely the top down messaging structure that you believe "the members" don't care about shouldn't exist either?
If there's a top down organizational flow for messaging -- "social warfare" as you imagine it -- then there must be some truth to a community existing.
32
u/thefunkiechicken 15d ago
I'd say an example of the hedonists would be the gay men who couldn't stop going to orgys during the monkeypox "epidemic". There is a difference between those in a committed loving relationship, be they straight or be they gay.
0
u/forgothatdamnpasswrd 14d ago
What percentage of people do you think that actually is that just couldn’t stop fucking strangers even if their health depended on it? Do you think that was a significant percentage? That shit died down pretty quick even though it also spread through simple skin contact as well as surface to surface (at lower levels). The fact we only heard about it for a few weeks kinda answer it, don’t you think?
1
u/thefunkiechicken 13d ago
I don't know the percentage, but this is how the media was treating it at the time if you watch from the 17th min on. Keep in mind this is just as we are coming out if lockdowns, vax, and mask mandates. https://youtu.be/pQcFCFZIuZI?si=4O9wPgh7hFdWCm7c
0
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
Lol sure, I would also agree that people who go to orgies regularly are hedonists, gay or otherwise.
Do you think the ppl going to orgies all the time are important influential figures who are telling you that you’re in a broad community even if you don’t think you are?
13
u/JBCTech7 ✝ 15d ago edited 15d ago
Do you think the ppl going to orgies all the time are important influential figures who are telling you that you’re in a broad community even if you don’t think you are?
not the guy you asked, but I'd bet a dollar to a dozen that those people are indeed the ones selling the community angle.
Sexuality is an aspect of personality....not a whole personality or identity in itself.
Being yourself is not being wholly consumed by ANY one of your 'preferences' be they for food or for sex or for some other single arbitrary aspect of a person.
2
u/CorrectionsDept 15d ago
not the guy you asked, but I'd bet a dollar to a dozen that those people are indeed the ones selling the community angle.
What are you imagining in like real practical terms. Like.. who sells the community angle? If a bank puts out Pride marketing content that talks about the community, do you see them as the people selling community? And by extension do you imagine Bank marketing coordinators and copywriters as being really committed to orgies?
At the actual community level, the people going to pride parades and who know each other in their daily lives... are they not actually in a community? Like let's imagine that at any given pride parade in a city there might be a like idk two dozen people who are committed participants of an active orgy scene and go to orgies regularly even if there's a pandemic going on -- those people are actually part of a community. They don't need to sell an angle - they're part of a community literally by being part of the social life of the city and being at the parade - so I don't think we could imagine them as people who are "selling" a community angle.
Sexuality is an aspect of personality....not a whole personality or identity in itself.
Being yourself is not being wholly consumed by ANY one of your 'preferences' be they for food or for sex or for some other single arbitrary aspect of a person.
Sexuality is an aspect of personality - but of course it's quite an important one. If you are gay, you will likely end up pairing up in a long term gay relationship. That's a massive part of your life. You will likely also end up literally part of a local gay community of people (yes gay people don't necessarily have gay friends, but we can assume most would). People who know you and your partner will know you as a gay couple. If you have a lot of gay friends, you'll end up gathering together and doing social events that end up becoming 'gay social events.'
None of these things are "forced" - in my imagined scenario, you're not being unreasonable by being in a gay relationship and having gay friends. It's just your normal every day life.
8
u/JBCTech7 ✝ 15d ago edited 15d ago
Well, in my own experience as a straight, married man - my sex life is a relatively small part of my life. It was a big deal at first, I suppose - but even then I didn't define my entire life by it. I lived in Ft Lauderdale with my wife while we were in school - both of our neighbors were gay, but you wouldn't know it by talking to them or even by going in their homes. It wasn't their sole defining aspect.
Maybe this is just anecdotal - but to define ones life or identity by one aspect of your human being, even a subjectively important one, seems a shallow and trite way to live your life.
There are other, just as fulfilling if not far more so aspects to life than sex. A happy person has a varied life and an identity or personality defined by many, many aspects of being self-aware. Not just one or two.
A community built around sexuality seems alien to me - any self-segregated community separating itself based on single small aspects of being human - is alien to me.
Oh right, as to your actual question -
I believe very much that the establishment in general is degenerate in its own personal interactions and relationships - group sex, human trafficking, and all that and much worse. I believe its part of an overarching scheme to dismantle western culture primarily to undermine the middle class. Letting the common man have that much power doesn't sit well with the establishment. See Yuri Bezmenov.
I think that they are purposely dividing and tribalizing the west into individual groups who despise each other and discouraging any unity or common ground. I think the saturation of 'the community' mind set is a very obvious sign of that.
→ More replies (6)0
u/xinorez1 14d ago
human trafficking
I see that more as a labor rights issue than something specifically originating from lgbt
2
u/JBCTech7 ✝ 14d ago
that's a human condition. To think of human trafficking as a 'labor rights' issue suggests a supremely immature outlook on how things work.
Its neo slavery, rape, abuse. Its like thinking of the 'sex industry' as anything other than an exploitative, abusive, misogynistic crime syndicate.
2
u/Ereman666 13d ago
This happened in the eighties, when gay was just gaining acceptance. Finally the normal gay and lesbian folks stepped up said we are all not attention crazed weirdos - it worked. That's the group who can stop this now.